Gunowners accuse UN of conspiracy

Gunowners accuse UN of conspiracy
From: Reuters From correspondents in the United Nations
June 22, 2006
AMERICANS mistakenly worried the United Nations is plotting to take away their guns on July 4 - US Independence Day - are flooding the world body with angry letters and postcards, the chairman of a UN conference on the illegal small arms trade said today.

"I myself have received over 100,000 letters from the US public, criticising me personally, saying, 'You are having this conference on the 4th of July, you are not going to get our guns on that day'," said Prasad Kariyawasam, Sri Lanka's UN ambassador.
"That is a total misconception as far as we are concerned," Mr Kariyawasam told reporters ahead of the two-week meeting opening on Tuesday.

For one, July 4 is a holiday at UN headquarters and the world body's staff will be watching a fireworks display from the UN lawn rather than attending any meetings, he said.
(snip/...)

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,19551015-38198,00.html

"A dimension not only of sight and sound, but of mind.
A wonderous world where the boundaries are only that of your imagination.
There's a signpost up ahead.
Next stop, the Wingnut Zone."


Wow. First I've heard of this one.

I just want to point out a simple historical example to anyone terrified of getting their guns taken away.

In Iraq under Saddam Hussein, citizens were allowed to keep machine guns in their homes as personal weapons.

Let that sink in if it doesn't make sense. They were allowed to keep machine guns at home (and many did), yet they were still oppressed by Saddam Hussein. The machine guns did not help.

There's no need to take your guns away. They won't help.

don't mind.

Every single gun nut in the country needs to be asked that question, not that they'll have any real answer.

(PS: If I use it, I'll be sure to include attribution. You made one of the best point's I've ever seen here.)

Redstone

Specifically a source that cites that all Iraqis were allowed to keep machine guns, not just those loyal to Saddam. A large part of the population lived quite well under Saddam's rule and was allowed privileges that the rest of the country didn't get. Were Kurds allowed to keep their means of defense when they were being slaughtered by the hundreds of thousands?

Even so, amount of arms will help a population that is willing to be oppressed.

It's quite clear with the expiration of the assault weapon law, that the regime has concluded it can't disarm us all--and has simply decided to out-gun us instead. No matter what kind or how many weapons you have, you'll find yourself matched against more and better weapons operated by regime thugs.

Might as well not have any.

Is there a better example than the imbeciles who believe what the NRA tells them?

:sarcasm: Idiots.

......I wonder what kind of gun is Jesus' favorite...............?????

See the Book of Armaments 4:10 - "Lo, and the Son of God beheld the .457 magnum and found it good, saying 'Why, with this bad boy, I can blow the motherfuckers heads clean off!'"

are being written by ditto-heads and freepers?

Gotta keep the base riled up. :eyes:

I initially wondered who began the rumor and was pulling the strings of the those who actually believed it, and then I saw THAT name... Wayne La Pierre, president of the NRA. 'natch.

The NRA has allied itself too closely to the neo-cons. When the current administration is shown to have no clothes, the NRA is going to go down with it and become even more of a laughing stock that it currently is.

The NRA was a good and sensible organization. Now? It's totally round the bend. I read a copy of "American Rifleman" the other day, the first in a long time, and it read like alt.conspiracy. LaPierre has turned the NRA into a looming extremist debacle.

Just one RPH left of an extreme militia.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/176458_focus06.html

Long time, no see!

I read more on the conference. It deals with stopping illegal arms merchants from shipping weapons to third world war zones. Unless you're truly paranoid and delusional (and what fun is one without the other?), you couldn't possibly construe this as an attempt to prevent law-abiding citizens from owning a firearm.

The whole fucking organization needs to take a Prozac the size of a bread box.

and so they've whistled up the lunatic fringe to howl in rage....

I also think it's political. It's another of those fringe issues (in this case a non-existent issue) used to rile up the base. But the gun industry is no doubt also involved.

too silly to realize that. It's about the sellers profit margins...everybody needs a gun, don't ya know.

There's no reason to go trolling in the gutters for idiots like that.

.....They are left with name-calling. NRA members are "gun nuts," not "patriots." Gun control and gun violence prevention is drowned out by shouts of individual rights and freedom. Americans line up on various sides of the divide. Some loathing guns. They won't even touch them. Others owning guns and voting in every local, regional, state and national election to protect their rights.....................

