U.N. Insult to Constitution a Good Reason to Halt U.S. Funding, Says SAF [Archive]

Geezah

06-20-2006, 01:34 PM

In what can only be a carefully-timed, deliberate insult to the United States and its Constitution, the United Nations is hosting a conference on global gun control aimed directly at our Second Amendment, on dates that include our national holiday, July 4.

The U.N. Conference on Global Gun Control, scheduled June 24- July 7, poses a direct threat to our constitutionally-protected individual right to keep and bear arms, said Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF). Gottlieb will attend the conference, but he suggests that this may be an opportune time for Congress and the White House to reconsider this nation's level of financial support for an international organization that now wants to write a treaty that specifically attacks a cornerstone of our federal constitution, and the lynchpin to our liberty.

"Had it not been for our tradition of private firearms ownership," Gottlieb stated, "our citizens might still be subjects of the queen. Had it not been for America, all of Europe might be speaking German. Were America not the 'great arsenal of democracy' that President Franklin D. Roosevelt described in 1940, the world would be a far different place, and the sanctimonious bureaucrats at the U.N. might instead be working in labor camps.

"Not once, but twice in the past century, American citizens have risen to the challenge and quite literally saved the world," Gottlieb recalled. "From our heartland have come heroes like Alvin York, Audie Murphy, Joe Foss and others who grew up in a land of freedom and knew what it took to defend that birthright.

"Yet, as we celebrate our 230th anniversary, global anti- gunners, under the guise of reviewing a U.N. program of action on small arms and light weapons, want to create a binding international agreement that could supersede our laws and constitution," Gottlieb said. "We have done much for the U.N. and in return, the organization has hosted despots, tyrants and dictators whose record of human rights abuses, aggression and genocide speaks for itself. And now comes an attack on our constitution, on our national holiday.

"America has always answered the call to help our international friends and neighbors," Gottlieb observed, "but when our very way of life is attacked, maybe it is time to find more worthy endeavors for our material and financial support."

The Second Amendment Foundation ( http://www.saf.org ) is the nation's oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 600,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.

Link (http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=67753)

.........................

ed316

06-20-2006, 01:43 PM

I like to see them try taking my guns away.

annihilation

06-20-2006, 01:51 PM

I like to see them try taking my guns away.

Don't worry that time will come.....

ed316

06-20-2006, 01:54 PM

Don't worry that time will come.....

The UN and what army?

Merovingi

06-20-2006, 01:55 PM

I'm all for the second ammendment for the right to bear arms but I'm also for more gun control. I don't think this UN "thing" is going to accomplish anything but I'm not really all that informed on this stuff so please forgive my potential ignorance, hehe.

I'm with ed, though.. I'd like to see them try to take my guns.. hah. Though, I have to be honest.. I don't own any (yet). :P

I do have to say that this Gottlieb fella is just a little too "We saved the world, we won WW2 for Europe" and etc.. which just reeks of the arrogance we often called out on. It bugs me.

Eddy

06-20-2006, 01:57 PM

I like to see them try taking my guns away.

I'd like to see you trying to fight back

ed316

06-20-2006, 02:00 PM

I'd like to see you trying to fight back

First of all, how will they disarm Americans? Secondly, I will have to go back into my USMC mode.

Bert

06-20-2006, 02:07 PM

The disarmament movement? This is where Jefferson's militia in the second amendment comes in. Though, the gun confiscators have probably managed to convince the general public that the 'militia' is the National Guard by then. -_-

zad

06-20-2006, 02:15 PM

It is just another steep of the alien conspiration. Soon the black choppers will attack the gun owners with Q-ray cannons....

ed316

06-20-2006, 02:16 PM

It is just another steep of the alien conspiration. Soon the black choppers will attack the gun owners with Q-ray cannons....

Maybe in Spain but not America.

Geezah

06-20-2006, 02:24 PM

First of all, how will they disarm Americans?

Death by a thousand cuts, it will not happen over night. If it does happen, I will need to take up a sport that involves lots of firearms and boats;)

LthrnckZero

06-20-2006, 02:58 PM

Death by a thousand cuts, it will not happen over night. If it does happen, I will need to take up a sport that involves lots of firearms and boats;)

I'm gonna have to start duck hunting with my M4gery.

vryhpyammoadded

06-20-2006, 03:13 PM

It is just another steep of the alien conspiration. Soon the black choppers will attack the gun owners with Q-ray cannons....

Oh yeh… Well, I’ll return fire with dozens of Zardoz heads vomiting millions of free weapons and ammo across the globe to any exterminator who worships me!

