Global Gun Control

[MaverickCowboy]

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=31711
egal Advisor Nominee Advocates Global Gun Control
by Brian Darling
05/04/2009


Last week, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a hearing on the nomination of Harold Koh, a former Dean of the Yale Law School, to be Legal Advisor to the State Department. One of the many concerns with Koh is his belief that international organizations should be empowered to regulate the Second Amendment right to own a firearm.

On April 2, 2002, Koh gave a speech to the Fordham University School of Law titled “A World Drowning in Guns” where he mapped out his vision of global gun control. Koh advocated an international “marking and tracing regime.” He complained that “the United States is now the major supplier of small arms in the world, yet the United States and its allies do not trace their newly manufactured weapons in any consistent way.” Koh advocated a U.N.-governed regime to force the U.S. “to submit information about their small arms production.”

Koh supports the idea that the U.N. should be granted the power “to standardize national laws and procedures with member states of regional organizations.” Koh feels that U.S. should “establish a national firearms control system and a register of manufacturers, traders, importers and exporters” of guns to comply with international obligations. This regulatory regime would allow U.N. members such as Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea and Iran to have a say in what type of gun regulations are imposed on American citizens.


Taken to their logical conclusion, Koh’s ideas could lead to a national database of all firearm owners, as well as the use of international law to force the U.S. to pass laws to find out who owns guns. All who care about freedom should read his speech (pdf). Senators need to think long and hard about whether Koh’s extreme views on international gun control are appropriate for America.

FDA Regulation of Tobacco

As if the federal government weren’t interfering enough in your daily decisions, now officials want to greatly expand the FDA’s regulatory power over tobacco. The House has passed a bill that would, among other things, allow the FDA to regulate nicotine and mandate more warnings about the health risks of tobacco. Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) is spoiling for a fight when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid schedules a vote on the bill. Let’s hope others join the fight against an ever-expanding federal government.

The First Amendment Under Attack

Many conservatives are aware of the now-infamous DHS report on “rightwing extremism” -- as well they should be. This report said that the possible passage of gun control legislation, the election of the first African American president, the economic downturn and the return of military veterans could lead to domestic terrorism: “Rightwing extremism in the United States … may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single, issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.” This report serves to demonize many elements of the conservative movement by characterizing them as potential radical domestic terrorists.

Sens. David Vitter (R-La.) and Mike Johanns (R-Neb.) have introduced a resolution requesting that Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano issue a formal apology to the nation’s military personnel and veterans whom the report deems extremist because they are pro-life and/or hold other conservative views. It’s an outrage that those who served this country honorably in Iraq and Afghanistan would be scrutinized by federal officials. Conservatives should be wary that the federal government may be monitoring conservative groups who differ with the president on policy grounds.

Energy Tax Hikes

This week, House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and his top climate deputy, Subcommittee Chairman Ed Markey (D-Mass.) will try to advance the innocuously named American Climate and Energy Security Act (ACES). The bill, a de-facto energy tax, would undermine America's economic recovery and punish low- and middle-income families with staggering electricity price hikes.

A handful of moderate Democrats have joined Republicans to oppose such a scheme. The key difference is that, according to Roll Call, Waxman and Markey are meeting with hesitant Democrats members to find a bill that protects their own districts. This amounts to picking winners and losers behind closed doors, giving the politically connected a chance to avoid (if only for a year or two) the massive economic harm likely to occur.

President Obama has spoken eloquently about the need for transparency. Americans should demand similar, if not greater, transparency from Reps. Markey and Waxman. If they’re going to pick winners and losers, they should do so openly.

[Cstafford]

I couldn't imagine a United States where less than friendly countries control our laws.

[FlintHillBilly]

This regulatory regime would allow U.N. members such as Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea and Iran to have a say in what type of gun regulations are imposed on American citizens.


What a joke.. but i could seriously see this trying to be passed. Plus what happens when millions of Americans say F*k that im not registering or giving my guns up?

They always have a nationaly "dont buy gas because its too high wah wah" what if they millions upon millions of americans decided to not pay taxes or do what the govt wanted.... ive always wondered.. what could they do?

[Chulo]

Dont judge Obama by the people he associates with or nominates, it has nothing to do with who he is or what he believes in.

[Walter Sobchak]

Remember that under the Constitution treaties will supersede any State law. The Founders obviously didn't want states passing laws negating treaties signed by the national government and wanted to prevent states from possibly trying to make treaties with foreign powers. Never did they imagine something like the United Nations would ever exist, and that such a body would pass write and place to its member nations "treaties" to be ratified. As commendable as that sounds, this gives the UN the power through treaty to usurp national and state laws.

Not a big deal, huh? Look at the seemingly harmless "United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child". On the surface, it looks like something to benefit children the world over, and while this is good for places where child slavery and child labor exists, it also give UN bureaucrats say over how you raise your children.

The State of Washington had a children's rights law based on this UN law, and it resulted in children complaining to state agencies about being grounded, restricted from seeing certain friends and even being taken to church with the family. Finally, the state modified the law to get some of the pure insanity out of it. However, if the US adopts this law, you can be criminally prosecuted for the use of corporal punishment.

That's just one "UN Treaty"... get ready to hand your sovereignty to the popular conscensus of Zimbabwe, Iran, Bolivia, Somalia, et al. I think I can go out on a limb and say with certainty that The Founders never intended for this to happen.

[Geezah]

This is exactly why John R. Bolton was a great pick to go tell the UN to fcuk themselves in so many words.

I really have no time for the UN, they are a paper tiger that as a whole steals my oxygen

[T3ngu]

Koh supports the idea that the U.N. should be granted the power “to standardize national laws and procedures with member states of regional organizations.”



Haha

Hahahahah

Hahahahahahahaha

whut?

[Netzach]

I really have no time for the UN, they are a paper tiger that as a whole steals my oxygen

Bolton was responsible for dismantling fifty years of US/foreign relations.
Thankfully, the United Nations is staffed by people of a higher calibre.

[MaverickCowboy]

Bolton was responsible for dismantling fifty years of US/foreign relations.
Thankfully, the United Nations is staffed by people of a higher calibre.

that is the funniest post in this thread. hahaha.

[MaverickCowboy]

Haha

Hahahahah

Hahahahahahahaha

whut?

you know. One government for the entire planet?

He thinks its a good idea.

[hsh2]

Haha

Hahahahah

Hahahahahahahaha

whut?

yeah he is a so called "transnationalist". another plastic ideology without rhyme or reason, which is however popular with self hate ridden good for nothings a la antifa and consorts.

[XShipRider]

"There are over 550 million firearms in worldwide circulation. That's one firearm for every twelve people on the planet. The only question is: How do we arm the other 11?" ~Yuri Orlov, Lord of War

Attempting to disarm the world is akin to putting the nuclear genie back in the bottle -- impossible.

[CMNot]

They always have a nationaly "dont buy gas because its too high wah wah" what if they millions upon millions of americans decided to not pay taxes or do what the govt wanted.... ive always wondered.. what could they do?

The Government won't be able to do anything. Same argument as over here in Britain. If everyone didn't pay a certain tax, the Government is utterly powerless to act.

The crux of the matter is, people are bred to be lead. There will be no large scale protest of any effect. Formal and informal social controls are too powerful for people to resist.

Apart from in France. Vive la France.

[Wildgoose]

Fvck the UN.

[Chulo]

Remember that under the Constitution treaties will supersede any State law. The Founders obviously didn't want states passing laws negating treaties signed by the national government and wanted to prevent states from possibly trying to make treaties with foreign powers. Never did they imagine something like the United Nations would ever exist, and that such a body would pass write and place to its member nations "treaties" to be ratified. As commendable as that sounds, this gives the UN the power through treaty to usurp national and state laws.

Not a big deal, huh? Look at the seemingly harmless "United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child". On the surface, it looks like something to benefit children the world over, and while this is good for places where child slavery and child labor exists, it also give UN bureaucrats say over how you raise your children.

The State of Washington had a children's rights law based on this UN law, and it resulted in children complaining to state agencies about being grounded, restricted from seeing certain friends and even being taken to church with the family. Finally, the state modified the law to get some of the pure insanity out of it. However, if the US adopts this law, you can be criminally prosecuted for the use of corporal punishment.

That's just one "UN Treaty"... get ready to hand your sovereignty to the popular conscensus of Zimbabwe, Iran, Bolivia, Somalia, et al. I think I can go out on a limb and say with certainty that The Founders never intended for this to happen.
too bad Obama thinks the Constitution is "Flawed"

[muck]

Lol, I'd rather understand this as a proposal to control the influx of guns into third world countries where they kill a half million people every year.

Which is not half bad in my opinion.

[sct1886]

Lol, I'd rather understand this as a proposal to control the influx of guns into third world countries where they kill a half million people every year.

Which is not half bad in my opinion.

Governments were responsible for more deaths in the last century than any other singular cause. Violence in these third world countries is a symptom and guns are not the cause, merely an inanimate object until used for good or evil. Gun control is not about the greater good only a means to complete and total control. Crack a history book to see the after effects in countries that enacted "Gun Control". Politicians love unarmed peasants and always will...

[Geezah]

Rwanda, not many firearms used there as I remember, and what did the Useless Nations do, fcuk all.

All they do is rattle their sabres and give some credibility to corrupt Govrnements and Countries.......

It's time to disband the UN as far as I'm concerned, or move them off US soil and send them to Gitmo.

[AgentX]

Governments were responsible for more deaths in the last century than any other singular cause. Violence in these third world countries is a symptom and guns are not the cause, merely an inanimate object until used for good or evil. Gun control is not about the greater good only a means to complete and total control. Crack a history book to see the after effects in countries that enacted "Gun Control". Politicians love unarmed peasants and always will...
Hear, hear!

[sct1886]

Dont judge Obama by the people he associates with or nominates, it has nothing to do with who he is or what he believes in.

Hopefully this was a sarcastic statement, otherwise it was foolish. There is very little means to judge a man except by his past actions and his friends. That being said Obama is putting the chess pieces in place for the total abolition of private arms ownership.