This is why they win.

there's a party that already DOES that....

Wayne La Pierre is the Vice President.

I "saw" the story. Maybe it was President, maybe it was Vice-President. I don't really see the relevant difference, though...

Or did the gunowners dumb enough to write these letters coin it themselves?

The headline should have used the term "drooling, mouth-breathing idiots" in an effort to be more precise.

saw a billboard that said "The UN is trying to take your gun away!" or something similar in very big letters. I laughed a good bit but then couldn't decide whether I should feel amused or scared...

I laughed, although I agree with posters here; I should have been scared. I, too, remember a time when the NRA and its president were not hardright nuts (or at least it seemed so).

and keep using that term also - RW nutjobs. 'Cause that's what they are. I am so sick of that "they're gonna take our guns away" crap! These people are so batshit crazy they're the last people who should own a gun!

And LaPierre is a gasbag.

Does anyone here remember when George Bush Sr. cancelled his lifetime membership in the NRA when they called FBI agents "jackbooted thugs"? I'm sure it was just the politically correct thing for the senior Bush to say, and who knows if it was the truth, but even he could see that aligning yourself with the nutjobs wasn't a good move.

'rightwing nutjob.'

P.S. Sorry about the typo, folks. It should have said 'I saw ...'

There's nothing to the gun rights movement but this sort of idiotic right wing craziness and racism.

How strange is that? Where did they even get his name?

-----------
"I myself have received over 100,000 letters from the US public, criticising me personally, saying, 'You are having this conference on the 4th of July, you are not going to get our guns on that day'," said Prasad Kariyawasam, Sri Lanka's UN ambassador...

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

Truly, that is strange. I've written letters to the United Nations, but usually address them to a committee.

Who believes these things, anyway?

I guess I just had trouble believing that Wayne LaPierre would actually tell people to write to someone who has nothing to do with privately owned guns in America, and provide them with the name of that person.

It's all very strange. Doesn't seem to have any contact with reality.

How does it benefit the NRA to go on such a wild goose chase? Accomplish nothing?

I guess the NRA is being used as a cat's paw to bash the U.N. Now the NRA is owed a favor.

That's the only thing I can figure out.

...Red-neck nutbags and their damn guns, The US has the higest Gun fatality rate on the Planet and it all because of "the right to bare arms". We need tougher Gun Control in this country, real bad.

"The US has the higest Gun fatality rate on the Planet and it all because of 'the right to bare arms'."

Hmmm. I'm still wondering what the revealing of limbs has to do with all this.

'the UN (and their black helicopters) are gonna come and get our guns'

once it was 'the UN and the COMMIES...' but today its 'the UN and the black/hispanics...'

More action needed to curb illegal small arms trade, head of UN conference says

Amb. Prasad Kariyawasam of Sri Lanka
21 June 2006 – The chairman of an upcoming United Nations-organized conference looking into ways of curbing the illegal trade in small arms said today that stepped-up action is needed to tackle the global scourge and follow-up on a Programme of Action endorsed by all Member States in 2001.

The Small Arms Review Conference, to be held in New York from 26 June to 7 July, will involve more than 2,000 representatives from governments, international and regional organizations and civil society, the Conference President-designate, Sri Lankan Ambassador Prasad Kariyawasam, told reporters.

“The 2006 Review Conference is first and foremost about eliminating illegal small arms in order to save more lives…It is a known fact that in the 1990s, that out of 49 major conflicts, 47 were waged with small arms and light weapons and that most of the conflicts were exacerbated by the availability of illegal small arms.”

Ambassador Kariyawasam said the Conference will also be a chance for all countries to review their pledges to get rid of the illegal trade in small arms and to develop a strategy for further implementation of the UN Programme of Action that was agreed in 2001.
(snip/...)

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,19551015-38198,00.html



Colombian artist Fernando Botero's painting, "The Death of Pablo Escobar."

security approach than the conference they are sponsoring here in Vancouver:

Youth delegates dragged from convention centre
Last updated Jun 22 2006 07:50 AM PDT
CBC News

Three youth delegates to the World Urban Forum complain they were dragged out of the Vancouver Trade and Convention Centre on Wednesday night by security officers.