Zardoz: "The gun is good."
Zardoz: "The ***** is evil, the ***** shoots seeds.”
Zardoz: “The gun kills the brutal’s”

Read and become enlightened: http://www.badmovies.org/movies/zardoz/ (http://www.badmovies.org/movies/zardoz/)

Beware my cod piece…!

Yes, the UN sucks doesn’t it but so does this movie.

p-)

Hollis

06-20-2006, 03:17 PM

I'm gonna have to start duck hunting with my M4gery.

keep in mind:

http://www.all-creatures.org/cash/media-ducks-wmp.html

Pandy

06-20-2006, 04:14 PM

I always tell people, the second amendment keeps us from becoming a police state.

Geezah

06-20-2006, 04:24 PM

The UK is to spearhead attempts to secure an international arms trade treaty, Margaret Beckett has pledged.

She promised to seek "real progress" at the United Nations after she was presented with a 150,000-strong petition backing calls for action.

Joint support of groups such as Oxfam, Amnesty International and the Defence Manufacturers Association would bolster the case, the foreign secretary said.

The PM backs the campaign for a treaty to make suppliers more accountable.

'Untold misery'

But Barbara Stocking, Oxfam GB director, said while she was grateful to the government for taking a stand, it was now "time for action".

She spoke out ahead of the UN Small Arms and Light Weapons Review Conference which begins on 26 June and which is seen as the first opportunity to move towards global controls.

Mrs Beckett said: "Millions of people, particularly in the world's worst conflict regions, suffer untold misery because of the unregulated trade in arms.

"The humanitarian and moral case for an arms trade treaty is unassailable, but our task is to turn that strong moral case into real progress on the ground.

"By coming together to argue for the setting of universal standards for prevent illegal and irresponsible trade in arms, we are showing that an arms trade treaty can be in the interests of responsible defence companies as well as human rights and development campaigners."

'Strict laws needed'

While she admitted it would be "tough" to reach global agreement, she vowed to press the case for a treaty at the UN and elsewhere.

The UK is working on the drafting of a resolution to put to the UN, she said.

Major General Alan Sharman, director general of the Defence Manufacturers Association, threw his support behind the campaign, but stressed that the industry also had "less altruistic" motives.

He argued that the applying the same strict laws that were in force for UK firms would help improve the image of the industry.

The petition, which features the faces of more than 150,000 people from the UK, has been endorsed by one million people across the world.

The Liberal Democrats criticised Mrs Beckett for not planning to attend next week's United Nations meeting - instead junior international development minister Gareth Thomas will represent the UK.

Lib Dem defence spokesman Nick Harvey said: "The conference is a vital stepping stone towards the adoption of an International Arms Trade Treaty (IATT) and the foreign secretary's absence is a missed opportunity."

Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5099790.stm)

While it's nice that they have had a million sign off on this treaty, I would say 80 million trumps that, also with all the publicity this is getting, I look for the USA to be painted as the bad guys. Ambassodor Bolton will no doubt tell the World nicely we are not interested in signing our rights away.

c62

06-20-2006, 05:31 PM

Geezah

06-20-2006, 05:44 PM

I'm pretty sure the Lend Lease Program helped the Brits out a hell of allot at the time during WW2.

TacoDelRio

06-20-2006, 05:57 PM

Thanks for the info, Geezah.

I have no idea what I would do if the time came in my life. Holy crap. I'm real good at running though.

ViktorNavorski

06-20-2006, 06:13 PM

The UN and what army?rofl

Remember Dave Chappelle's Black Bush on the UN..."OH! WAIT A MINUTE! YOU DON'T HAVE AN ARMY! I guess that means you need to shut the **** up, that's what I'd do if I didn't have an army. I would shut the **** up...SHUT...THE...****...UP..."

TacoDelRio

06-20-2006, 06:15 PM

rofl

Remember Dave Chappelle's Black Bush on the UN..."OH! WAIT A MINUTE! YOU DON'T HAVE AN ARMY! I guess that means you need to shut the **** up, that's what I'd do if I didn't have an army. I would shut the **** up...SHUT...THE...****...UP..."

HAHAHAHA I loved that episode!

Very true. Ain't no indigenous baby blue berets...

ed316

06-20-2006, 06:15 PM

SEAL Sniper

06-20-2006, 06:18 PM

The UN can't make us do anything. The only way we will do anything they want us to is if WE want to do it as well. It's not going to happen UN, good effort though.

I love that skit with Black Bush. Funny as hell.

BlackRain

06-20-2006, 07:22 PM

The UN and what army?

One stone at a time.

First, UN program to have countries destroy all surplus firearms rather than be sold.

Next, UN program to stop the trade in surplus ammo to civilian markets.

It is already happening. Once weapons are restricted, power becomes consolidated in the hands in those who are allowed to have arms.