[muck]

Governments were responsible for more deaths in the last century than any other singular cause. Violence in these third world countries is a symptom and guns are not the cause, merely an inanimate object until used for good or evil. Gun control is not about the greater good only a means to complete and total control. Crack a history book to see the after effects in countries that enacted "Gun Control". Politicians love unarmed peasants and always will...Your point is moot. It doesn't change anything of the fact that small arms in the hands of "peasants" kill hundreds of thousands every year. If weapon trafficking was stopped, at least the symptoms would be treated.
Attempts to control the influx of small arms into third world countries can't be equalled with gun control as you Americans understand it since obviously we were not talking about honest and law-abiding gun owners but so called "freedom fighters" and militias.

According to credible sources, the "Lord's Resistance Army" of Uganda alone is in possession of 150,000 small arms.

Rwanda, not many firearms used there as I remember, and what did the Useless Nations do, fcuk all.

All they do is rattle their sabres and give some credibility to corrupt Govrnements and Countries.......

It's time to disband the UN as far as I'm concerned, or move them off US soil and send them to Gitmo.I'm not too fond of them either, but I for one try to inform myself about international affairs.

Against heavy resistance even from their allies, the United States and their partners have conducted numerous interventions all over the world. They could have stopped the bloodshed in Rwanda too if they had really wanted to.

It's not the UN that is to be blamed, but just five countries which happen to be members of the most prestigious institution of aforesaid organization. And which regularily say no just to piss each other off.


...what leads us back to the thought that governments represent all what is evil in this world. p-)

[WarriorMonk]

Dont judge Obama by the people he associates with or nominates, it has nothing to do with who he is or what he believes in.

Gee I guess I didn't need those recommendation letters for medical school then! *sarcasm

[vryhpyammoadded]

Ummmm, go ahead and legislate away private firearms. I’ll go buy me an AN-12, fill it full of guns, name it Zardoz, find the other 11 and then take a money bath. The world needs more guns and then less government, a lot less.

[Connaught Ranger]

Rwanda, not many firearms used there as I remember, and what did the Useless Nations do, fcuk all.

All they do is rattle their sabres and give some credibility to corrupt Govrnements and Countries.......

It's time to disband the UN as far as I'm concerned, or move them off US soil and send them to Gitmo.

It was American objection, to the word "Genocide" being used in the reports by the Canadian C.O. of the U.N. Mission in Rwanda that held up the U.N. Mission there being upgraded and reinforced, as well as the perception that America could be facing another Somalia situation, not so long after "Blackhawk Down" so please lay the political blame where it should be laid at your own front door.

Connaught Ranger.

[Geezah]

It was American objection, to the word "Genocide" being used in the reports by the Canadian C.O. of the U.N. Mission in Rwanda that held up the U.N. Mission there being upgraded and reinforced, as well as the perception that America could be facing another Somalia situation, not so long after "Blackhawk Down" so please lay the political blame where it should be laid at your own front door.

Connaught Ranger.

It's America's fault the UN did nothing in Rwanda?

I suppose the Oil for Food program was the fault of the US as well?

[SOG]

Trespassers will be shot. Survivers will be shot again.


Bolton was responsible for dismantling fifty years of US/foreign relations.
Thankfully, the United Nations is staffed by people of a higher calibre.

That's odd considering both parties here in the US relatively agreed for his position. (A miracle in and of itself)

[SOG]

Your point is moot. It doesn't change anything of the fact that small arms in the hands of "peasants" kill hundreds of thousands every year. If weapon trafficking was stopped, at least the symptoms would be treated.
Attempts to control the influx of small arms into third world countries can't be equalled with gun control as you Americans understand it since obviously we were not talking about honest and law-abiding gun owners but so called "freedom fighters" and militias.


So after you take their guns away how to you propose to take their machetes away? You know, the things they will hack each other up with? Great, I always wanted to see butchery and torture in a mass medieval setting.

Fortunately I live in the real world and know that even if you passed such resolutions say against nation states within Africa that some country some where will still smuggle weapons in. Half the ****ing US Military was in Iraq with a large coalition presence and they couldn't stop weapons/munitions being smuggled in from Iran. But either way it would be fun to watch a massive 100 billion dollar coalition try to disarm a radical nation with guns and cover every inch of border it has for the next 20 years. I'm sure it will be wonderful to watch people get their limbs hacked off and be able to do nothing under the sorry ass ROE (Somalia, Liberia).

And of course the minute the coalition leaves? Helloooo Kalashnikov!

[wildcat]

I guess the only true manner in prevention of crime, is to ban knifes, and guns then put cameras everywhere like in 1984, this way they could control every accept of everyones life, time for the thought police, sensory crime will be punished by death.

[Dinges]

Lol, I'd rather understand this as a proposal to control the influx of guns into third world countries where they kill a half million people every year.

Which is not half bad in my opinion.

We in the "Third World" can in all reality export weapons , that is how we are saturated after the Cold War.



And to all the anti-UN posters out there. The UN was not forced on us by Martians. The UN is made up of people designated by our governments. If you have a problem with the UN , take your own government to task.


Democracy is a b*tch.p-)

[wildcat]

The UN was not forced on us by Martians.
Are you sure, link?

[millertime]

Piss on 'em.

Send in foreign troops in blue helmets to take my guns.

I will die fighting for my rights, but not before many die trying to take them!

Not to mention, those lovely blue helmets stick out quite nicely... easy target acquisition!


The Constitution of the United States tells me my rights... not the UN.

[Dinges]

Are you sure, link?

Do you really want me to zap you with my Improbability Ray!






Humans.....meh.

[LEB101]

they should come hear and try this gun control hahaha

[Connaught Ranger]

It's America's fault the UN did nothing in Rwanda?

I suppose the Oil for Food program was the fault of the US as well?

Do not try to confuse the issue with B/S.

The American U.N. officials in New York, at the Security Council rejected any use of the word "Potential Genocide / Genocide" in the daily sit-reps sent by the Canadian Commander of the U.N. Mission in Rwanda, insisting that the reports be rewritten and the word "Genocide" be removed, as the word "Genocide" is a trigger word which should have launched a massive increase in resources and man-power to the U.N. Mission in Congo. In effect it would have been the start of a Rapid Reaction Force in the face of a developing genocide.

But, in reality the American insistence on the word "Genocide" being used vetoed any increase in the size of the U.N. Mission prior to the massacre

However the U.S. government (and public) were not in the mood to see further U.S. military casualties, so soon after the cluster-f*ck that was Somalia.

When the sh*t hit the fan in Rwanda, the U.N. Force was spread to thin to be any use in preventing, or containing, what was a well planned massacre of the innocents.

The U.N. Force was only increased when the world was made aware of the size of the tragedy, and as such its become all to easy to point the finger at the U.N. and say its their fault.

Connaught Ranger.

[Connaught Ranger]

Piss on 'em.

Send in foreign troops in blue helmets to take my guns.

I will die fighting for my rights, but not before many die trying to take them!

Not to mention, those lovely blue helmets stick out quite nicely... easy target acquisition!


The Constitution of the United States tells me my rights... not the UN.

I think somebody needs to get his tinfoil hat re-sized.:roll:

[Hot Lips]

That being said Obama is putting the chess pieces in place for the total abolition of private arms ownership.

I find it amazing that any rational person buys in to this. Firearms aren't going away. Gun Control does not equate to Anti-Gun. Their are gun owners/supporters on the right, left, and in between. The notion that "the government" is out to take your weapons is something extremist push to feed on peoples fears.

[MaverickCowboy]

I find it amazing that any rational person buys in to this. Firearms aren't going away. Gun Control does not equate to Anti-Gun. Their are gun owners/supporters on the right, left, and in between. The notion that "the government" is out to take your weapons is something extremist push to feed on peoples fears.

nah. they'll just keep me from buying an AR15 or Garand.

[seraosha]

Do not try to confuse the issue with B/S.
Connaught Ranger.

There, fixed it to follow that excellent advice.
The issue is the UN's proposed "gun control" superseding the US Constitutional Amendment to bear arms. Try to stay on topic.

And this will never fly...far too many Americans that won't tolerate other governments coming in and trying to tell us what to do. Sure, it's not evenhanded...lord knows we've been telling the world what to do for a while now, but the fact remains that there is no way the UN is going to tell us what to do and have us listen, especially in regards to gun control.

[Chulo]

I find it amazing that any rational person buys in to this. Firearms aren't going away. Gun Control does not equate to Anti-Gun. Their are gun owners/supporters on the right, left, and in between. The notion that "the government" is out to take your weapons is something extremist push to feed on peoples fears.
I think history has shown that gun control and gun registration has led to strict (anti) gun laws and tight control that border on letting no one have a gun- look at England for an example

[sct1886]

I find it amazing that any rational person buys in to this. Firearms aren't going away. Gun Control does not equate to Anti-Gun. Their are gun owners/supporters on the right, left, and in between. The notion that "the government" is out to take your weapons is something extremist push to feed on peoples fears.

Lets see, Obama will start with the CIFTA treaty mandating registration. He has already loaded his administration with anti-gunners. The Congress is loaded in favor of the Dems. Al Franken will load the Senate and assure any and all legislation is passed. The loaded Senate will then assure all Supreme Court nominee's can and will be a slam dunk. The "notion" our government is out to confiscate firearms can be readily be validated by Obama, Feinstein, Kennedy and hoards of other Democrats own words. So called fears have came to reality in Britain, Australia and others.

[Hot Lips]

I hear aluminum foil is buy-one-get-one this week. Stock up.

[wildcat]

I find it amazing that any rational person buys in to this. Firearms aren't going away. Gun Control does not equate to Anti-Gun. Their are gun owners/supporters on the right, left, and in between. The notion that "the government" is out to take your weapons is something extremist push to feed on peoples fears.
I think the notion why people get this view is that most of the people that push gun control, are also anti-gun, and make lots of anti gun comments. but you are right gun control is not anti gun, as for the UN dictating gun control, I am against it, they have no business.

[California Joe]

Lets see, Obama will start with the CIFTA treaty mandating registration. He has already loaded his administration with anti-gunners. The Congress is loaded in favor of the Dems. Al Franken will load the Senate and assure any and all legislation is passed. The loaded Senate will then assure all Supreme Court nominee's can and will be a slam dunk. The "notion" our government is out to confiscate firearms can be readily be validated by Obama, Feinstein, Kennedy and hoards of other Democrats own words. So called fears have came to reality in Britain, Australia and others.

