So what about this UN gun ban on the 4th of July?

[DontBurnMyFlag]

http://www.stopungunban.org/

So whats going on? Ive got the full story but only from a few sources. What are the odds of this getting passed? What are you doing in preparation?

Is there any side of the story I havent heard? Im just learning about this nonsense. Im just asking for a little elaboration. Thanks

 

[Manedwolf]

Nothing. So what if they pass it? Do you think the US would ever comply? About the only power the UN has here, as someone else on this said, would be loot their own building's cafeteria.

I would suggest that their member nations disarm themselves first. Then they can also see how effective their blue helmets and outdated white APCs are when they send them to places that aren't messy genocides that they don't want to get involved with (or even call genocides).

I feel that the whole reason behind this is to stop independent villagers and such from getting rifles, because it's such a delay for the dictators when the villagers actually fight back, and they can't move ahead with their genocide plans to expand their profits and power.

 

[Art Eatman]

First, Google for "IANSA"

For all that they speak to "illegal trade in smallarms", they regard the U.S. system as illegal, immoral and fattening. They don't really distinguish between self-defense and murder. Etc, etc. The basic idea is to disarm everybody but government employees.

It's all about government power.

And no matter how the UN votes, the only danger to you and me is in our own elected officials and the anti-gun sycophants of Schumer et al. Or, maybe, it's the anti-gun people that are the direct enemies, and the Useful Tools like Schumer et al are the sycophants.

Take your pick.

Art

 

[mordechaianiliewicz]

I feel that the whole reason behind this is to stop independent villagers and such from getting rifles, because it's such a delay for the dictators when the villagers actually fight back, and they can't move ahead with their genocide plans to expand their profits and power.
__________________


That is exactly what the U.N. Ban is about, for now. I look at the Tobin Tax, and other bright ideas of the Internationalist Left, and I think that there are actually a few who are for One World Government.

Of course, alternative forms of government in Africa which cater to the tribal and clan traditions as opposed to a more Western model area danger to Weestern U.N. thought. Evil dictators are something the West is much more comfortable with than an alternative to Democracy that still might have people being prosperous.

 

[carebear]

The UN is for the status quo, no matter how evil or corrupt that status quo may be. They will uniformly side with the government in power and deny those who would overthrow that government, no matter how justifiably, any aid.

Even in cases of genocide, they'd rather stop the genocide by promoting a compromise between the victims and the killers than promote or assist in the removal of an objectively evil government or the dissolution of a poorly constructed (typically by the Western powers after WWII) and failing state.

Because all is relative ya know, can't be relying strictly on Western Models of good governance or morality, except where it supports the status quo.

 

[DKSuddeth]

New World Order

nuff said.

 

[ken grant]

U.N.

Just suppose we get an anti-gun President( which seems likely) and an agreement is reached with the U.N. about guns.
He/She signs on to this,this means that a vote will be taken by Congress and only 51% will be needed to become a fact.
With the Congress I expect to get in 06 and 08,the 51% will be more or less there.

 

[mountainclmbr]

I am certain that the July 4th date was chosen because the USA is the target of this effort. They don't care all too much about third world mass murders. Control freak communists cannot stand to see people who are taking responsibility for themselves. Gun control, Kyoto and schemes for a worldwide UN tax are all different fronts in the war against freedom and for UN-controlled worldwide socialism.

 

[Bigjake]

let them try it. like i say every time these threads come up.

 

[308win]

The UN General Assembly is dominated by a bunch of third rate politicians from fourth rate countries. These politicians wouldn't be in the UN if the citizens in their home country had the means to inforce their will. That is why the UN is anti-gun.

 

[alan]

Re the UN and "antigunism", consider the following. Australia's gift to the human race is Rebecca Peters, Director of IANSA.

One of Ms. Peters more interesting offerings re shooters was as follows: "That they should find something else to do". Fair enough perhaps, but then possibly so should she.This is the sort of pomposity and arrogance that comes from Gun Control International, which seems much beloved by UN Sec-General Annan.

 

[Ira Aten]

Quote from Maned Wolf says:
"I would suggest that their member nations disarm themselves first. "


M.W.

The United States IS unfortunatley, a "member nation".

That is the point of this so called "small arms treaty" in that they want to help bring about United Nations members "disarming" as a whole, member nations civilians with the exception being, of course, Police and Military, which will eventually all be under the U.N. control, since the U.N. must have oversight of enforcement of this treaty.

It is a very, very real probability within the next thirty years that this will occur.

Already we in the U.S. have a generation of our population about to enter government that believes in the concept of "peace" being brought about by a one world system of government, due to our allowing public schools to fail to teach history without liberal left wing revisionism.

As example, most all college graduates today, believe that Senator Joseph McCarthy was the leader of an investigation known as the "House Un-American Activities Committee. Almost all Americans today hear the term "McCarthyism" and think it means being paranoid about communism.

