U.N. Gun Ban Conference

[Producer]

Yes, I am a NRA member like you, so I get many updates on the U.N. Gun Ban Conference. Believe me, I am am a far right registered Republican. I watch every O'Reilly by using the DVR. Listen to Talk Radio and usually only watch Fox News. I also write to the Cape Cod times about once a month and they usually publish my editorials about how one sided they are. There is way to much government, and way to much taxes. I think open carry should be a National right.

However, I think this gun ban is BS. I think the NRA should keep focusing on State and National Issues. This ban does not target legal gun owners, it is just another feel good issue for the UN to talk about. I say whatever... I could care less if the UN just disappeared, no one respects them anyways.

I realize this is a baby step issue, but its one sided in its delivery. Most of the people involved with this U.N. treaty got into power using guns. They just want to feel good about banning Illegal trade on guns.

Am I totally wrong on this? I know I have got more then seven letters with "U.N. Gun Ban" in the header somewhere from the NRA.

 

[LoginName]

Well, here's some good news to get everyones weekend off to a good start...

U.N. Conference on Arms Ends in Failure

UNITED NATIONS — A two-week U.N. conference reviewing efforts to fight the illegal weapons trade ended in failure Friday, with nations too divided on too many contentious issues to agree on the best way to combat a scourge that fuels conflict worldwide.

After days of negotiations, delegates gave up their bid to agree on an "outcome document" meant to reflect their consensus on the most serious threats and the best way to fight the illegal trade in small arms, worth about $1 billion a year.

"It's a squandered opportunity," said Anthea Lawson, spokeswoman with the International Action Network on Small Arms. "It's preposterous especially when there was so much will from so many countries to do something."

The conference was reviewing progress made toward achieving a 2001 program of action to curb the illicit sale of pistols, assault rifles, machine guns and other light weapons.

The global trade in small arms is worth about $4 billion a year, of which a fourth is considered illegal, according to the annual Small Arms Survey, an authoritative report on such weapons. The arms cause 60 percent to 90 percent of all deaths in conflicts every year.

The event was largely done in by the need for all nations to agree on every element of the final document, rather than to approve proposals by an up-or-down vote.

The collapse reflected just how contentious the discussion of the small arms trade has become. Many nations refuse to disclose the extent of their small-arms trade, and are unwilling to discuss restrictions on ammunition and national gun ownership, selling weapons to non-state actors and tracing weapons back to their original seller.

Cuba, India, Iran, and Pakistan were among the nations that spoke out against an NGO proposal for governments to agree to a set of global principles on the arms trade. At its heart is a promise to make sure they don't sell weapons to buyers who could then pass them on illegally.

And there was widespread support for a call to hold a similar conference five years from now. The United States, however, opposed.

"You had a few governments that were holding out and not compromising, said Nicholas Marsh, with the International Peace Research Institute in Oslo, and an adviser to the Norwegian delegation.

Despite the failure, delegates planned to raise many of the same issues in the U.N. disarmament committee _ where consensus is not needed for agreement _ to begin preparing a treaty that would make law out of many of the global principles supported by non-governmental groups.

Some delegates said the meeting was doomed from the start. It took six days to get through speeches by nations, then the conference suspended work for the July 4 holiday. Negotiations on the final text only began Wednesday.

"Whether we would have been able to agree on the document _ I don't think so," said Prasad Kariyawasam, Sri Lanka's U.N. ambassador and president of the conference. "I think at this point it was that views among parties with regard to how to follow up did not converge."

 

[Admin]

Imagine that. Pacifists want a ban on all guns...

 

[MetroWest]

Todays edition of the Wall St Journal has a very good op-ed piece titled "The U.N. Wants Your Gun" by David B. Kopel of the Independence Institute on page A11. The writer states that approx 100,000 letters and postcards were sent to the U.N. due to the NRA campaign.

One telling quote in the article was from the leader of the Brazilian gun prohibition group who said after their national gun control referendum failed - "First lesson is, don't trust direct democracy."

 

[JRyan]

Todays edition of the Wall St Journal has a very good op-ed piece titled "The U.N. Wants Your Gun" by David B. Kopel of the Independence Institute on page A11. The writer states that approx 100,000 letters and postcards were sent to the U.N. due to the NRA campaign.

One telling quote in the article was from the leader of the Brazilian gun prohibition group who said after their national gun control referendum failed - "First lesson is, don't trust direct democracy."

Very telling.

that sums up our adversaries very well.

 

[Admin]

LOL because Brazil is doing so well for itself.

 

[Thor67]

If you look at all of the NGOs involved in this - IANSA and others are really the driving force behind this - you'll see that their stated goals are not really to take away "illicit" guns used by criminals, their stated goals are to take away ALL guns. If you look at how some of these orgs. define "illicit" you'll see that what they mean is any gun not owned by the government. The quote by IANSA (I think) is that "All guns start out as legal guns." That's very telling in that it says exactly where they want to start.

Keep in mind that we're the only country with the right to bear arms in our constitution that was put there to defend ourselves against our own government if the time ever came.

 

[Garys]

Am I totally wrong on this? I know I have got more then seven letters with "U.N. Gun Ban" in the header somewhere from the NRA.

Not totally wrong, but uninformed. To the UN ALL gun trade to civilians is illicit. Although they say that they want to ban only illegal gun trade they in fact consider any civilian who is armed to be so illegally.

As we have seen in Darfur and other places, taking guns away from civilians is often a prelude to "cleansing" a country of certain populations.