A weeping Nathalie Lozano, 19, told CBC News the incident began when the three women lined up at a security checkpoint in the building, on their way to the washroom.

Lozano says officials searched their bags and confiscated T-shirts with a political slogan on them.

"We had the shirts that say, 'Don't be a war toy.' We had them in our bags, we didn't have them on. When they saw us in the backpacks with them, they took it from us and they say we couldn't get them."

CBC - BC

Seems a bit of a contrast for an organization whose mandate is to protect human rights taking them away when they have the opportunity to do so...shades of the Tunisian WSIS Conference

I KNOW that idiot gun nuts hate freedom, but are we sure the UN likes it?

"Lozano says she's not sure whether UN security or the RCMP dragged her out. So far, there's been no response from security officials."

UN security, according to the local CBC interview with the BC civil liberities group who is investigating, is made up of a American and Kenyan contingent -- seems both outfits (UN and RCMP) converged on this point about 'political materials' being seized at a political conference.

I guess we can't have politics breaking out at a political conference.

Here's the letter:

Going to DO something? Sure they are, Bobby. Sure they are. Now go back to sleep.

They eradicated smallpox for a start. But I doubt they'll make much progress on this becuase there are two many western countries making a profit on this trade.

Well, maybe a few members learned to write and got together, made a generic letter, and copied it a few thousand times with the name left blank.

Beware, the blue helmets are coming!

And 40% of respondents think its REAL ?!?

Including the vote I just cast.

I am embarrassed to be a US Citizen if people are so freaking stupid at to believe this nonsense...and I bet we have Right Wing Talk Radio to blame...

Yep...this is a test of the "emergency get out the morans" system...They make something so terribly stupid up to see how quickly they can mobilize the uneducated masses....

"Whatever works." Response of an organized, Fascist Neocon with his list compiled from the CCW applications.

This reeks of O'lielly type spin.

I wouldn't be the least surprised if bolton has something to do with this lunacy.

That brings my collection up to about 53 or 54 working firearms (I haven't counted them in a while), and I'm not even slightly concerned about blue-helmeted JBTs kicking in my door to confiscate my curios and relics.

It's unfortunate that a few contributors to this forum have overgeneralized the paranoia of a small number of ignorant individuals, who are victims of demagogic exploitation of their own ignorance; into a broad-brush characterization of all people who choose to own firearms.

From the cited article:

...The June 26-July 7 UN conference was called to review a 2001 UN action plan aimed at stemming the illegal global trade in small arms, which, as defined by the United Nations, range from pistols and grenades to mortars and shoulder-fired anti-aircraft and anti-tank missiles.

The action program set out broad guidelines for national and global measures to track arms sales, promote better management of government arms stockpiles and encourage the destruction of illicit arms.
...

People on all sides of the never-ending debate about private gun ownership often exploit confusion about the distinction between the domestic, civilian firearms industry and the international trade in military weapons. The two are quite different.

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

IANSA is the NGO that has a great deal of influence on the agenda of the UN Conference on Small Arms, AND they are the group that brought sweeping gun confiscation to Australia.

Here's what they have to say about global gun control, from their own web site. Some relevant excerpts:



And where they want this to go (again, excerpts):




Tell me again how American gun owners are being "paranoid" about IANSA's agenda?

It is supremely ironic that this article came from an Australian source. IANSA did bring gun confiscation to Australia, and they have made it explicitly clear that they wish to accomplish the same thing here.

I have no problem with the U.N. Conference on Small Arms, but I have a big problem with IANSA, and if IANSA brings these proposals to the table--as they clearly wish to do, since they attempted to do so at the last meeting--then yes, I would oppose it.

take guns away from its citizens? That's a big stretch, even for paranoiacs.

On edit - It is too bad this powerful NGO couldn't have made the U.N. make the U.S. government not invade Iraq.

and there would be a great deal of pressure to ratify. If ratified, the treaty would become the law of the land, and could potentially be enforced judicially. The domestic gun prohibition lobby would certainly be agitating for ratification, so I don't think that's too much of a stretch.

From



It is at least a topic of discussion, and IANSA and Control Arms want to make it more than that.