Yeah, you seriously need to get some meds. You're wound way too tight. Maybe you should buy some raffle tickets for that sweet, incredibly gay, NRA white AR. Maybe Sarah Palin will send it to you "used" in a sealed plastic bag to preserve "freshness". Mmmmmmmm.

[Cstafford]

Yeah, you seriously need to get some meds. You're wound way too tight. Maybe you should buy some raffle tickets for that sweet, incredibly gay, NRA white AR. Maybe Sarah Palin will send it to you "used" in a sealed plastic bag to preserve "freshness". Mmmmmmmm.
Whatchu talkin bout, that thing is HAWT!

[Bro Jangles]

Whatchu talkin bout, that thing is HAWT!
the UN can take that one.

[Walter Sobchak]

too bad Obama thinks the Constitution is "Flawed"

Only because it doesn't address "social justice". I think that were they here, Madison, Jefferson, Adams and Franklin would think that Obama is terribly flawed. I'm sure TJ would allude to that "tree of Liberty" thing again!

[California Joe]

Only because it doesn't address "social justice". I think that were they here, Madison, Jefferson, Adams and Franklin would think that Obama is terribly flawed. I'm sure TJ would allude to that "tree of Liberty" thing again!

Or maybe he'd be too busy trying to f*ck the First Lady?

[Walter Sobchak]

Governments were responsible for more deaths in the last century than any other singular cause. Violence in these third world countries is a symptom and guns are not the cause, merely an inanimate object until used for good or evil. Gun control is not about the greater good only a means to complete and total control. Crack a history book to see the after effects in countries that enacted "Gun Control". Politicians love unarmed peasants and always will...

I like to remind my friends in the Ireland and in the rest of Europe that the rousing Irish song of revolution, "The Rising of the Moon" describes patriots who were deprived of their weapons. The fact that the song alludes to "...thousand pikes were flashing, at the rising of the moon..." tells me that the Brits kept the Irish effectively disarmed. This was written about the rising in County Kildare in 1798.

Well, pikes against old brown Bess didn't count for much, did it?

As the poster stated, governments do love unarmed peasants! Armed you are a citizen, disarmed, you are but a subject!

"God created all men the same, Sam Colt made them equal!"


Or maybe he'd be too busy trying to f*ck the First Lady?

Maybe he'd do both! Obama would be so PWN3D.

[California Joe]

I wanna party with you Cowboy.

[Chulo]

Only because it doesn't address "social justice". I think that were they here, Madison, Jefferson, Adams and Franklin would think that Obama is terribly flawed. I'm sure TJ would allude to that "tree of Liberty" thing again!
Well then that would only point out that Obama does not agree with the constitution being a corpus and needs to be "improved" and "updated". Which then would defeat the purpose of the constitution

[346L3]

Well then that would only point out that Obama does not agree with the constitution being a corpus and needs to be "improved" and "updated". Which then would defeat the purpose of the constitution
Amending the Constitution or "updating" it does not defeat its purpose. The Constitution has had Amendments added to it and no ones saying its lost its purpose. In fact with certain Amendments, they have reinforced its purpose.

[Dan2004]

I will die fighting for my rights, but not before many die trying to take them!

Not to mention they'll look really nice on the wall next to the stuff my Granddad brought back from WWII: German uniforms, P08s, photos, etc...

UN Kpots, Berets, cap-badges, C8s, L85s, etc....p-)

[Geezah]

Do not try to confuse the issue with B/S.

The American U.N. officials in New York, at the Security Council rejected any use of the word "Potential Genocide / Genocide" in the daily sit-reps sent by the Canadian Commander of the U.N. Mission in Rwanda, insisting that the reports be rewritten and the word "Genocide" be removed, as the word "Genocide" is a trigger word which should have launched a massive increase in resources and man-power to the U.N. Mission in Congo. In effect it would have been the start of a Rapid Reaction Force in the face of a developing genocide.

But, in reality the American insistence on the word "Genocide" being used vetoed any increase in the size of the U.N. Mission prior to the massacre

However the U.S. government (and public) were not in the mood to see further U.S. military casualties, so soon after the cluster-f*ck that was Somalia.

When the sh*t hit the fan in Rwanda, the U.N. Force was spread to thin to be any use in preventing, or containing, what was a well planned massacre of the innocents.

The U.N. Force was only increased when the world was made aware of the size of the tragedy, and as such its become all to easy to point the finger at the U.N. and say its their fault.

Connaught Ranger.

No matter how you try and pin the blame on the US, the Useless Nations are still a waste of space, and they still did fcuk all in Rwanda. A massacre that took place primarily without the use of firearms.

To be honest though, the Useless Nations have been ineffective in pretty much everything they get involved in.

[Connaught Ranger]

No matter how you try and pin the blame on the US, the Useless Nations are still a waste of space, and they still did fcuk all in Rwanda. A massacre that took place primarily without the use of firearms.

To be honest though, the Useless Nations have been ineffective in pretty much everything they get involved in.

Sorry old boy, its obvious you are living in denial of the actions of your own officials at the United Nations, the Rwanda massacre took place over a large area and the under strength United Nations Force was not able to do anything about it, even when 12 Belgian Peacekeepers were captured and slaughtered out of hand during the conflict. But that's something those American officials will have to live with.

To be honest though you are talking through your arse, and the United Nations is involved in far more programs than Peace-keeping Missions, but whats the point of arguing with a know-it-all as yourself, its a waste of time, because at the end of the day you will still be unable and too ignorant to accept the facts.

Connaught Ranger

[Geezah]

Sorry old boy, its obvious you are living in denial of the actions of your own officials at the United Nations, the Rwanda massacre took place over a large area and the under strength United Nations Force was not able to do anything about it, even when 12 Belgian Peacekeepers were captured and slaughtered out of hand during the conflict. But that's something those American officials will have to live with.

I'm not living in denial of anything.

The Useless Nations did nothing in Rwanda, again,it was a massace that took place primarily without the use of firearms!

To pass the buck and put the blame on the US does not take away from the fact the Useless Nations still have a hard time getting anything right.

I guess everyhing has to be "Team America, Fcuk Yeah!" right?



To be honest though you are talking through your arse,

Hey, we've all go them......



and the United Nations is involved in far more programs than Peace-keeping Missions,

And just how many of those program are a success, after all, the Useless Nations still can't get it right.

Which African country was it, where Useless Nations peacekeepers and aid workers were involved in ******ly abusing children?

I know that alot of UN PeaceKeepers have been involved in atrocities.



but whats the point of arguing with a know-it-all as yourself, its a waste of time, because at the end of the day you will still be unable and too ignorant to accept the facts.

Connaught Ranger


I have never ever claimed to know it all, but I do know that I have no use for the Useless Nations being in America!

And as you have decided that responding to my posts is a waste of time, I get to have the last word! Yay me.

[Connaught Ranger]

I'm not living in denial of anything.
Take a good look in the mirror kid.

The Useless Nations did nothing in Rwanda, again,it was a massace that took place primarily without the use of firearms!
So? they could have used sticks and stones, if the UN did not have boots on the ground in enough quantity what could they do?

To pass the buck and put the blame on the US does not take away from the fact the Useless Nations still have a hard time getting anything right.
Incorrect as usual from you.

I guess everyhing has to be "Team America, Fcuk Yeah!" right?
Typical B/S from you trying to detract from the point although your IQ is suited to Team America.rofl

Hey, we've all go(t) them......
No extra charge for correcting your spellingrofl

And just how many of those program are a success, after all, the Useless Nations still can't get it right.

Read up on the UN Health, Education, Food Programs including Disaster Relief.

Which African country was it, where Useless Nations peacekeepers and aid workers were involved in ******ly abusing children?

The United Nations is not a country, nor does it screen its Peace-keeping Forces for child abusers

I know that alot of UN PeaceKeepers have been involved in atrocities.

Please post your evidence then.

I have never ever claimed to know it all, but I do know that I have no use for the Useless Nations being in America!
Thats evident with your tinfoil ranting.

And as you have decided that responding to my posts is a waste of time, I get to have the last word! Yay me.

Learn to read English as you are wrong yet again. :roll:Nowhere in my post did I say I would NOT respond to your posts, I said arguing the validity (with a troll) is a waste of time.

By your own definition, you are casting a slur on the character of many men and women throughout the world, who have voluntarily risked their lives, and lost their lives in the Service of Peace, including members of the US military who served in the UN Forces.

So Yay to me.

Connaught Ranger

[Geezah]

I'm not living in denial of anything.
Take a good look in the mirror kid.

Well, there is a comeback for you, kid, it's been a long time since I have been called kid.




The Useless Nations did nothing in Rwanda, again,it was a massace that took place primarily without the use of firearms!
So? they could have used sticks and stones, if the UN did not have boots on the ground in enough quantity what could they do?


You seem to have missed my point, after all, the original post was about a guy wanting to give the UN control over the US's 2nd Am Rights.

I wrote the following,

Rwanda, not many firearms used there as I remember, and what did the Useless Nations do, fcuk all.

Firearms were not the primary weapon of choice in Rwanda, and the UN did not stop what took place, no matter if(as you say) the US is to blame or not! They did not stop it.




To pass the buck and put the blame on the US does not take away from the fact the Useless Nations still have a hard time getting anything right.
Incorrect as usual from you.

Wow, have we had that much interaction, that out of 3 posts you know me that well?

I would be interested in seeing what the Useless Nations have got right?




I guess everyhing has to be "Team America, Fcuk Yeah!" right?
Typical B/S from you trying to detract from the point although your IQ is suited to Team America.

Wow, another attack towards me, is that it, or do you have anymore?




Hey, we've all go(t) them......
No extra charge for correcting your spelling

If the only spelling mistake you had to correct was to add a T, then I'm not doing bad, thank you.
Again, we all have arseholes!




And just how many of those program are a success, after all, the Useless Nations still can't get it right.

Read up on the UN Health, Education, Food Programs including Disaster Relief.