First, as you probably know, a "House Committe" has nothing at all to do with a United States Senator. McCarthy was involved in the Army hearings in the Senate, and was only concerned with communist party members with ties to the Soviet Union being allowed allowed access to U.S. military secrets.

However, Hollywood and the leftists within U.S. public education, have convinced almost everyone in America, Joe McCarthy was a foamed mouth paranoid gay basher who saw Commies under every bush. McCarthy was only concerned with communists infiltrating into U.S. government agencies and the U.S. military.

 

[Sven]

 

[M.E.Eldridge]

Like others have said, the only true threat to us as far as the UN is concerened is our own elected officials. The UN couldn't beat an African clansman and his army of doped up Somalis. Do you really think they could force us into anything?

 

[Whirlwind06]

state's rights?

U.N.
Just suppose we get an anti-gun President( which seems likely) and an agreement is reached with the U.N. about guns.
He/She signs on to this,this means that a vote will be taken by Congress and only 51% will be needed to become a fact.
With the Congress I expect to get in 06 and 08,the 51% will be more or less there.

If something like this did happen what would the different state's constitutions effect be? In Ohio for example the right to keep and bare arms is part of the constitution. I mean NAFTA is a trade agreement. This is really changing the bill of rights.

 

[2nd_amendment]

Not without a fight in OHIO

Absolutely not!!!
I live in OHIO too...my guns will never be voluntarily given up..If any agency out there wants my guns they better be willing to fight to the death for them

 

[Bigjake]

looks like they'll have a bit of trouble in the buckeye. I'm with ya 2A

The UN couldn't beat an African clansman and his army of doped up Somalis. Do you really think they could force us into anything?

Great quote

 

[Ira Aten]

BigJake:

Yes, I do. You point out Somalia. I point out the Sudan, Bosnia, and probably twenty other countries where the U.N "failed to do anything" to halt genocide.

The whole point is, not doing anything to halt it, is within their plan. Nothing can generate "caring" and "awareness" more than pointing out the "need for concensus that more power be granted to the U.N. in order that they can "solve" problems.

They stood by and allowed genocide on numerous occasions, but keep in mind, they were the "peacekeepers" in control of the circumstances in many genocides that have taken place over the last four decades.

Then, when they fail to resolve anything, the members of the U.N. "Councils" are in a postion to say the U.S. has not done enough to help, all while tying our hands.

The old scenario, of "create a problem, and provide a solution" fits the U.N. method of operations in those situations, and they are playing on the same thing now...."too many guns, in too many nations, causes too much genocide."

 

[NCP24]

Yes, I do. You point out Somalia. I point out the Sudan, Bosnia, and probably twenty other countries where the U.N "failed to do anything" to halt genocide.

Sad but true.

 

[Bigjake]

Ira Aten

Hey man, i was just quoting M.E.Eldridge, and agreeing that it was profound.

You would be hard pressed to loath the UN more than myself.

 

[Manedwolf]

Like I'd said...when only the "established government" of murderous thugs has the guns, the result is a genocide. When the villagers and such have guns, too, there's a prolonged scuffle that draws the media spotlight on the fact that the murderous thugs might not be the best people in the world...and the UN doesn't want THAT.

Someone with a rifle can survive, get to a reporter and say "Dictator X sent death squads, but we fought them off this time!"...whereas the unarmed, and therefore dead in mass graves are silent.

Genocides are over much quicker.

I really wish the NRA and other groups would work on some ads to convice the most left sorts of the folly of their beliefs on this issue, too. As to exactly what disarming populations does in the face of coming genocides.

Perhaps a simple commercial of something profound in imagery. The UN's disarmament as placing a child on a railroad track with a train bearing down on it, that train being an oncoming genocide. SOMETHING to convince them that it's not progressive, it's not charity, it's causing millions to become helpless and leading them to their deaths.

 

[Mr.V.]

Manedwolf--

I'd have to entirely agree with you. I've often wondered what if instead of dropping a couple bags of rice to the Darfur refugees, the UN gave 1 out of every 2-3 people an SKS, 50 rounds of wolf ammo (almost as cheap as rice) and a bit of training. Maybe these janjaweed would start suffering sufficient losses to give them pause before they decide to rape people to death in cartoonishly villainous manners.

If given only two choices, I'd much prefer a civil war to genocide. At least with a civil war, no one's having a good time.

 

[1911 guy]

Firearms Banned?

MOLON LABE.

 

[xd9fan]

the U.N. needs to be kicked off U.S. soil. period.

 

[K-Romulus]

real problem (to address your question)

I am glad to see you are aware of this.

The Small Arms Conference started off about ten years ago as a way to try to get countries together to stop illegal arms smuggling (like what Nicholas Cage was doing in Lords of War).

