UN Gun Ban

[JaxNovice]

I POSED THIS QUESTION ON SIGFORUM AS WELL.


Ok... I Dont want to stir up a hornets nest here but I have question. I was watching the Wayne LaPierre video on the NRA website and he was discussing the NRAs position (I am a member by the way)on the UN gun ban. He went on and about how if this ban is passed it will violate our 2nd ammendment rights and no organization has the right to do this. He used some pretty scary language and essentially took the position that the gun ban will strip the weapons out of hunters hands in this country. I went and looked up the proposed bill from a third party (Reuters and the AP) and all it is basically saying is that the ban will restrict the abilities of nations and organizations to trade small arms to certain hot areas. I looked and looked for other sources to back up Waynes claim and cant find it. Here is my question: Can someone explain to me how this ban will impact my gun ownership? I am not challenging anyone to a debate, it is a legitimate question.

Thanks!

 

[Declaration Day]

There's an old adage, "Give 'em an inch and they'll take a mile".

The UN, like the Brady campaign, wants arms out of the hands of civilians. They know that they can't achieve their goal all at once, so they'll do it in increments, under the guise that they'll be satisfied with each new restriction.

 

[JaxNovice]

All the bill is trying to do is prevent small arms from being sold to places that are "hot". The NRA should be concerned about our gun ownership and not that of Liberia. I think he is really stretching with this connection and his credibility will be eroded when something that really threatens our gun ownership arises. We, the United States, have actively engaged in preventing gun ownership in areas that we do not deem worthy of arms. When was the last time a shipment of small arms landed on the West Bank and cleared customs bound for Palestinians?

 

[Declaration Day]

The problem I have with not selling guns to places that are "hot" is that there are probably a lot of decent people in those areas who need a firearm for self-defense.

Furthermore, guns are not the problem in "hot" areas, but rather political / social unrest.

 

[Sunray]

The Third World Debating Club has no jurisdiction or mandate to pass any laws about anything for any country.

 

[JaxNovice]

Declaration Day, I think we should not be concerned about protecting other countries gun ownership. I think you would have a hard time convincing me that we should not remove every single firearms in about 1/2 dozen countries in Africa. If you can convince me of this then we all support sending boatloads of small arms to the west bank. The US has actively restricted arm sales and deliveries to the Palestinians for decades.

 

[Declaration Day]

I think that we should be concerned with restrictions on gun rights in other parts of the world. As civilians in more countries lose their gun rights, the United States will be under increasing pressure to do the same. This may not be apparent now, but I foresee it becoming a problem in the future.

I can't convince you that we should not remove firearms from 1/2 dozen countries in Africa, so long as you believe that doing so will bring an end to those countries' problems.

What I'd like to convince you of is that the presence of firearms are not the cause of those countries' problems. Rather, there are severe social and political problems that must be dealt with, and people (including those who misuse firearms) who should be imprisoned / executed.

 

[buzz_knox]

All the bill is trying to do is prevent small arms from being sold to places that are "hot". The NRA should be concerned about our gun ownership and not that of Liberia. I think he is really stretching with this connection and his credibility will be eroded when something that really threatens our gun ownership arises.

The regulations the UN is discussing would require all member nations to excercise increased levels of control of ownership and transfer of weapons, including for civilians. Ultimately, the goal is extreme restrictions on, if not in fact the eliminaton of, ownership of firearms by any entity but gov'ts.

You may not like it, but LaPierre far closer to being right than you are.

 

[rbernie]

Google 'Rebecca Peters' for a partial answer, or visit the IANSA web site. These people have an avowed goal to elminate any firearm with an effective range over 100 yards, which is not a single shot, and which is not registered with the Government. This has nothing to do with Nigeria, and EVERYTHING to do with their stated goal of disarming the US and any other entity that supports private firearms ownership. Rebecca Peters had a pretty interesting debate with Wayne a year or two ago - the transcript was on the IANSA web site and makes for some pretty interesting reading for anyone that wants a glimpse into the real issues at play.