OK, I'm still not seeing it?




Which African country was it, where Useless Nations peacekeepers and aid workers were involved in ******ly abusing children?

The United Nations is not a country, nor does it screen its Peace-keeping Forces for child abusers

I did not say it was a country, but they have people that wear those blue hats, and I was under the impression they were under the UNs control?




I know that alot of UN PeaceKeepers have been involved in atrocities.

Please post your evidence then.


Peacekeepers 'abusing children'

Children as young as six are being ******ly abused by peacekeepers and aid workers, says a leading UK charity.

Children in post-conflict areas are being abused by the very people drafted into such zones to help look after them, says Save the Children.

After research in Ivory Coast, southern Sudan and Haiti, the charity proposed an international watchdog be set up.

Save the Children said it had sacked three workers for breaching its codes, and called on others to do the same.

The three men were all dismissed in the past year for having had *** with girls aged 17 - which the charity said was a sackable offence even though not illegal.

The UN has said it welcomes the charity's report, which it will study closely.

Save the Children says the most shocking aspect of child *** abuse is that most of it goes unreported and unpunished, with children too scared to speak out.

No support

A 13-year-old girl, "Elizabeth" described to the BBC how 10 UN peacekeepers gang-raped her in a field near her Ivory Coast home.

"They grabbed me and threw me to the ground and they forced themselves on me... I tried to escape but there were 10 of them and I could do nothing," she said.

"I was terrified. Then they just left me there bleeding."

No action has been taken against the soldiers.

The report also found that aid workers have been ******ly abusing boys and girls.

"In recent years, some important commitments have been made by the UN, the wider international community and by humanitarian and aid agencies to act on this problem," said Save the Children UK chief executive Jasmine Whitbread.

"However, all humanitarian and peacekeeping agencies working in emergency situations, including Save the Children UK, must own up to the fact that they are vulnerable to this problem and tackle it head on."

2003 - Nepalese troops accused of ****** abuse while serving in DR Congo. Six are later jailed
2004 - Two UN peacekeepers repatriated after being accused of abuse in Burundi
2005 - UN troops accused of rape and ****** abuse in Sudan
2006 - UN personnel accused of rape and exploitation on missions in Haiti and Liberia
2007 - UN launches probe into ****** abuse claims in Ivory Coast

After research involving hundreds of children from Ivory Coast, southern Sudan and Haiti, the charity said better reporting mechanisms needed to be introduced to deal with what it called "endemic failures" in responding to reported cases of abuse.

It also said efforts should be made to strengthen worldwide child protection systems.

Heather Kerr, Save the Children's Ivory Coast country director, says little is being done to support the victims.

"It's a minority of people but they are using their power to ******ly exploit children and children that don't have the voice to report about this.

"They are suffering ****** exploitation and abuse in silence."

Save the Children says the international community has promised a policy of zero-tolerance to child ****** abuse, but that this is not being followed up by action on the ground.

A UN spokesman, Nick Birnback, said that it was impossible to ensure "zero incidents" within an organisation that has up to 200,000 personnel serving around the world.

"What we can do is get across a message of zero tolerance, which for us means zero complacency when credible allegations are raised and zero impunity when we find that there has been malfeasance that's occurred," he told the BBC.


Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/7420798.stm)


Those U.N. peacekeeping atrocities

Nobody's talking about it in the United States. Not even Rush Limbaugh. In the American press, there's been a virtual blackout of coverage. In fact, only Agence France Presse, the London Telegraph and the South China Morning Post, of all the world's media, have given any serious attention to the incredible story of United Nations peacekeeping atrocities in Somalia.

You have to ask yourself, why?


How sensational is this non-story? Yesterday, the London Telegraph, in a combined dispatch with AFP, reported that Belgian troops roasted a Somali boy. Roasted him! And what was the sentence for this peace crime committed during an operation dubbed ironically "Restore Hope"? A military court sentenced two paratroopers to a month in jail and a fine of 200 pounds.


And, apparently, this is not just an isolated incident. Another Belgian soldier stands accused of forcing a young Somali to eat pork, drink salt water and then eat his own vomit. Another sergeant is suspected of having murdered a Somali whom he was photographed urinating upon. Another child, accused of stealing food from the paratroopers' base, died after being locked in a storage container for 48 hours. Fifteen other members of the same regiment were investigated in 1995 for "acts of sadism and torture" against Somali civilians.


But, don't worry, says Defense Minister Jean-Pol Poncelet. Any soldier convicted of criminal acts in Somalia will be -- are you ready? -- dishonorably discharged.


The pattern of abuse is also not confined to Belgian troops. Belgium is actually the third country in the peacekeeping group to charge troops with serious crimes against Somali citizens -- including rape, torture and murder. In 1995, a group of Canadian paratroopers were investigated for torturing a Somali to death and killing three others.


Earlier this month, gruesome photos were published in a Milan magazine of Italian soldiers torturing a Somali youth and abusing and raping a Somali girl. Paratroopers claim they were specifically trained in methods of torture to aid interrogation. According to one witness, Italian soldiers tied a young Somali girl to the front of an armored personnel carrier and raped her while officers looked on.


On Monday, the South China Morning Post published an AFP report about an Italian battalion commander who ******ly abused and strangled a 13-year-old Somali boy. There are also allegations that, in 1993, Italian soldiers beat seven suspected Somali thieves, killing one; that they beat to death a 14-year-old boy who sold a false medal and beat a couple in a car.


Last week, an Italian paratrooper was quoted as saying: "What's the big deal? They are just ******s anyway."


Welcome to the New World Order, folks, where, when you get right down to it, we're all just ******s anyway. Here's what you get when you send foreign "peacekeeping" troops into situations they can't begin to comprehend. Do you think the Somali people will ever forget the lessons they learned from these "saviors"?


Isn't this an incredible story? Aren't you amazed you haven't been reading this anywhere else? I mean, how is such a thing possible in this enlightened age of multiculturalism and global communication? Why aren't there high-profile trials for the perpetrators of these savage acts of brutality? Why isn't anyone questioning the expanding role of such peacekeeping operations, given the barbarity of the Somali experience?


I'll tell you why. Because there is a consensus with the political and media establishment elite that such operations are a good thing -- that such operations will inevitably and wisely lead toward more global governance and less nationalism. So, if a few Somalis or Bosnians or Haitians happen to be brutalized along the way, that's just the price one must pay for world peace and prosperity.


I wonder where the survivors of such atrocities are supposed to turn for justice? Do you think the World Court would hear their cases? I doubt it. That's the trouble with centralized power. It's never accountable. But, then again, does it really matter to anyone? I mean, after all, they're just ******s anyway, right?

Link (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=14271)

Those are just two.




I have never ever claimed to know it all, but I do know that I have no use for the Useless Nations being in America!
Thats evident with your tinfoil ranting.

It's tinfoil because you do not agree with it?
I'm not sure why not wanting to give the UN control over our 2nd Am Right is considered tinfoil?




And as you have decided that responding to my posts is a waste of time, I get to have the last word! Yay me.
Learn to read English as you are wrong yet again. :roll:Nowhere in my post did I say I would NOT respond to your posts, I said arguing the validity (with a troll) is a waste of time.

You have decided it is a waste of time to argue the point, yet you still persist to engage my posts...........ok.

As to being a troll, that is a first for me, but I guess, if my opinion does not agree with yours, then I am a troll.




By your own definition, you are casting a slur on the character of many men and women throughout the world, who have voluntarily risked their lives, and lost their lives in the Service of Peace, including members of the US military who served in the UN Forces.

So, that's where the beef lies, not that the Useless Nations are just that, and my complaint that they have never done anything right. You have taken that as a slight towards all troops that have served under UN control. At no point have I said anything of the like, so don't try and twist this into something it is not!





So Yay to me.

OK, then yay to you.



Connaught Ranger

Geezah

[Connaught Ranger]

Well, there is a comeback for you, kid, it's been a long time since I have been called kid.

Well enjoy it before the sap dries and your joints freeze up:p

You seem to have missed my point, after all, the original post was about a guy wanting to give the UN control over the US's 2nd Am Rights.

Anybody in their right mind can see no such idea could ever be brought into being except the tinfoil nutters.

I wrote the following,

Firearms were not the primary weapon of choice in Rwanda, and the UN did not stop what took place, no matter if(as you say) the US is to blame or not! They did not stop it.

You cant stop hundreds of thousands of individual murders located all over the countryside of Rwanda with a very small force of people, the UN Commander could not make troops out of thin air.

Wow, have we had that much interaction, that out of 3 posts you know me that well?

Its a gift.

I would be interested in seeing what the Useless Nations have got right?

Wow, another attack towards me, is that it, or do you have anymore?
Always keep them guessing.

If the only spelling mistake you had to correct was to add a T, then I'm not doing bad, thank you.

Again, we all have arseholes!
Yup yours is located at the tips of your fingers:p



OK, I'm still not seeing it?
Open eyes and feel the focus, Luke!

I did not say it was a country, but they have people that wear those blue hats, and I was under the impression they were under the UNs control?
The U.N. do not have any standing Army, Navy,Airforce, but rely on volunteers from United Nations member states.:roll:

Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/7420798.stm)

Link (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=14271)

Those are just two.

Your links are very interesting particularly the use of the words allegedly or "have been charged", (no final verdict returned), and under investigation, and "claims off" or "claims by" and, yes, you will find criminals in all military forces, worldwide including those of the U.S.A., but, do you judge the entire force on the actions of a few? :roll:

It's tinfoil because you do not agree with it?
I'm not sure why not wanting to give the UN control over our 2nd Am Right is considered tinfoil?

The proposal will never happen, can not ever happen, only in the tiny recesses of the conspiracy theorist tiny minds.

You have decided it is a waste of time to argue the point, yet you still persist to engage my posts...........ok.
Yeah thats the Irish side of the family coming out

As to being a troll, that is a first for me, but I guess, if my opinion does not agree with yours, then I am a troll.
If the tinfoil fits feel free to wear it.

So, that's where the beef lies, not that the Useless Nations are just that, and my complaint that they have never done anything right. You have taken that as a slight towards all troops that have served under UN control. At no point have I said anything of the like, so don't try and twist this into something it is not!