Can't happen here? That's what the Jews of Germany thought in the early 1930s.

Gary

 

[matt]

So I think the real answer to Producer's origonal question is: "Yes, this was much ado about nothing!"

This never had a chance of going anywhere. My feeling is it was a fund raising ploy and a way to sell Wayne LaPierre's book on the topic.

Matt

 

[Garys]

So I think the real answer to Producer's origonal question is: "Yes, this was much ado about nothing!"

This never had a chance of going anywhere. My feeling is it was a fund raising ploy and a way to sell Wayne LaPierre's book on the topic.

Matt

Don't think it because it went nowhere this time it won't be back again. The UN has been, and remains, serious about disarming civilians of all member nations. If you want to think it's a fund raising ploy by the NRA, feel free.

Gary

 

[Producer]

If you look at all of the NGOs involved in this - IANSA and others are really the driving force behind this - you'll see that their stated goals are not really to take away "illicit" guns used by criminals, their stated goals are to take away ALL guns. If you look at how some of these orgs. define "illicit" you'll see that what they mean is any gun not owned by the government. The quote by IANSA (I think) is that "All guns start out as legal guns." That's very telling in that it says exactly where they want to start.

Keep in mind that we're the only country with the right to bear arms in our constitution that was put there to defend ourselves against our own government if the time ever came.

I agree, it must be in the definition of "illicit". But I still think if the UN was successful in this treaty, no one is going to tell the USA citizens that our guns are illegal. That would be suicide for the UN.

 

[matt]

The UN has been, and remains, serious about disarming civilians of all member nations.

I believe you are absolutely correct in that, but still, this go 'round was not going to go anywhere. Should we be aware of it? Yes! Should it be brought to our attention? Yes!

That said, the NRA went over board on this and that sours their supporters (well, at least this supporter) toward them.

Matt

 

[reinbeau]

So I think the real answer to Producer's origonal question is: "Yes, this was much ado about nothing!"

This never had a chance of going anywhere. My feeling is it was a fund raising ploy and a way to sell Wayne LaPierre's book on the topic.

Matt

That's the kind of complacency that'll get us all under a dictatorship sooner rather than later. I understand the fact that the NRA went overboard, but if they didn't, would as many be aware of the real consequences?

 

[JRyan]

That's the kind of complacency that'll get us all under a dictatorship sooner rather than later. I understand the fact that the NRA went overboard, but if they didn't, would as many be aware of the real consequences?

Agreed. All it takes is a little bit at a time, then before you know it, the worst case happens.

 

[Garys]

That said, the NRA went over board on this and that sours their supporters (well, at least this supporter) toward them.

Matt

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice; moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue". Barry Goldwater

Gary

 

[Lugnut]

The anti gun people are coming at us from all directions... and I don't think we can ignore ANY of them. The UN is clearly out to abolish ALL civilian firearms.. that's why they have countries like Japan and Canada represent the anti gun countries.... that's the panacea for them.

 

[JRyan]

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice; moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue". Barry Goldwater

Gary

Exactly, which is why I am fine with the NRA being QUOTE overboard ENDQUOTE.

I wish they would go more overboard here in MA.

 

[matt]

That's the kind of complacency that'll get us all under a dictatorship sooner rather than later. I understand the fact that the NRA went overboard, but if they didn't, would as many be aware of the real consequences?

See above. I covered this in a subsequent post.

I wish they would go more overboard here in MA.

YES!! That is exactly point!!!

Wouldn't you rather they expended at least some of that energy in pushing back here in MA or some other profoundly anti-gun state?!?! How about a frontal attack on heir Reilly?

The anti's are closing in all around. We here in MA know that better than most. The battle is here more than anywhere.

IMHO, Producer is right to raise the issue of where the energy gets expended.

 

[Garys]

Wouldn't you rather they expended at least some of that energy in pushing back here in MA or some other profoundly anti-gun state?!?! How about a frontal attack on heir Reilly?

I'm not sure, but I think that they do a lot through GOAL. Given the political climate in this state, it's an uphill battle and GOAL seems to do a good job under the circumstances. I don't know how much, if any, financial support the NRA gives GOAL.

Either way, if you live in MA, you need to belong to GOAL.

Gary

 

[Thor67]

I started out by not really giving the UN too much credence in their push on the UN gun ban. Thinking that they were just blowing hot air and that nobody would really want to take away ALL guns. The more I read, the more I saw and heard Rebecca Peters (I think you can probably find the Wayne LaPierre/Rebecca Peters debate on this online - it was actually pretty good - some are here: http://www.nraila.org/CurrentLegislation/Read.aspx?ID=2283 at the bottom) and the statements of IANSA, and other organizations (Amnesty, Oxfam, Ploughshares, Brady Campaign, and of course, George Soros), the more worried I got.

Apparently the President could enter into this as an "agreement" without having to go through congress like a regular treaty. I'm less clear about how the courts would react in the U.S. as this is a clear violation of our 2nd amendment rights. But, the moral of the story is that we're one Supreme Court justice, and one President away from getting the right to protect ourselve pulled out from under us like the proverbial rug.

If you followed this conference at all, you'll notice that there weren't a lot of pro-gun voices, AND most were from the U.S. This definitely would have gone through without John Bolton.

 

[Nickle]

Imagine that. Communists want a ban on all guns...

I think this is what you really should've posted, Derek. After all, the ComIntern got replaced by the UN years ago.