I just wanted to point out that it is a long way to go from the initiatives an NGO to government policy, especially a government as unwilling to take orders from the UN as the U.S. government is. Bush has certainly shown few compunctions about ignoring international treaties, although he will talk a good game about them when they go in his favor.

My concern is, what happens if/when we get someone like Dianne Feinstein in the WH? (Not that she'd be a viable candidate, but there are people who think like her who could be a viable candidate in 10 or 20 years.) There are plenty of DLC "Third Way" types like her who are 100% behind the Bradyite agenda, and looking down the road, circumstances could come together to allow such a treaty to be ratified.

The other factor that comes into play is that a treaty on illicit arms trafficking would be a good thing. IANSA is trying to piggyback the gun-control agenda onto the treaty precisely because of the "coattail effect."

Assuming the IANSA view prevailed at the conference, and that a treaty incorporating all those recommendations were successfully drafted -- which sounds to me like a year or two of negotiations -- POTUS would still have to decide to send the treaty to the US Senate for ratification and the Senate would have to ratify.

The conference hasn't occurred yet, so we don't know what the recommendations will result.

Aren't you just a wee bit premature in all this forecasting of dire consequences?

Say, an anti-Second-Amendment President calls it an "agreement" instead of a "treaty." Then, as I understand it, it would just need a simple majority - not a two-thirds majority like a treaty - to become law.

advance of a UN conference makes some recommendations on a treaty it would like to see as the ultimate international result; then George the Nitwit's gang sets in motion the usual gaggle of rightwing wackos and lunatics at the National Rifle Association, the National Review, and various white supremicist fringe groups to spread rumors that the UN is going to try to confiscate Americans guns in a few weeks; &c&c

You now want a comment on whether some hypothetical "anti-Second-Amendment President" (whatever that means) could get Congress to do something or other not-very-clearly-specified by a simple majority?

Supposing that IANSA has it's way and, for all intents and purposes, the UN drafts a resolution outlawing all civilian ownership of firearms.

The let's suppose that some bottom-feeding elitist dirtbag like Michael Bloomberg or Dianne Feinstein is elected President. Someone who thinks that the wealthy and influential deserve to have guns for protection, but the "commoners" (that's us by the way) DON'T.

And assuming that just over 50% of the House and Senate agree with this notion....

Is it or is it NOT possible that the President could call the U.N. resolution an "agreement" and get it passed into law by having just over 50% of Congress agree????????

Yes...there's a LOT of "ifs" and "supposes" in there. But still, nothing is impossible...

landmines and submachine guns and grenade launchers, eh? Hooray for cocaine-funded thugs like the contras who terrorized Nicaragua throughout the 1980s or the narco-gangsters who have brought a quarter-century of misery to Colombia, eh? Hooray for Bolton and Malkin and all the other jackasses who will tell any damnable lie whatsoever to protect the weapons manufacturers and dealers, eh?

IANSA has explicitly denied your "interpretation" of their goals ...

"Americans should have guns for legitimate purposes that they can prove...."
"Target shooting is NOT a legitimate sport!!!"
"I think Americans who hunt, and who prove that they can hunt, should have single-shot rifles..."

From Rebecca Peters herself, in London, in front of the entire world.

See, "small arms" can mean anything that the "powers that be" WANTS it to mean. From all the things you mention right on down to the .25 Auto some little old Grandmother keeps in her purse for self-defense.

I think that all it would have taken to have quelled all this uproar was for the UN to have been ***SPECIFIC*** about what KINDS of small arms they were going after.

.. the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects?

The Programme of Action is a politically binding international instrument that aims to curb the proliferation of illicit small arms and light weapons. It was adopted unanimously by UN Member States at the July 2001 United Nations Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects.

The PoA seeks to develop and strengthen agreed norms and measures with a view to promoting concerted and coordinated international efforts to curb the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons. It also intends to develop and implement agreed international measures to curb illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in those weapons, to mobilize political will throughout the international community and to encourage cooperation to such ends. In addition, the PoA aims to raise awareness about SALW issues and to promote responsible actions by States to help prevent the illicit manufacture, export, import and transfer of such weapons.