Hate to disagree BUT, you have made no attempt to diffentiate with regards any part of the United Nations Organization in your posts.

OK, then yay to you.

Geezah

Connaught Ranger.

[Geezah]

You seem to have missed my point, after all, the original post was about a guy wanting to give the UN control over the US's 2nd Am Rights.

Anybody in their right mind can see no such idea could ever be brought into being except the tinfoil nutters.


UN Firearms Protocol - has your country ratified?

IANSA (http://www.iansa.org/un/firearms-protocol.htm)


U.N. coming for your guns

Private groups, governments team up to restrict use, ownership of firearms

American gun owners and advocacy groups like the National Rifle Association are suddenly finding that when it comes to firearms legislation, they had better pay attention to what's happening not only in Congress and their state legislatures, but at the United Nations, where the Second Amendment is being quietly dismantled behind closed doors.
Since the end of the Cold War, the disarmament community has brought small arms and light weapons within its sphere of interest, placing them and their "proliferation" on a par with such long-standing concerns as nuclear missiles and bio-chemical weapons. Though the terms tend to be used interchangeably, the United Nations defines small arms as weapons designed for personal use, while light weapons are those designed for several persons operating as a crew. Together, they account for virtually every kind of firearm from revolvers, pistols, rifles, carbines and light machine guns all the way to heavy machine guns, grenade launchers, portable anti-aircraft and anti-tank guns, mortars up to 100 mm caliber, and land mines.

On Sept. 24, United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan, of Ghana, called on members of the Security Council to "tackle one of the key challenges in preventing conflict in the next century" -- the proliferation and "easy availability" of small arms and light weapons, which Annan identified as the "primary tools of violence" in conflicts throughout the world.

It was the first time the council had met to discuss the subject, and Annan praised the United Nations as a whole for playing "a leading role in putting the issue of small arms firmly on the international agenda."

"Even in societies not beset by civil war, the easy availability of small arms has in many cases contributed to violence and political instability," he said. "Controlling that easy availability is a prerequisite for a successful peace-building process."

Talk is one thing, but the Security Council then unanimously adopted the "Report of the Group of Governmental Experts on Small Arms," which had been released Aug. 19 to the General Assembly. The 26-member group's various recommendations, two dozen in all, add up to a comprehensive program for worldwide gun control, and call for a total ban on private ownership of "assault rifles." A few of the recommendations:

All small arms and light weapons which are not under legal civilian possession and which are not required for the purposes of national defense and internal security, should be collected and destroyed by States as expeditiously as possible.

All States should determine in their national laws and regulations which arms are permitted for civilian possession and the conditions under which they can be used.

All States should ensure that they have in place adequate laws, regulations and administrative procedures to exercise effective control over the legal possession of small arms and light weapons and over their transfer in order ... to prevent illicit trafficking.

States are encouraged to integrate measures to control ammunition ... into prevention and reduction measures relating to small arms and light weapons.

States should work towards ... appropriate national legislation, regulations and licensing requirements that define conditions under which firearms can be acquired, used and traded by private persons. In particular, they should consider the prohibition of unrestricted trade and private ownership of small arms and light weapons specifically designed for military purposes, such as automatic guns (e.g., assault rifles and machine-guns).

The report notes with approval countries like China that have acted to "strengthen legal or regulatory controls." China reported that some 300,000 "illicit" guns were seized and destroyed last year by officials acting in response to "new and more stringent national regulations that have come into force ... on the control on guns within the country and on arms exports." France, too, in 1998 "acted to reinforce governmental control over military and civilian arms and ammunition, and introduced more rigorous measures regulating the holding of arms by civilians." And the United States gave assurances that the federal government has taken "a number of relevant national measures." All United States citizens, wherever located, and any person subject to United States law, must now register in order to engage in arms brokering activities. ..." That is, prior written approval from the State Department is required.
Contacted for comment, a State Department official who requested anonymity denied that the report spelled out gun control programs being imposed on this country via the United Nations, despite the fact that a State Department senior foreign affairs specialist, Herbert Calhoun, had served as a member of the group and Secretary of State Madeleine Albright -- representing the United States on the Security Council -- had endorsed the report.

"The United Nations will not dictate domestic gun control for any nation," the official told WorldNetDaily. "They can make recommendations and nations can act on those recommendations as they see fit, but we will never have the United Nations telling countries what they should do."

Questioned about specific recommendations, he replied, "Those are just recommendations -- and surprisingly, a number of countries, including the U.S., take them up on those recommendations. In fact, we support all 24 of those recommendations."

World 'awash' with small arms

The current surge of activity at the United Nations against small arms was signaled in January 1995 by then-Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali in his "Supplement to an Agenda for Peace," a position paper on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the United Nations.

The world, he said, was "awash" with small arms that were responsible for "most of the deaths in current conflicts." Traffic in these weapons is "very difficult to monitor, let alone intercept." Boutros-Ghali urged that since progress had been made in the area of weapons of mass destruction and major weapons systems, "parallel progress in conventional arms, particularly in respect to light weapons," was needed.

In response to Boutros-Ghali's call, in 1997 Secretary General Kofi Annan upgraded the United Nations' disarmament office to departmental status as the Department of Disarmament Affairs, citing his intention to place greater emphasis on small arms and light weapons. The Department for Disarmament affairs is headed by Under-Secretary General for Disarmament Affairs Jayantha Dhanapala of Sri Lanka.

The new department continues to work on the traditional issues of nuclear missile systems, test ban treaties and the like -- but there's now a special website for small arms issues.

This activity at the international level quickly drew the attention of the National Rifle Association, which has posted a warning in a fact sheet on its website.

"While the actions of the U.N. do not have direct impact on U.S. law unless passed as a treaty by the U.N. General Assembly and ratified by the U.S. Senate, ... the U.N. can do a great deal to interfere with gun owners' rights by lending an appearance of legitimacy to oppressive anti-gun measures. It is clear that one of the goals of this effort is to demonize civilian ownership of guns and make strict regulation of firearms appear as the only acceptable alternative."

An 'unholy alliance'

Attorney Thomas Mason, who represents the National Rifle Association at meetings of the United Nations, told WorldNetDaily how this effort to radically reduce private gun ownership is being furthered not only by U.N. bureaucrats and delegates, but with the help of non-governmental organizations -- "NGOs" as they're called -- that have been granted special consultative status to observe the proceedings and, when invited, present information and exert considerable influence on delegates and staff.

"A dynamic for worldwide gun control efforts has developed in the international arena over the past five years -- an unholy alliance between NGOs, small to medium-size governments and the United Nations," said Mason. "People have no idea that the United Nations is a totally closed process. There is no public records law or open meetings law. As a member of the public you do not have an automatic right to attend committee meetings. To get in the door you have to be an accredited NGO."

There are over 1,000 non-governmental accredited organizations dealing with the numerous issues with which the United Nations concerns itself: education, health, land use and the environment, and guns. The National Rifle Association received accreditation in 1995, and is one of only two pro-gun NGOs to have been certified. The other is the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia.

"We sought NGO status to monitor the activities of the U.N. in terms of issues that are important to our membership, more so than to become an active lobbying force there," explained Patrick O'Malley, deputy director of the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action. "That's primarily the role we continue to act in today -- that of observer, monitoring any number of initiatives that they're working on in places as far flung as Geneva, Vienna, Cairo."

"But make no mistake," he added, "We are working actively to ensure that the discussions on specific gun control-connected issues do not in any way pose a threat to our domestic sovereignty or the public policy process that we have here in the United States -- that's the goal of many of the [anti-gun] groups -- to seek a global harmonization -- as they call it -- of domestic gun control laws.

"And when they speak of 'harmonization,' they don't talk about other countries coming to our level where we have a basic right to own a firearm; they're talking about taking the United States to the standard of many other countries where firearms ownership is essentially completely banned.

"There are some highly extremist proposals out there," O'Malley continued, "proposals that range from the bizarre to the ridiculous. Proposals have been put forward that every single round of ammunition manufactured be trackable by satellite so that we can establish a protocol for monitoring what they call 'flows' of small arms and ammunition into areas of conflict."

First landmines, next small arms

This diverse mix of non-governmental organizations -- most with anti-gun agendas -- national governments, and U.N. leaders has been holding workshops and conferences throughout the world on firearms-related issues.

"Workshops in the international arena are essentially meetings to deliberate issues," said Mason. "When a government or NGO sponsors a workshop, it's much more serious than the ordinary person might think. That's where the thinking and talking is done and decisions are made."

One such meeting will be held today at the United Nations headquarters in New York City to discuss the draft of a field guide on light weapons designed for use by humanitarian and relief personnel working in arms control programs in hot spots around the world.

The two-hour technical workshop is sponsored by the Program on Development and Security -- called SAND -- of the Monterey Institute of International Studies, a private graduate school in Monterey, California, and the Bonn International Center for Conversion in Germany. The two "think tanks" are well connected to the United Nations through their work on the international weapons trade and its perceived impact on communities and peace-keeping efforts around the world. Dr. Edward J. Laurance, executive director of the SAND program at the Monterey institute and co-author of the field manual, also serves as a consultant to the United Nations Panel of Governmental Experts on Small Arms and the U.N. Register on Conventional Weapons.

Although it's not unusual for independent groups to give presentations at the United Nations, today's meeting will be chaired by Jayantha Dhanapala, under-secretary general for disarmament affairs. The session and its choice of host are a testimony to the growing influence of NGOs at the United Nations, and highlight the increased attention paid by that body to the "proliferation" of personal firearms throughout the world and their possession by "civilians." The significance of Dhanapala's role heading up the event is well-appreciated by Laurance.

"All NGOs and governments are invited to look at the first draft of our field manual," he told WorldNetDaily. "We're unveiling it at the workshop and getting feedback. But the important thing for us is that the workshop is hosted by the under-secretary general for disarmament."

Laurance sees an even greater role for organizations like SAND and the Bonn International Center in the U.N. decision-making process as that body opens its doors to "civil society."

"Civil society -- that's sort of a buzz word -- meaning NGOs, academic experts, the public at large," he explained. "The U.N. increasingly asks people like me and others as consultants. Increasingly, conferences are held cooperatively with the NGO community, and NGOs are being used to provide information and ideas."