It's all a matter of public record, JaxNovice. For example, IANSA is the group that has stated that self defense is NOT A HUMAN RIGHT, and that the State should be the sole arbiter of who is deemed worthy to own a firearm. That's not an opinion - that's a fact.

The best part is that you have no direct say in the policies, goals, or accomplishments of IANSA. The principals of these organizations are not elected and are not accountable to the citizens whos lives they attempt to influence. That's the UN way..

Let's put it another way - what right does IANSA or any other Non Government Organziation (NGO) have in telling some poor schmuck in Nigeria that he does not have the right or ability to defend his family from marauding gangs? What moral high ground do YOU stand on to make such a proclamation, smug in the possession of a human right that you would deny others?

Think, man.

 

[JaxNovice]

Buzz, Other then an NRA press release, I challenge you to site a credible source for your claim.

 

[rbernie]

I challenge you to site a credible source for your claim.

I challenge you to READ the contents of the IANSA web site before getting on such a high horse.

Sheesh.

 

[JaxNovice]

RBernie, IANSA is not the exclusive drafter and sponsor of the proposed bill. They were a sponsor and advocate. It is being drafted with language that resticts the exportation of small arms, it does not forbid someone in Nigeria to own one. Go look it up. A very valid point was made on this thread about addressing the political and economic factors that lead to genocide/civil unrest. However that is a long term solution. The first priority would be to attempt to stop the slaughter of millions; then address the social factors. Seeing as if one day the US or one of its allies will be called it to mop up the mess, it would be nice if our soldiers are not facing 5 million 10 year old with AKs.

Another thing, the same principle that is being to used to restrict small arm sales to troubled areas allows us the power to restrict North Korea from selling and shipping nuclear technology/arms to rogue states.

 

[rbernie]

The first priority would be to attempt to stop the slaughter of millions; then address the social factors.

Ask the Tutsi majority in Rwanda how well that worked for them. They were the ones that had approximately seven hundred and fifty THOUSAND men, women, and children chopped to bits with machetes by armed gangs of Hutus in 1994, and had another million or so forced into semi-permanent exile to escape the slaughter. Why? No viable means of self-defense, and no means of getting it.

How would the IANSA proposals have benefitted the Tutsis?

Again I ask - how can you deny ANYONE a right that you claim as your own? This isn't about geopolitics - this is about a basic HUMAN right to self defense.

 

[SoCalShooter]

Disarming Americans does not solve the problems in Africa. The one nation under the UN is definetly a threat. In fact it would be better for us to STOP giving the UN so much of our money and maybe start giving more of it to our own people, especially in the south after the devistation of hurricane Katrina. That is not and will not be the only disaster we have. We spend far to much money and time looking outward and not enough taking care of our own. Atleast in my opinion. A little isolationism is a good thing sometimes. After reading Koffi Annan speech I wonder why we are still part of it, part of that speech was a direct attack on American freedoms and our constitution and bill of rights.

 

[JaxNovice]

You are making the assumption that gun ownership is a universal right throughout the world; it is not. Get off of the IANSA horse because the issue is broader than just their beliefs and endorsement of the ban. In fact here is a release from the UN itself about the proposed ban. Why dont you read from objective sources that just being a parrot of someone elses statements.

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/sgsm10537.doc.htm

I will dig out the AP article and Reuters articles on the topic that explain what the ban is all about.

Also the Hutus had more than just large knives.

 

[JaxNovice]

SOCAL, No where in the proposed bill does it mention disarming Americans. In fact they mention that the rights of lawful gun owners will be protected.

 

[SoCalShooter]

RE:JaxNovice

I agree with you that it does not explicetly state that. But I and am sure others are concerned about this jumping the fence into our backyard.

 

[JaxNovice]

Regardsless of the mission statement of IANSA, The UN has no authority to rewrite the laws of member nations. It does have the authority to manage and monitor aspects international trade. No reasonable person believes that the UN is trying to, or has the abiltiy, to violate our 2nd Amend.

 

[rbernie]

You are making the assumption that gun ownership is a universal right throughout the world; it is not.