The Programme also contains a wide range of political undertakings and concrete actions that Member States committed themselves to at the national, regional and global levels. They include, for example, developing, adopting and strengthening SALW national legislation, SALW transfer controls, destruction of weapons that are confiscated, seized, or collected, as well as fostering international cooperation and assistance with a view to strengthening the ability of States to identify and trace illicit arms and light weapons. Member States are encouraged to submit national reports on the implementation of the PoA to assess progress in the effort to combat illicit small arms and light weapons.

Does the Programme of Action aim to curb the legal trade in small arms and light weapons?

No. The PoA outlines measures to help curb and eliminate the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons. It is the prerogative of each State to legislate the rights of its citizens to bear arms.

Is there an official definition of small arms and light weapons?
As the PoA did not provide a definition of small arms and light weapons, the closest the United Nations has come to an official definition is contained in the International Instrument to Enable States to Identify and Trace, in a Timely and Reliable Manner, Illicit Small Arms and Light Weapons (A/60/88), adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 8 December 2005. In that document, “small arms and light weapons” mean any man-portable lethal weapon that expels or launches, is designed to expel or launch, or may be readily converted to expel or launch a shot, bullet or projectile by the action of an explosive.

“Small arms” are, broadly speaking, weapons designed for individual use. They include, inter alia, revolvers and self-loading pistols, rifles and carbines, sub-machine guns, assault rifles and light machine guns.

“Light weapons” are, broadly speaking, weapons designed for use by two or three persons serving as a crew, although some may be carried and used by a single person. They include, inter alia, heavy machine guns, hand-held under-barrel and mounted grenade launchers, portable anti-aircraft guns, portable anti-tank guns, recoilless rifles, portable launchers of anti-tank missile and rocket systems, portable launchers of anti-aircraft missile systems, and mortars of a caliber of less than 100 millimetres ...

What are the sources of illicit small arms and light weapons?

Illicit small arms and light weapons can come from a number of sources, including but not limited to:

Illicit brokering
Weapons left over from conflicts
Illicit manufacturing
Leakages from military and police stockpiles
Smuggling
Theft ..." http://www.un.org/events/smallarms2006/faq.html

Wackos, who want to justify smuggling stolen weapons as the only way to protect our dear sweet grandmothers, will huff-n-puff no matter how specific the UN is ...

You know, if I were to go to a gun shop a few miles away over the state line and buy one pistol, with all the permits and completing a background check...

If the guy were to SELL it to me, he'd be guilty (and me too I guess) of "illicit trade."

If (when?) China grows tired of Taiwan's "belligerence" and invades them, if the U.S. provides the Taiwanese with arms to defend themselves, the US would be guilty of "illicit trade."

In some places, if a woman owns buys pistol for self-defense, and has to use it on a would-be rapist the next day, it would be "illicit trade" for her to buy another in the same month while the police and courts take hers for evidence.

And what's this I read? http://news.monstersandcritics.com/northamerica/article_1175218.php/UN_is_not_taking_guns_away_from_Americans_Annan

"Illicit arms are those not registered by the law and the government."
Well, NC doesn't have the idiotic requirement for a CCW permit to have each gun you carry registered to the permit before you carry it...so I guess I'm a full-on illicit weapons user! ;)

its citizens to bear arms.

Google "National Firearms Act".

"States must:

· Adopt strict arms export criteria that are based on the observance of human rights and compliance with international humanitarian law.
· Develop and strengthen regional codes of conduct, which should be made binding
· Negotiate a binding international instrument on arms transfers, which contains strong human rights and humanitarian criteria.
· Develop an international regime for the standardization, authentication, verification, and continued monitoring of end-user commitments.
· Strengthen and enforce arms embargoes.
· Prosecute illicit arms traffickers and corrupt government officials, including those who breach U.N. arms embargoes.
· Secure arms stockpiles and dispose responsibly of surplus and seized weapons to prevent them from being stolen or sold off to unaccountable forces.
· Address arms brokering through legally binding measures, including negotiating and international instrument on arms brokering.
· Fulfil existing government responsibilities to comply with international. humanitarian and human rights law, including by exercising due control over private actors.
· Ensure that police and armed forces strictly uphold international standards.
· Follow up on the report of the U.N. group of experts on marking and tracing, including launching negotiations for an international instrument.
· Prevent the exploitation and illicit trade of natural resources that fuel conflicts and contribute to illicit arms sales.
· Develop controls on civilian possession and use. Ban civilian possession of military assault weapons,
· Create mechanisms to hold governments accountable for their misuse of small arms and their failure to prevent misuse.
· Identify root causes for the demand of small arms.
· Fund research on demand issues and develop typologies for solutions to specific situations.
· Promote security sector reform, including increased wages, educational incentives, human rights training, and judicial reform.
· Develop holistic approaches towards small arms demand and misuse by undertaking comprehensive DDR programmes.
· Appoint national focal points for those states that haven’t yet done so.
· Engage civil society in the process of developing national action plans.
· Develop regional and international norms to involve civil society as a legitimate actor in the process of developing practical and sustainable responses to small arms problems; and
· Coordinate local, national, regional, and global measures to implement the PoA systematically and comprehensively." http://www.iansa.org/un/presentations/rebecca_peters.htm

...and I was going to offer to send you the DVD of the debate. But it's a moot point since you just affirmed it anyway:

"Develop controls on civilian possession and use - BAN possession of "military" and "assault" weapons.

So, is my SKS an "assault" weapon? Even though it was DESIGNED to hold only 10 rounds, decades before the Brady Law, and was NEVER designed to be fully automatic?

And what kind of "controls" on possession and USE? Do you think she supports the fact that NC granted me a concealed-carry permit? I highly doubt it. So my use for self-defense is limited. And in her own words, "target shooting is NOT a legitimate sport," so I KNOW that she doesn't think we should use guns for practice or recreation.

So what the hell else is there for us lowly, non celebrity, non-rich, non-politician CIVILIANS to DO with them?????

just like those she put into place in Australia.

THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT GUN OWNERS ARE OBJECTING TO.

She says elsewhere that she wants to outlaw all handguns and most rifles and shotguns (see post #88 for citations from HER OWN WEBSITE). She'd "allow" us to buy single-shot rifles to replace the guns she wants to confiscate, IF we can "prove" that we are "hunters" (which most of us aren't).

No one is objecting to placing international controls on the trafficking of military weapons. What concerns me is the attempt by IANSA to place international controls on CIVILIAN firearms, as Ms. Peters and IANSA explictly advocate.

Yes, I do understand the process. I understand that any treaty must be sent to the Senate for ratification.

Although the likelihood of the U.S. ratifying such a treaty right now would be relatively low, the consequences would be SO high that I think taking any steps along that road would be very worrisome. And given the right President, a willing (or gullible) Congress, and sufficient media and international pressure, a treaty could be signed at some point. Don't forget that in 2004, Congress almost outlawed all civilian guns holding more than 10 rounds, and civilian rifles with handgrips that stick out, because so many Congresspeople were misled into thinking S.1431/H.R.2038 was a ban on military assault rifles (it wasn't).

So while I'm not sitting here in fear that the UN is going to "come take my guns away," the prospect of a UN gun control treaty is indeed worrisome, and I think it is reasonable to speak out against it before it heads in that direction. Gun owners would be foolish to be silent as long as IANSA is speaking forcefully on the issue, and IANSA has the ear of most of the delegates.

and that the U.S. should be subject to the rules.

"IANSA did bring gun confiscation to Australia"
Yeah, that Australia is such a fucking tyranny. Say, how many shooting deaths did they have among its 20 million citizens last year?

which doesn't change the fact that confiscation DID occur.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Their crime rate's up just like England's (after its ban on ownership).

Please don't waste board space arguing semantics about what "ban" constitutes. It's an effective ban on civilian ownership of everything except single-shot long guns.

There's the famous case of an English farmer who spent 7 years in jail because he popped a cap in the ass (language choice intentional here on my part) of some poor deserving lad who broke into his home to rob him. Why, I think that young man's family should bring a civil suit against that dastardly farmer for wrongful death or injury or whatever happened to the dumb son of a bitch who broke in.

.. little peek around cyberspace and see who your allies are.

I won't be posting any links as evidence, because some of the sites are really cesspools -- but it seemed only fair to give you a heads-up ...

position paper?