Laurance called attention to the success of NGOs in the International Campaign to Ban Landmines. After six years of campaigning, 129 governments in 1997 signed a treaty banning the production and use of land mines. The United States is not one of them.

If such a campaign worked with landmines, what about personal firearms?

"If you followed the Land Mine Treaty, that's a perfect example of where NGOs were used," he explained. "There was a group of so-called like-minded states that really wanted the treaty and a bunch of others that were on the fence. So the NGOs were used to get the countries that were on the fence to jump in and sign the treaty."

Laurance credits the environmental movement for developing the process domestically and at the international level.

"The environmental groups showed the way," he said. "They had the information and they made it available. We've made that point with the small arms and light weapons issue: that civil society has information, particularly at the local level. It's civil society that's being hurt by these weapons. Civil society can tell governments what weapons are doing the damage and why, and where they come from."

"Many governments understand this," he continued. "The United States is a special case because of the whole gun control issue, and the United States has a very special challenge: They have to constantly worry that what they do in this area internationally doesn't have any domestic effects."

Besides his work in academia and with the United Nations, Laurance and the SAND program are active participants in a newly-formed, globe-spanning coalition of national and international peace, disarmament, humanitarian and anti-gun groups called the International Action Network on Small Arms -- which he helped found. It is the kind of far-flung association that would have been all but impossible to organize and direct in the days before the Internet and e-mail.

'Flame for peace' gun bonfire

"Perhaps the way forward for the peace movement will be the high-tech route, using modern technology to lead campaigns of the 21st century," according to Tamar Gabelnick of the Federation of American Scientists, and a founder of IANSA. In an article describing the new group, Gabelnick wrote, "IANSA will act as a coordinator and facilitator for groups worldwide working to prevent the proliferation and misuse of small arms and light weapons. A small secretariat will be complemented in its role as an information warehouse and facilitator of 'mini-campaigns" by heavy reliance on the web and e-mail. This format will help to harmonize the activities of a diverse group of organizations while allowing the flexibility necessary to address the components of this multi-faceted issue."

Recalling Mason's remarks about the "unholy alliance," funding for the new group has come largely from five agencies of small to medium-size governments: The Belgian Ministry for Development Cooperation; the Swedish Ministry of Foreign Affairs; the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs; the United Kingdom Department for International Development; and the Finnish Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

After several organizing meetings beginning in December 1997, IANSA was formally launched May 11 of this year at The Hague during the Appeal for Peace Conference, which reportedly drew an estimated 7,000 delegates from around the world to celebrate the centennial of The Hague Peace Conferences of 1899. To celebrate the formation of the new coalition, organizers destroyed a collection of firearms donated by governments in a "Flame for Peace" bonfire in the city center.

Four months after its debut, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan spoke glowingly of the new organization for its role in directing public attention to the issue of firearms.

"The momentum for combating small arms proliferation has also come from civil society, which has been increasingly active on this issue," Annan said in his Sept. 24 address to the Security Council. "The establishment early this year of the International Action Network on Small Arms has helped to sharpen public focus on small arms, which has helped us gain the public support necessary for success."

"IANSA is a coalition of non-governmental organizations that was established to organize international efforts for controlling the global trade in firearms -- that's its main purpose," said Michael Klare, one of its founders. Klare teaches Peace and Conflict Studies at Hampshire College in Massachusetts and is co-director of the Project on Light Weapons of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.

"It's not designed to become a large organization on its own," he continued. "People feel very strongly about not creating a new bureaucracy. We don't have officers at this point because the understanding is that the members of IANSA are organizations themselves and only those organizations can set their own policy."

E.J. Hogendoorn of Human Rights Watch and, like Klare, one of IANSA's founders, views it more as a campaign.

"It's a very encompassing campaign by different groups that bring different agendas to the campaign, but all of them center around the misuse of light weapons and small arms," said Hogendoorn. "So, for example, Human Rights Watch -- we're not a gun control organization per se, and traditionally most of our work has been on human rights concerns. But we do care about people selling weapons to human rights abusers."

Like Human Rights Watch, most members of IANSA are not gun control organizations per se, nor are they involved in domestic gun-related issues -- but the measures developed to control gun trafficking at the international level will necessarily require backup by domestic measures. Membership in IANSA is open to non-governmental organizations, community groups and professional associations that support at least some of the group's policy ojectives and "do not oppose or advocate opposition to those objectives which they do not explicitly support." Organizers have developed a list of gun control measures IANSA supports, including:

[i]Reducing the availability of weapons to civilians in all societies.

Providing resources to develop the capacity in national and local governments to achieve effective controls over small arms possession and use.

Promoting safe storage practices for small arms on the part of citizens and states.

Systematic collection and destruction of weapons that are illegally held by civilians.

Collection and verifiable destruction of surplus weapons as part of U.N. peacekeeping operations.

Promoting programs to encourage citizens to surrender illegal, unsafe or unwanted firearms.

Banning the advertisement and promotion of small arms to civilians.

International gun control treaty coming?

At least 200 organizations have signed on with IANSA as supporters or active participants, including Human Rights Watch, the Federation of American Scientists, Pax Christi, World Council of Churches, Amnesty International, Gun Free South Africa, Viva Rio, the leading anti-gun group in Rio de Janiero, the Arias Foundation in Costa Rio, and the British American Security Information Council -- or Basic, which has offices in London and Washington.

The lobbying efforts of IANSA and "like-minded" governments has begun paying off. A conference is in the works to be held in 2001 that will cover all aspects of small arms -- and some kind of a firearms protocol or treaty will probably be on the agenda.

According to the National Rifle Association's Tom Mason: "Proposals are being floated of an international treaty banning civilian possession of military-style firearms -- though it's impossible to distinguish military from civilian; other proposals are calling for the destruction of all surplus military firearms, calling for the registration and regulation internationally of all manufacturing and shipping of firearms -- there's a whole series of very radical proposals.

"They will have their first meeting to prepare for the conference on February 28," Mason said.

"We will be there," he promised.


Link (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=17276)

While you may think it is tinfoil to see the UN as a threat to our Rights. It is not and through groups like IANSA(Rebecca Peters), which is heavily funded by George Soros, who Obama met with in New York prior to becoming President, they have their eyes set on the 2nd Am.




Firearms were not the primary weapon of choice in Rwanda, and the UN did not stop what took place, no matter if(as you say) the US is to blame or not! They did not stop it.

You cant stop hundreds of thousands of individual murders located all over the countryside of Rwanda with a very small force of people, the UN Commander could not make troops out of thin air.

Basically, those bent on commiting murder would not have been stopped by the UN no matter how many blue helmets were on the ground.





I did not say it was a country, but they have people that wear those blue hats, and I was under the impression they were under the UNs control?

The U.N. do not have any standing Army, Navy,Airforce, but rely on volunteers from United Nations member states.

OK, they still wear blue helmets and fly the UN flag don't they, and while wearing the helmet and flying the flag, they are under the control of the UN aren't they?



Your links are very interesting particularly the use of the words allegedly or "have been charged", (no final verdict returned), and under investigation, and "claims off" or "claims by" and, yes, you will find criminals in all military forces, worldwide including those of the U.S.A., but, do you judge the entire force on the actions of a few?

OK, but these atrocities took place by troops that were under the control of the UN.
No matter how you paint it, I'm pretty sure this actually happend!
http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/UN/over_fir.jpg





It's tinfoil because you do not agree with it?
I'm not sure why not wanting to give the UN control over our 2nd Am Right is considered tinfoil?

The proposal will never happen, can not ever happen, only in the tiny recesses of the conspiracy theorist tiny minds.

Read the information at the top of the page, it has been pushed and the Useless Nations will not stop until they get their way.





So, that's where the beef lies, not that the Useless Nations are just that, and my complaint that they have never done anything right. You have taken that as a slight towards all troops that have served under UN control. At no point have I said anything of the like, so don't try and twist this into something it is not!

Hate to disagree BUT, you have made no attempt to diffentiate with regards any part of the United Nations Organization in your posts.

The Useless Nations is nothing more than a paper tiger, and while you see my posts as an insult to the troops that have served under their flag. You should only take it as an insult, if you have been involved in some of the acts that I have supplied information on above.




Connaught Ranger.

[11 Bravo]

The "useless Nations" needs to die off like the "League of Nations did. Good riddance to such garbage !.

[MaverickCowboy]

I wanna party with you Cowboy.

Somebody call?

[Connaught Ranger]

The "useless Nations" needs to die off like the "League of Nations did. Good riddance to such garbage !.
A very (un)intelligent remark, are you Geezah number 1 fan boy:roll:

[MaverickCowboy]

A very (un)intelligent remark, are you Geezah number 1 fan boy:roll:

i guess not loving the UN means im a geezah fanboi too.
ill be number 2.

[Connaught Ranger]

IANSA (http://www.iansa.org/un/firearms-protocol.htm)

Link (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=17276)

While you may think it is tinfoil to see the UN as a threat to our Rights. It is not and through groups like IANSA(Rebecca Peters), which is heavily funded by George Soros, who Obama met with in New York prior to becoming President, they have their eyes set on the 2nd Am.

The dis- "information" you post, is in connection to the selling of small arms to third world counties, the U.N. and others have expressed an intrest in stopping the selling on to poorer undeveloped nations hundreds of thousands of small arms that many militarys find are now surpluss to their invantorys and end up in the hands of "legitimate" arms sellers.



Basically, those bent on commiting murder would not have been stopped by the UN no matter how many blue helmets were on the ground.

So why the whine about the U.N.?, were the U.S. military for example, able to solve the problems in Somalia, where there were very numerous on the ground? or both the U.S. & British military able to end hostilitise in Afghamistan or Irag?

OK, they still wear blue helmets and fly the UN flag don't they, and while wearing the helmet and flying the flag, they are under the control of the UN aren't they?

The troops on the ground are under the control of their own officers and NCO's and come under the rules and regulations and codes of conduct of their own country first and foremost, there are no U.N. Military Regulationsof Discipline etc..etc..