However, the coalition called Internation Action Network on Small Arms ("IANSA") that is charged with setting the conference agenda has shoehorned "global gun violence" its mission. Like the anti-gun-owner industrial complex in the US, IANSA's definition of gun violence includes run of the mill crime like gang shootouts, and blames "the majority of gun violence" on legal firearms ownership. IANSA explicitly states that legal vs. illegal firearms ownership is a "fictional distinction."

IANSA is headed by the woman most people consider responsible for pushing through the Australian model of firearms control. As such, IANSA seeks to use the Small Arms conference to get nations to agree to a "universal domestic firearms law model" based on the Australian example. Any country that fails to adopt the model will face international pressure to conform, possible in the form of economic sanctions in the future since some leaders consider "lax" civilian firearms laws to be a "human rights violation." China is one country that is using this crazy idea against the US, TODAY. IANSA also wants the rules changed at the UN so that the agenda can't be vetoed by one or two countries. The US and a few other countries vetoed any attempts at imposing civilian rules at the last conference in 2001.

I started this thread last week about what IANSA has planned for the conference: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=2454418#post2454418

Here is what I posted there:

Just 37 days before the 2006 UN Conference on Small Arms ownership, IANSA issued a report today claiming that 1000 people around the world are "killed by guns" each day.

(http://www.iansa.org/members/IANSA-media-briefing-low-res.pdf)

The report breaks that number down:

Quote:

Of these 1000 deaths every day, an average 560 are criminal homicides, 250 are direct war deaths; 140 are suicides, while 50 are accidents or cases of undetermined intent.

The report specifically targets civilian ownership as a "root cause" of these deaths, and also indicates that IANSA intends the 2006 conference to focus on civilan ownership. A lot of the "more likely to kill in a quarrel than self defense" types of sound bites are scattered throughout the report. I like how they put quotes around the term "law-abiding firearm owner."

Here are the stated recommendations re:civilian firearms owners (from page 10 of the report):

Quote:
2. Regulation of civilian ownership of weapons

To maintain public safety, civilian gun possession must be
recognised as a privilege with associated responsibilities for
maintaining public safety. In most countries, in order to drive a car,
applicants must pass a test proving their fitness to drive before a
licence is issued. If a car crashes killing a pedestrian, the owner of
the car can be identified by checking the registration plate which
will be linked to the owner’s name. Guns are specifically designed
to kill. Yet the majority of countries do not have effective licensing or
registration systems for guns.

Regulation of guns in civilian hands was omitted from the
agreement in 2001 and thus did not form part of states’
obligations in the Programme of Action. Despite this, 70 per cent
of governments have included information on controlling civilian
possession in their reports to the UN since 2001. Governments
clearly understand the importance of regulating civilian possession
in order to prevent diversion; it is time for the UN small arms
process to recognise it too.

Governments should agree to:

• Promote gun owner responsibility by requiring all firearms to be
registered. Individuals permitted to own guns and ammunition
must be held to account for their security, use and misuse.

• Define minimum criteria for private ownership of guns with
a national system of licensing. These should include proven
capacity to handle a gun safely; knowledge of the relevant law;
age limit; proof of valid reason; and a security screening based on
criminal record or history of violence, including intimate partner
violence. Licences should also be required for ammunition.

• Prohibit civilian possession of military-style rifles, including semiautomatic
rifles that can be converted to fully automatic fire and
semi-automatic variants of military weapons.

• Block access to guns for people with a history of violence,
particularly against intimate partners or family members.

• Introduce safe storage requirements to prevent gun accidents,
suicide, misuse and theft.

• Regulate manufacturers and dealers. A national register of all
manufacturers and their distribution network, including firearm
dealers, would help prevent diversion to illicit use.

Here is the example of "effective national gun laws" from page 10 of the report :

Elements of effective national gun laws: an example from Australia

• Gun ownership should require a licence obtained by meeting a series of criteria which include a minimum age, a clean criminal record, undergoing safety training and establishing a genuine reason for needing to own a gun.

• When deciding whether to grant or renew a licence, police can take into account all relevant circumstances.

• People convicted of assault are banned from having a gun licence for five years.

• People subject to domestic violence restraining orders are banned from having a gun licence for five years.

• People with domestic violence restraining orders against them are subject to compulsory seizure of all their guns.

• All guns must be registered at time of sale or transfer and when the licence is renewed.

• There is a 28-day waiting period to buy a gun.

• ‘Genuine reason’ must be proved separately for each gun, effectively imposing a limit on the number that any one person can own.

• Guns cannot be bought or sold privately but only through licensed dealers or the police.

• There are strict requirements on how guns must be stored.

These criteria are the basis of Australia’s gun laws. An evaluation in October 2004 of the 1990s gun law reforms there found that they had produced dramatic reductions in firearm-related deaths.47

As far as what I've done, I have upgraded my NRA membership to life member. The NRA seems to be the only voice of the citizen at the conference that is AGAINST the IANSA goal.