The fact that some nutjobs are riled about it doesn't mean that there isn't a kernel of truth at the core. IANSA is trying to steer the agenda of the conference in the direction of Australia-style gun control, and that is indisputable.

says the National Rifle Association campaign against the UN is "vicious, mean-spirited and deceiving of their own members". She says that the association does not believe its own propaganda, but is using the UN conference as a fund-raising campaign ... Ms Peters says that her organisation is not aimed at the US; that the US conforms to the international agreement because it does have gun laws - hundreds, even thousands of them ... The idea that the US would allow any UN agreement to dictate its national gun laws is laughable, she says. "The USA hasn't even ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child," she says, by way of illustrating the US's dislike of international treaties ... Five years ago the US blocked a proposal to ban arms sales to "non-state actors" - private armies, or liberation or rebel groups - reserving the right to arm groups when it believes regime change is warranted. It still holds to this policy ...

US lobby stonewalls illegal arms curb
Email Print Normal font Large font Mark Coultan Herald Correspondent in New York
June 24, 2006
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/us-lobby-stonewalls-illegal-arms-curb/2006/06/23/1150845378960.html?page=2


<edit: HTML error>

In Rebecca Peters' own words, from the IANSA website:



Think she's talking about Americans?

More from the same document:



She's finessing her position. No, she doesn't support a total BAN of guns in the United States. She just wants to ban and confiscate everything but single-shot rifles, and only the small minority of gun owners who hunts would be allowed to own them.

No thank you...

... view of her position:

"And I want to reassure you that there is no proposal to ban private firearm ownership actually. We’re talking about regulation. We’re talking about stopping trafficking. We’re talking about bringing the arms trade under control, to stop guns getting into the hands of criminals and of drug gangs and of human rights abusers. Why doesn’t the NRA support that aim?"

Outlawing all handguns. Outlawing all self-loading rifles and shotguns. As in Australia.

That is precisely what I am objecting to.

If Operation Rescue proposed to ban all abortion except to save the life of the mother, by the above logic you wouldn't be banning abortion at all. Just regulating it. Because 20% (or whatever) of abortions would still be legal, they wouldn't be banning all abortions...just the overwhelming majority of them.

Stopping global arms traffickers is a GREAT thing. Stopping guns getting into the hands of criminals and drug gangs and human rights abusers is a great thing. But outlawing civilian ownership of handguns and self-loading long guns is an outrageous proposal.

The quickest way to sabotage any convention on small arms would be to incorporate language regulating the lawful civilian possession of handguns, rifles, and shotguns. This treaty is supposed to be about arms trafficking, not legitimate firearms commerce.

If the public pressure on the conference keeps that from happening, then it would be saving the convention on small arms, not sabotaging it.

From Ms. Peters' concluding statements to the UN Conference, from her own website:



She's talking about ALL nations. She doesn't say "States other than the U.S. must..." And she's already specified what she wants those controls to be.

UN is not taking guns away from Americans: Annan

Small arms include hand guns, pistols, rifles, sub-machine guns, mortars, grenade and light missiles while light weapons include heavy machine guns, mounted grenade launchers, anti-tank guns and portable anti-aircraft guns.

http://news.monstersandcritics.com/northamerica/article_1175218.php/UN_is_not_taking_guns_away_from_Americans_Annan

you did see those in there, yes?

For Rebecca Peters/IANSA's view on exactly what civilian firearms they want confiscated, see post #88.

This pathetic melange of racism and right wing craziness, the bailiwick of specimens like Grover Norquist, Randy Weaver, Bo Gritz, Fred Phelps and David Duke will somehow become "progressive"....

:wow:
rocknation

.. mortars, mounted submachine guns -- and wants to sabotage an international conference on these and related issues ...

I guess gun manufacturers would lose sales if we cut down on the black market.

paranoid and stupid.

Thanks, like we really needed it confirmed.

Do rainbow colored anti-christian spaceships show up to provide the army that enforces the UNs decision?

The Black Helicopter, UN and Nato taking over US airspace to disarm and enslave the American population guys? Don't they ever get tired?

Tell you what. Let's send them on a vacation to Area 51 for a nice restful vacation with all those secret space aliens that they think the government is hiding. ;) You get the beer, I'll get the chips.