OK, but these atrocities took place by troops that were under the control of the UN.
No matter how you paint it, I'm pretty sure this actually happend!
http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/UN/over_fir.jpg
These troops pictured, as any on military service UN or otherwise are subject to having the case investigated by their own countrys military command structure, and if determined a crime was commited to face any punishment awarded by their military.

Read the information at the top of the page, it has been pushed and the Useless Nations will not stop until they get their way.
Blah! Blah! Blah! you are starting to sound like a broken record:roll:

The Useless Nations is nothing more than a paper tiger, and while you see my posts as an insult to the troops that have served under their flag. You should only take it as an insult, if you have been involved in some of the acts that I have supplied information on above.
Oh! so if I disagree with your twisted version of the events, I have to be guilty of being involved in a cover up, sorry but I was not at Abu-Graib, and niether were the U.N.:roll:

Connaught Ranger.

[playtym]

A very (un)intelligent remark, are you Geezah number 1 fan boy:roll:

It's been a long week for him. ;-)

[Bulletproof]

The "useless Nations" needs to die off like the "League of Nations did. Good riddance to such garbage !.

Yeah and if the UN wasn't there you wouldn't even know wtf is the swine flu. Let's all go back to the international relations of pre-1900s, damn brillant!

[Connaught Ranger]

i guess not loving the UN means im a geezah fanboi too.
ill be number 2.

Ok you are Number 2, NEXT!:roll:

[marktigger]

The "useless Nations" needs to die off like the "League of Nations did. Good riddance to such garbage !.

And what was the effect of that?

At least the UN gives a forum to try and stop things escalating. And they do provide a hell of alot of other missions to help. During much of the 60's,70's & 80's the UN was crippled by the US/USSR playing power politics. The UN is a good orginisation yes it needs some reformong but is no more corrupt than many large multinationals.

[Geezah]

While you may think it is tinfoil to see the UN as a threat to our Rights. It is not and through groups like IANSA(Rebecca Peters), which is heavily funded by George Soros, who Obama met with in New York prior to becoming President, they have their eyes set on the 2nd Am.

The dis- "information" you post, is in connection to the selling of small arms to third world counties, the U.N. and others have expressed an intrest in stopping the selling on to poorer undeveloped nations hundreds of thousands of small arms that many militarys find are now surpluss to their invantorys and end up in the hands of "legitimate" arms sellers.

How is it disinformation?

Rebecca Peters was partly to blame for the push to remove a large amount of firearms out of civilian hands in Australia. IANSA is funded by George Soros. Obama met with George Soros in 2006, at his offices in NY.

The UN has shown an interest in all parties signing onto their treaty, which is pushed as helping the Third World but also restricts our rights in the US.




OK, they still wear blue helmets and fly the UN flag don't they, and while wearing the helmet and flying the flag, they are under the control of the UN aren't they?

The troops on the ground are under the control of their own officers and NCO's and come under the rules and regulations and codes of conduct of their own country first and foremost, there are no U.N. Military Regulationsof Discipline etc..etc..

So they are not under the control of the UN?



These troops pictured, as any on military service UN or otherwise are subject to having the case investigated by their own countrys military command structure, and if determined a crime was commited to face any punishment awarded by their military.

Which is exactly what was mentioned in the quotes I provided.

Here is another quote.....

"Code of Personal Conduct for Blue Helmets" requires that peacekeepers "respect and regard the human rights of all"? Gould reports that a UN spokesman dismissed the acquittal of Baert and Coelus by insisting that "the UN is not in the habit of embarrassing governments that contribute peacekeeping troops."

Link (http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/UN/peace.htmlhttp://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/UN/peace.html)

So you find in the majority of cases of abuse, there is a history of inaction to punish those that while wearing blue helmets have abused people in the countries where they are supposed to offer protection.




Read the information at the top of the page, it has been pushed and the Useless Nations will not stop until they get their way.
Blah! Blah! Blah! you are starting to sound like a broken record

While you have offered nothing of substance to this discussion, only insults and dribble like your comment above.




The Useless Nations is nothing more than a paper tiger, and while you see my posts as an insult to the troops that have served under their flag. You should only take it as an insult, if you have been involved in some of the acts that I have supplied information on above.
Oh! so if I disagree with your twisted version of the events, I have to be guilty of being involved in a cover up, sorry but I was not at Abu-Graib, and niether were the U.N.

Twisted version of events, I did not make up the anything involving those that operate under the UN flag commiting acts of abuse, so why try and dismiss it as my twisted version of events?

As to Abu-Ghraib, I seem to remember those involved being punished for their crimes..........

[Eye]

(http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,623518,00.html)

[marktigger]

To be honest there is alot to be said about global gun control. Standard world wide rules would make sportsmens lives alot easier an international gun liscence would probably make serious competitive shooters alot less complicated. Serious international legislation to prevent the spread of firearms to criminals. And the prevention of migration of firearms to trouble spots would save alot of grief. I would also sugest standardisations of legal definitions and catagories of firearms. All balanced with legislation to protect the law abiding shooter.

[MaverickCowboy]

To be honest there is alot to be said about global gun control. Standard world wide rules would make sportsmens lives alot easier an international gun liscence would probably make serious competitive shooters alot less complicated. Serious international legislation to prevent the spread of firearms to criminals. And the prevention of migration of firearms to trouble spots would save alot of grief. I would also sugest standardisations of legal definitions and catagories of firearms. All balanced with legislation to protect the law abiding shooter.

would never happen since guns are bad.

[Walter Sobchak]

Yeah and if the UN wasn't there you wouldn't even know wtf is the swine flu. Let's all go back to the international relations of pre-1900s, damn brillant!

The United Nations was a coalition to win World War II for the Allies. It was also decided to set aside a place where those members could get together and talk about issues that had lead to the last two world wars and, if the situation was warranted, act as a unified body of law-abiding nations and do something about it. They passed rules by which member states had to abide. The original members had a permanent seat and veto in the Security Council. In 1950, the UN banned together, except for the Soviets who went and pouted, to stop the illegal invasion of Korean ('illegal' as defined by UN rules).

Since then, the body has gotten involved in matters way beyond its original scope. It has become a cash machine for third world governments who send "peacekeepers" into troubled nations to "protect" innocents and non-combatants, often preying on those people in terrible ways. Member nations routinely violate the rules without sanction or reproach. The US pays the lions share of the UN's bill, and the poor people of NYC have to put up with the limousines double-parking with their diplomatic plates and the UN member representative's excesses, protected as they are by diplomatic immunity. It has become politicized, ineffectual, corrupt and powerless. It's time to move on to, "International Global Diplomacy III".


To be honest there is alot to be said about global gun control. Standard world wide rules would make sportsmens lives alot easier an international gun liscence would probably make serious competitive shooters alot less complicated. Serious international legislation to prevent the spread of firearms to criminals. And the prevention of migration of firearms to trouble spots would save alot of grief. I would also sugest standardisations of legal definitions and catagories of firearms. All balanced with legislation to protect the law abiding shooter.

Tigger... you are living in a fantasy land! Remember, any law is a compromise. Imagine the common denominators involved in any international gun standards or legislation! You'd be lucky to own a freaking dog named 'Bullet'! Also, no gun law ever did anything for a law abiding gun owner except to criminalize much lawful behavior, because criminals don't give a damn about gun laws.

[Connaught Ranger]

It has become a cash machine for third world governments who send "peacekeepers" into troubled nations to "protect" innocents and non-combatants, often preying on those people in terrible ways. Member nations routinely violate the rules without sanction or reproach. The US pays the lions share of the UN's bill, and the poor people of NYC have to put up with the limousines double-parking with their diplomatic plates and the UN member representative's excesses, protected as they are by diplomatic immunity. It has become politicized, ineffectual, corrupt and powerless. It's time to move on to, "International Global Diplomacy III".


Sure that's why the Irish Republic have been involved in U.N. Peacekeeping and Observer Missions since the mid to late 1950's, just to get us out of the Third World rut we were stuck in. :roll:

Your blanket assessment / opinion is obviously motivated due to having problems finding a suitable car parking space in New York. rofl

U.N. members are official representatives of their countries foreign policies at the U.N. (and believe it or not the world would be a far worse place without such institution,) at least this way certain "players" on the world stage including the U.S.A., do not get to throw their weigh around freely.p-)

Connaught Ranger.

[budgie]

Back to the OP, this suggestion of international regs seems aimed at keeping track of the flow of arms across borders. It doesn't say anything about regulating the laws covering domestic purchase and ownership within any individual country. The right is simply whining again that Obama and the lefties are trying to "pry their gurns from their cold dead fingers." Ain't gonna happen as long as you have a vote. And that's not gonna change either.

[Dinges]

The United Nations was a coalition to win World War II for the Allies.

Nope.


The United Nations is an international organization founded in 1945 after the Second World War by 51 countries committed to maintaining international peace and security, developing friendly relations among nations and promoting social progress, better living standards and human rights.

http://www.un.org/en/aboutun/index.shtml

[LazerLordz]

Sometimes, that portion of American gun owners who jump easily to misguided conclusions have to realise that there is a raging gun problem outside their borders, and tracking illegal movement of weaponry is something that will happen one day or another.

Having a global regime to regulate arms movements is not attacking your 2nd Amendment rights, because as we all know, what is proposed in theory usually becomes modified to suit the tastes of the member states, so while the shell remains, what's inside is usually more palatable to the common denominator.

Your right to own guns end at the boundary where you cannot keep track of your guns and they slip out of legal ownership and consequentially may be out of the country as well.

[Geezah]

Sometimes, that portion of American gun owners who jump easily to misguided conclusions have to realise that there is a raging gun problem outside their borders, and tracking illegal movement of weaponry is something that will happen one day or another.

No, there is a problem with those that choose to break the law.

I fully understand that bans or restrictions in other countries have only restricted the law abiding access, didn't do a thing to stop the crimina; element.




Having a global regime to regulate arms movements is not attacking your 2nd Amendment rights, because as we all know, what is proposed in theory usually becomes modified to suit the tastes of the member states, so while the shell remains, what's inside is usually more palatable to the common denominator.

No thank you, and what they propose is allot deeper than you make out.