Wow - that's an amazing perspective. What is it in you that renders you superior to, say, someone in Belarus?

Self defense is a HUMAN right, regardless of whether the country in play recognizes the tools available for use in self-defense as legitimate or not. You steadfastly refuse to accept that you are EQUAL to every other swingin' **** out there. Your life is no more or less precious than anyone elses, regardless of their country of origin.

It's bad enough that most folks in this world have Government's that have a difficult time accepting arms ownership as a human right. I fail to comprehend how anyone could sit, safe and sound with that right in their back pocket, and yet actively support denying those in less developed parts of the world the same rights that they enjoy.

In fact they mention that the rights of lawful gun owners will be protected.

Sophistry - they define 'lawful' as meaning Government registered and controlled, with ownership provided or removed at the whim of the State. How generous. Just ask our friends Down Under or in Jolly Ol' England how well that's worked out for 'em.

No reasonable person believes that the UN is trying to, or has the abiltiy, to violate our 2nd Amend.

Ignoring the ad hominem approach (if I disagree, I'm not reasonable?), that topic has been very heavily beaten on the L&P forum. Suffice it to say that yes - there are established legal mechanisms by which an International treaty could conceivably attempt to contradict the US constitution. Did you watch the treatment that Bolton got in July when he essentially told the IANSA folks that the US would not be a party to any agreement that restricted the rights of ordinary citizens in the US to keep-n-bear arms? They just about exploded at the notion that the US Constitution might be an impediment to their goals.

Have you read the Wayne LaPierra/Rebecca Peters debate transcript yet?

 

[Lucky]

Jax, the source you posted had a disclaimer at the bottom saying it was not to be used as accurate information. I think if you are going to post a source it should be more informative and official. You could use the words in that press release to justify euthenasia of red-heads, there's no specifics.

"For information media • not an official record "



Besides the title, (which kind of gives away to which side the author is leaning) the best word in there is the last word in paragraph 5 impunity.

Impunity: exemption or freedom from punishment, harm, or loss http://m-w.com/dictionary/impunity

A holocaust survivor said that if there was one thing he wanted people to learn, it's that you should believe tyrants when they announce their plans. Don't dismiss them as incredible or fantastic. The UN doesn't want the future to be like Star Trek, they want Orwell's 1984.

 

[MDHunter]

Try Doing a Little Research

JaxNovice,

What's the deal, dude? You say you aren't trying to stir up a hornet's nest, yet every time someone tries to provide some sort of response, you basically tell them they're wrong. Why should anyoine bother?

Since you seem able to refute every point that is brought up, how about searching the archives to find the info on your own?

As for the UN, just Google "oil for food", "sex for food", "UN corruption" etc to find out all the reasons why NO ONE should trust them to do anything.

Michael

 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

IANSA wants to register all privately owned weapons. IANSA wants to end import or export of all firearms, except those sold to official governments. IANSA wants to eliminate the ability for average people to defend themselves with a firearm. IANSA is furious that the US is is placing constitutional rights above their agenda of disarming individuals.

If you don't think IANSA is about restricting your right and my right to own a firearm, then you haven't done enough research yet. Skimming a few pieces from Reuters and the AP is not enough to inform you about the real issues at play here.

IANSA and the UN arms trade treaty aren't about preventing genocide helping people in need. When has the UN ever lifted a finger to prevent genocide? As always, the UN is interested in nothing more than furthering its statist agenda.

PS: Why is it that anti-gun types always brag about being members of the NRA??

 

[buzz_knox]

If the UN isn't interested in banning civilian ownership, then why did it publicly endorse the ban on sales to civilians in Brazil last year?

 

[Manedwolf]

The point of the UN's actions is to disallow independent arms sales to oppressed peoples, and only allow them to their genocidal governments.

This prevents lengthy and embarassing protracted struggles in which minority survivors can get their stories out, and allows for quicker, neater genocides. Victims are silent.

It makes the UN look better.

 

[rbernie]

Another thread on this topic: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=239627