U.S. rejects limits on personal guns!

Status
Not open for further replies.

progunner1957

member
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
831
Location
A wolf living in Sheeple land
Good news from the State Department regarding our right to arms:
U.S. rejects limits on personal guns
By Betsy Pisik
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published June 28, 2006




NEW YORK -- The United States will oppose any international effort to limit access of U.S. civilians to legal firearms but supports stronger controls on arms imports and exports, a senior State Department official said yesterday.

"The United States believes it is important for all of us to speak with one voice concerning the grave matter of the international illicit trade in small arms and light weapons," said Robert Joseph, the undersecretary of state for arms control and international security.

Mr. Joseph is heading the U.S. delegation to the small-arms review conference at the United Nations, which continues through next week.

"The U.S. Constitution guarantees the rights of our citizens to keep and bear arms, and there will be no infringement of those rights," Mr. Joseph said. "The United States will not agree to any provisions restricting civilian possession, use or legal trade of firearms inconsistent with our laws and practices."

The international conference has triggered anger among many American gun owners, who have responded to a National Rifle Association campaign suggesting that the United Nations is trying to take their weapons away.

Tens of thousands of letters have poured in to the United Nations from NRA members, prompting reassurances from Secretary-General Kofi Annan and Prasad Kariyawasam, the president of the review conference.

Mr. Joseph stressed that Washington seeks a "positive" engagement with other governments and supports the implementation of a recent agreement to mark weapons and create a registry to trace their whereabouts. The agreement would also:

•Establish more effective controls on the importing and exporting of weapons.
•Strengthen controls over international brokers.
•Provide for more effective stockpile management of weapons under state control.
•Provide for the destruction of government-declared surplus and illicit weapons.

In an effort to focus on "substance, not process," Mr. Joseph said, Washington would not endorse a third review conference, preferring to discuss "actions that are focused, practical and intended to strengthen" illicit arms-control regimes.

Europeans and others are pressing for a formal agreement on transfer controls, to make sure that weapons are not diverted to conflicts or repressive regimes. The United States has refused to discuss a new treaty relating to arms, but Mr. Joseph said yesterday that Washington will consider voluntary principles.

He also warned other delegations to back away from issues that the Bush administration deems too complex or inappropriate for such international conferences, such as the marking of ammunition.
Of course, this all goes straight in the trash if "The Antigun Forces" (D) get control of Congress this November, and especially so if "The Antigun Forces" (D) get control of the White house in 2008.

Our right to arms: Once it's gone, it's gone. Vote accordingly.
 
Most of the 'surplus' I suspect is 20-30 year old AKs or M16s that us peons couldn't hope to ever own anyway. It does put a damper on the parts kits but the ATF was doing that already with their ban on barrels.
 
Most of the 'surplus' I suspect is 20-30 year old AKs or M16s that us peons couldn't hope to ever own anyway. It does put a damper on the parts kits but the ATF was doing that already with their ban on barrels.
Unless we manage to open up the NFA registry. There are squeaky-clean people paying $15K for those old AK's and M16's.
•Establish more effective controls on the importing and exporting of weapons. This affects illegal arms traders how?
•Strengthen controls over international brokers. The brokers you have control over aren't the ones dealing illegal arms are they?
•Provide for more effective stockpile management of weapons under state control. If they are under state control they aren't illegal arms are they?
•Provide for the destruction of government-declared surplus and illicit weapons. Illicit as defined by whom? Like knives in the U.K.? Grrreat
 
Unless we manage to open up the NFA registry. There are squeaky-clean people paying $15K for those old AK's and M16's.

If the NFA registry, by some act of God, ever gets reopened, the last thing people will be lining up to buy is some shot-out, abused, and worn out milsurp gun. They'll be lining up for new copies of those same guns- I figure within a week of the federal OK, all AR makers would have full auto variants rolling off the assembly lines, not to mention truckloads of parts kits going out for retrofit (for those owners who wish to convert and register existing guns).

It's a beautiful thing to dream about. I believe, however, that before my children (have none now) reach my own age, the milsurp market will have pretty well dried up (except for the M-N rifles of which Russia seems to have an endless supply).
 
Sometimes I wonder if the Russkies are still MAKING Mosin-Nagants, there are so many of 'em!:D
 
Maybe we can get Kofi, Rebecca and the other anti's to walk thru the millions of landmines still laying around, like in Africa, Asia, etc. You notice they arent going after those critters! Those thing maim, kill alot more folks than any 2 bit small weapon, but no.... without Princess Diana, no one has the guts to clear them out. The UN is a joke.
 
•Provide for the destruction of government-declared surplus and illicit weapons. Illicit as defined by whom? Like knives in the U.K.? Grrreat
Yup, that is the fly in the ointment - and a big freaking fly it is. No good can ever come from giving "The Experts" :)barf: ) the power to brand certain guns as "illicit."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top