Your right to own guns end at the boundary where you cannot keep track of your guns and they slip out of legal ownership and consequentially may be out of the country as well.

May is like If.

[hsh2]

Your right to own guns end at the boundary where you cannot keep track of your guns and they slip out of legal ownership and consequentially may be out of the country as well.

Never heard of a gun owner who just lost his weapons let alone who had his weapons turn up in foreign criminals hands.

Then again what do I know. Unlike you Singaporeans, I come from a country with extremely severe gun laws and virtually non existant ownership and usage be it for sport shooting, hunting and self-defense.

[LazerLordz]

Never heard of a gun owner who just lost his weapons let alone who had his weapons turn up in foreign criminals hands.

Then again what do I know. Unlike you Singaporeans, I come from a country with extremely severe gun laws and virtually non existant ownership and usage be it for sport shooting, hunting and self-defense.

Never is a very loaded term. What about the Mexican problem at hand?

(sorry, ain't a fan of double backhandedness)

[hsh2]

Never is a very loaded term. What about the Mexican problem at hand?

(sorry, ain't a fan of double backhandedness)

LazerLordz are you familiar with American gun laws?

[ ] Yes
[ ] No

If Yes fine, if No please do your homework first. And by familiar I don't mean "Hell yeah, I watched Bowling for Columbine".

It's really no use discussing literature with an analphabet you know...

[LazerLordz]

LazerLordz are you familiar with American gun laws?

[ ] Yes
[ ] No

If Yes fine, if No please do your homework first. And by familiar I don't mean "Hell yeah, I watched Bowling for Columbine".

It's really no use discussing literature with an analphabet you know...

Bowling for Columbine is nothing more than specious spin.

And no, I may not know the full spread of gun control laws in America, but I do understand it is governed like patchwork through multiple state or federal laws regarding ownership which may overlap from time to time.

That said, I feel IMHO, that the issue here with gun control and any impact of respective legislation may not be entirely domestic in nature, and I am merely stating my opinion on how gaps in domestic legislation and international legal regimes can have a two-way impact on each other.

Sure, you may argue that there's no way an international gun control regime may pass, but it is also altogether fantastical to say that the notion of unfettered ownership will remain in the same state of affairs as now.

Whether people are happy with international "snooping around" in their own legal backyard, it doesn't matter. It's an increasingly connected world, and it is increasingly impossible to argue against dilution of sole privilege of national authority ipso facto...

[hsh2]

Bowling for Columbine is nothing more than specious spin.

And no, I may not know the full spread of gun control laws in America, but I do understand it is governed like patchwork through multiple state or federal laws regarding ownership which may overlap from time to time.

That said, I feel IMHO, that the issue here with gun control and any impact of respective legislation may not be entirely domestic in nature, and I am merely stating my opinion on how gaps in domestic legislation and international legal regimes can have a two-way impact on each other.

Sure, you may argue that there's no way an international gun control regime may pass, but it is also altogether fantastical to say that the notion of unfettered ownership will remain in the same state of affairs as now.

Whether people are happy with international "snooping around" in their own legal backyard, it doesn't matter. It's an increasingly connected world, and it is increasingly impossible to argue against dilution of sole privilege of national authority ipso facto...

I thought you wanted to hear my opinion on the "Mexico problem at hand"...No problem though:)

If you still want to hear my opinion read the following articles:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h_rVk1HgkFiFfebRbfBx-lHnZGZgD97M25K81
http://www.factcheck.org/politics/counting_mexicos_guns.html (yes hard left factcheck. even they get it)
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2009/04/02/myth-percent-guns-mexico-fraction-number-claimed/
http://www.mexidata.info/id2226.html

furthermore apply common sense and read what Linedoggie has written, he nails it:
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=156717

[Geezah]

And no, I may not know the full spread of gun control laws in America, but I do understand it is governed like patchwork through multiple state or federal laws regarding ownership which may overlap from time to time.

Some States impose greater restrictions on the Law Abiding than are called for by Federal Law, those States seem to have the highest violent crime levels in the Country.

I would say you do not have a full understanding at all of how firearm laws work over here.

If the laws on the books were enforced, there would be no need to keep on pushing for greater restrictions on the legal ownership of hot weapons.

[Walter Sobchak]

Nope.



http://www.un.org/en/aboutun/index.shtml

Don't believe everything you read on the Internet, especially on the UN website!

The concept of United Nations was alive and well during the war. That's where the "Four Freedoms" originated. I think it was FDR himself, who coined the phrase, "united Nations". It was part of whole "why we fight" informational campaign.

The organization of the same name was created out of the ashes of the war, initiated by the victorious powers. No one just woke up in 1945 and said, "Heyyyy! Let's create an organization dedicated to keeping and maintaining Whirled Peas!"

Read your history!

[Walter Sobchak]

Never is a very loaded term. What about the Mexican problem at hand?

(sorry, ain't a fan of double backhandedness)

Around 7% of guns in Mexico are coming from the US, which accounts for stolen and illegal weapons passing over the border. Billions in narco-profits lubricate the somewhat less than clean political machinery in Mexico and in nations around the world - many with strict gun laws for their citizens - so that foreign-made weapons slip easily into Mexico.

It's funny that all these guns that supposedly originate in America are never seen. Furthermore, no one with a clean record who supposedly buys these guns for criminals is being brought to justice. I mean, that if I buy a gun for my buddy Ignacio and swap him some purple haze for it, and the gun is recovered in Mexico, there is a clean paper trail right back to mi casa. In that case, I'm in serious trouble. It's not happening! It's a straw-man for the anti-gun crowd!

Mexico is proof that gun laws do not work. Mexico is awash in crime, narco-dollars and illegal weapons. Anyone see a correlation here? The only people disarmed by gun laws in Mexico are the law abiding!!!

[Dinges]

Don't believe everything you read on the Internet, especially on the UN website!

The concept of United Nations was alive and well during the war. That's where the "Four Freedoms" originated. I think it was FDR himself, who coined the phrase, "united Nations". It was part of whole "why we fight" informational campaign.

The organization of the same name was created out of the ashes of the war, initiated by the victorious powers. No one just woke up in 1945 and said, "Heyyyy! Let's create an organization dedicated to keeping and maintaining Whirled Peas!"

Read your history!

I've read my history. Trust me.


I think it was FDR himself, who coined the phrase, "united Nations".True



The concept of United Nations was alive and well during the war.There was a "Declaration by United Nations" - not an institution as we see today.True


But the real thing I wanted to say was the UN you referred to in this thread regarding gun control laws had nothing to do with the declaration fighting axis powers. So if you insist on attacking one and its ideals - pick one.

[Walter Sobchak]

But the real thing I wanted to say was the UN you referred to in this thread regarding gun control laws had nothing to do with the declaration fighting axis powers. So if you insist on attacking one and its ideals - pick one.

All I said was that it began during the war as an idea of a dying president and turned from its noble beginnings into a sewer where countries like Libya are chairing the Human Rights Committee.

[MaverickCowboy]

okay. so some of you want gun registration and ammo registration and micro stamping and an international body with names of gun owners.

bit orwellian to me.

[MaverickCowboy]

Bowling for Columbine is nothing more than specious spin.

And no, I may not know the full spread of gun control laws in America, but I do understand it is governed like patchwork through multiple state or federal laws regarding ownership which may overlap from time to time.
No, its not patch work. There are federal laws and the states add MORE restrictions on top of them if they please.
That said, I feel IMHO, that the issue here with gun control and any impact of respective legislation may not be entirely domestic in nature, and I am merely stating my opinion on how gaps in domestic legislation and international legal regimes can have a two-way impact on each other.

Sure, you may argue that there's no way an international gun control regime may pass, but it is also altogether fantastical to say that the notion of unfettered ownership will remain in the same state of affairs as now.
your suggesting that more gun bans will come?

Whether people are happy with international "snooping around" in their own legal backyard, it doesn't matter. It's an increasingly connected world, and it is increasingly impossible to argue against dilution of sole privilege of national authority ipso facto...
your saying its increasingly impossible to defend national sovereignty?

[budgie]

I would say you do not have a full understanding at all of how firearm laws work over here.



No need to: he said it himself in the same post quoted. ;)

How has this turned into a debate over domestic gun laws when the law is clearly meant to cover international sales and movement of weapons?

[Geezah]

No need to: he said it himself in the same post quoted. ;)

Yet he chose to dictate to us that US laws are made up of a patchwork, when he has no idea about hwo it works over here.



How has this turned into a debate over domestic gun laws when the law is clearly meant to cover international sales and movement of weapons?


Those laws would infringe on the Rights of all law abiding firearm owners in the US.

[Walter Sobchak]

Yet he chose to dictate to us that US laws are made up of a patchwork, when he has no idea about how it works over here.




Those laws would infringe on the Rights of all law abiding firearm owners in the US.

Remember, a Treaty signed and ratified by the US Senate will supersede all US laws. That's why these idiotic UN "treaties" are so potentially damaging to US sovereignty. In effect, it allows the UN to dictate US laws. It's not the bogeyman of One World government, but instead it's a very real backdoor through the treaty provision in the US Constitution to allowing laws not created by US lawmakers to be imposed here.

[LazerLordz]

Remember, a Treaty signed and ratified by the US Senate will supersede all US laws. That's why these idiotic UN "treaties" are so potentially damaging to US sovereignty. In effect, it allows the UN to dictate US laws. It's not the bogeyman of One World government, but instead it's a very real backdoor through the treaty provision in the US Constitution to allowing laws not created by US lawmakers to be imposed here.

Wait, don't individual states reserve their own rights afforded them under the laws they signed when they joined the Union, and aren't these rights kept separate from what the federal government mandates? I recall that this was very much alive in the past few months.

That's one check and balance against what you easily call "bogeyman UN laws", ain't it not?

So, one possible outcome would be a treaty ratified at the federal level, and moderated through individual state treatments of this law...? Or is this something that's not likely to be realistically possible in your opinion?

[Mastermind]

Dont judge Obama by the people he associates with or nominates, it has nothing to do with who he is or what he believes in.
Okay...I almost fell for that....Your joke was a good one there.....clearly you must be joking, for no one is possibly stupid enough to acutally believe that.