You know when you come to think of it, after 9/11 when NATO did send planes to police our air space and help us out these guys must have been in a frenzy. Sittin' on the front porch with their trusty double barrels, saying to the wife, "They've come for us Martha, I told you this would happen."

something very odd about these things.

Hey idiots- thanks to your beloved Republicans "they" KNOW who has guns & who doesnt- you fell for it.

Idiots.

the other half are mostly Dems and indies, like me.

n/t

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I work near a rough neighborhood and had the unfortunate experience of working the holiday a couple of years ago. On that day me and a co-worker went out to the parking lot a little bit after dark to view the fireworks in sky coming from a park down the street. We quickly decided to run back inside the building after a few rounds from them so called celebration shots landed nearby.
One ricocheted just a few feet away and later heard a couple hit the roof of our metal building :hide:

from their own government.

a class: "What happens when a country dissolves into civil war, but only one side really knows military science or has a supply of weapons?"

why would a political faction with no weapons or combat training be involved in a civil war to begin with?

I hope that history professor had at least one student with a 3-figure IQ.

and stupid lemmings.... also liars who work for the NRA.

on the importation of ammunition (milsurp or commercial), and gun parts kits into this country?

Due to other factors, finding certain calibers of inexpensive ammo is already tough.

If the treaty encompasses small arms ammo as well (either now or in the future), then the good'ol
days of buying ammo by the 1,000 round cases could be long gone.

Might be a good time to start stock-piling.

S.African 308's also back on the market.

Well, whether or not we're deluded whackos, I guess we're smart consumers.

For those wondering what anyone would need 1000 rounds of "assault rifle" ammunition for, I use about 100 rounds per target shooting outing with my semiautomatic rifle that shoots the same ammunition as an M16, but with only one shot per trigger pull. I buy in bulk to get the lowest price per round.

When I go to a match with the doctors, lawyers and cops from downstate NY who make up the bulk of the high-powered shooting community in NY, which has won national and international matches since its birth in the 1870's, and today almost exclusively uses semiautomatic versions of rifles issued to the US military, I use about 80 rounds for the match.

I find target shooting with high-powered civilian-legal semiautomatic rifles a welcome break from my day job writing device drivers and management software for clusters of computers. My SO who does the same type of work also comes shooting occasionally and has said that she enjoys it very much. Between ourselves we speak four languages, have traveled extensively in Europe, and have a comfortable gross domestic income. I have worked on local Democratic compaigns since 1994 and (apart from my NRA membership and occasional donations to RKBA (that's Right to Keep and Bear Arms) organizations) donate to about 20 environmental, political and civil rights charities all of which would be 'F' rated by the Repubelickan party. Many of the people I shoot with come from a similar demographic. If you're looking for me to apologize for any of this, your best course would be to move on.

We shoot and we vote. I'd feel really bad if we don't fit into commonly held stereotypes of the shooting public. And Rebecca Peters can go fuck herself (isn't it great that our Vice President is such a roll (misspelling of 'role' intentional) model) if she thinks target shooting isn't a sport.

(Note to those annoyed at the lack of hewing to a party line, or to comfortable (socially fashionable) models of a 'progressive': gun control is a DEAD ISSUE for the 'left', and in fact a millstone which loses us elections. The nattering nitwits who want to foist a nanny state on us normal folk need to be told that it's time for their inner child to grow up, and instead of prescribing thumb sucking for us all (to reduce us to their level ?) come to terms with the complexities of human life and the difficulties of maintaining a functioning free society. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. As is trying to make reality conform to internal models instead of the other way round.)

In case the gentle readership is unaware, Rebecca Peters of IANSA is not just "an attendee" at the UN small arms conference. Aside from being the driving force behind the Australian ban, she is currently being financed by billionaire George Soros, who can't seem to decide whether progress for the individual means guaranteed respect for inherent rights, or it's-best-for-you participation in global economic schemes.

Always look for underlying interconnections, motivations and backers. Regardless of whether they're "on your side" or not. It's not about groups and alliances, it's about what's right. Any organizations are only as valuable as the purpose they serve. (Thanks to Mr. Locke for that.)

on the 17th to autograph his stuff!!!