Gun owners might catch a break at the UN of all places

[Gildas]

Disclaimer: My loathing for the UN and all its works knows no bounds. I'd gladly see the whole sorry thing defunded, disbanded and deported. But given that's not going to happen, we may as well take some victories where we can...

Via the excellent http://www.gunlawnews.org/

http://www.asiantribune.com/index.php?q=node/4180

This article is long and full of UN speak, so the abridged version:

U.N. Move to Downgrade Disarmament Triggers Protests
Thalif Deen - Inter Press Service

United Nations, 17 January, (IPS): A proposal by Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to downgrade the U.N.'s Department of Disarmament Affairs (DDA) -- and possibly bring it under the umbrella of the Department of Political Affairs -- has sparked a critical reaction from member states, peace activists and non-governmental organizations (NGOs).

"This is the wrong move for Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to make and would be an inauspicious start to his term," warns John Burroughs, executive director of the New York-based Lawyers' Committee on Nuclear Policy.

He said the DDA was established in its current form in 1998 in order to meet post-Cold War challenges of disarmament and non-proliferation.

"Those challenges have grown more, not less, urgent since then," Burroughs told IPS. He said disarmament NGOs have already started opposing this proposal. "We will be sending letters to the secretary-general and requesting meetings," he added.

...

Worse still, noted one ambassador who was present at the NAM meeting last week, are rumors that the soon-to-be revamped U.N. department of political affairs is likely to be headed by a U.S. national: a nominee of the administration of President George W. Bush, which has strong reservations on arms control and nuclear disarmament.

Those who've read Wayne LaPierre's book will be familiar with the UN Department of Disarmament Affairs. It is far more interested in ending civilian gun ownership than in stopping the proliferation of nuclear technology.

Proof of that comes in the very next line:

"Having an American as head," the ambassador told the meeting "is like putting the fox in charge of the chicken coop."

The US has some of the strictest arms-export rules in the world, and is clearly attempting to rein the spread of nuclear technology. So the only possible reason for coming out with a line like that is continued anger over the stubborn refusal of the current Administration to go along with the UN's civilian disarmament agenda.

If this plan of the new Secretary-General does not get derailed, and if the current Administration gets a major say in who gets this Political Affairs job, it would deal a major set back to the IANSA crowd.

 

[thexrayboy]

Apparently the new secretary general is not as blatant a socialist as the prior one. He merely makes a suggestion that may slow down the UN push for disarmament of civilians and he comes under immediate attack. It is unlikely that anything will change. And if it does it will be more a matter of "putting the issue on a back burner for a while". The goals of the apparatchik do not change.

 

[Lucky]

That's good news. Hope this new guy doesn't get corrupted by socialists whispering in his ears 24/7.

 

[LAK]

The U.N. is bad news in and of itself - based on it's founding principles and agenda. Putting anyone in particular in any one department, playing musical chairs with offices, appointments and departments is not going to change that.

-----------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org