The United Nations is meeting in July for what is styled as the ''2006 Small Arms Review.'' The purpose of the conference is to develop an internationally supervised gun-control regime.

According to its website, the conference is ''committed to collecting and destroying illegal weapons, adopting and/or improving national legislations that would help criminalize the illicit trade in small arms, regulating the activities of brokers, setting strict import and export controls, taking action against violators of such laws, and better coordinating international efforts to that end.''

What are ''illegal'' weapons? The answer is obvious and troubling. Illegal weapons are whatever the U.N. says they are.

Even more troubling, the conference features as its spokesman, under the exalted title of ''United Nations Messenger of Peace'' . . . actor Michael Douglas.

Hollis

06-20-2006, 09:09 PM

Thanks for the info, Geezah.

I have no idea what I would do if the time came in my life. Holy crap. I'm real good at running though.

running works, real fast running works even better.

FEET DO YOUR THING!!!!!!!!!!!

Telnyashka

06-21-2006, 12:11 AM

chuckster

06-21-2006, 01:41 AM

The UN and what army?

Don't worry. If the UN can't handle a third world dictator like Sadaam, what chance do they have against the USA

TheStorm

06-21-2006, 01:52 AM

Maybe someday internationalism and humanity can overcome petty nationalism...

Perhaps. But they're not going to 'overcome' my rights.

Ea$y-8

06-21-2006, 02:26 AM

http://www.buzzflash.com/bradenton/05/04/images/13bradenton.jpg

Michael RVR

06-21-2006, 03:33 AM

****, its all about you guys eh?

Surely not about rampaging militias in africa running around raping and pillaging. Or about insurgents in Iraq running around blowing everything up.

Right. p-)

zad

06-21-2006, 04:31 AM

BlackRain

06-21-2006, 08:53 AM

Geezah didn´t you started another thread like this a couple of days ago moaning that UN and the rest of the world just want to took off the rights of US civilians to own weapons?

LETS MAKE IT CLEAR

UN wants to make more dificult the international ILEGAL trade of weapons and amunitions to avoid this weapons and amunitions falling in the hands of the wrong guys (islamic terrorist, african militias, narco-militias, countries with weapons import santions...)

when will you understand that the rest of the world DON´T GIVE A **** if you own personal weapons or not????

lets face it, it is your own problem, it doesn´t affect us, we don´t mind if you can own guns or even MGs.

Unfortunately, it is not just 'illegal' weapons and ammo that the UN seeks to ban as pointed out in this thread already.

UN documents make it clear that, since most illegal guns start out as legal purchases, illicit trade must be stopped by clamping down on legal gun owners.

All unmarked or inadequately marked small arms and light weapons are to be confiscated and "expeditiously destroyed." The government is to assure that "no retransfer of small arms and light weapons takes place without prior authorization" by the government because the UN disapproves of the possession of guns by civilians who are "not part of responsible military and police forces."

UN's Plan:

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/smallarms/2001/0109draf.htm

Pille1234

06-21-2006, 10:34 AM

Obviously even grown up adults(?) fear the evil monster under their bed! Momy momy! The UN wants to take my guns away :roll:

Clarsachier

06-21-2006, 11:34 AM

UN dues are high and they're not doing what we (the U.S. administration)want 'em to do.

So any excuse not to pay the UN dues needs to be publicized. However vague. (Quote from White House.)

p-)

Geezah

06-21-2006, 11:46 AM

I'd love to stop paying the majority of their bills, anyway here's more on what the UN and IANSA have planned for the US if they get their way.

U.N. wants global ban on guns By Gina Parker

Acclaimed actor James Earl Jones summarized it best when he commented, “The world is filled with violence. Because criminals carry guns, we decent law-abiding citizens should also have guns. Otherwise they will win and the decent people will lose.” Although that concept seems quite clear to most Americans, the United Nations has failed to grasp its obviousness and is quickly moving towards a global gun ban.

As Wayne LaPierre, Executive Vice President of the National Rifle Association stated, “This fight is about more than firearms ownership. This is a fight for our national sovereignty, our individual freedoms and the future of our nation.”

One organization leading the unprecedented movement to ban guns throughout the world is the International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA). Its director, Rebecca Peters, has ridiculed the idea of women being permitted to own guns for protection against violent attacks. Ridiculing Americans as paranoid, Ms. Peters stated, “I think that eventually, Americans will realize that their obsession with arming themselves in fear, in a paranoid belief that they're going to be able to stave off the ills of the world through owning guns, through turning every house into an arsenal, eventually Americans will go away from that.”

It should not be left to the communist country of Cuba, the terrorist-sponsoring nation Libya, or Sudan - the only country in the world that still allows slavery - to decide whether Americans have the right to bear arms. This summer in the United States, however, these nations, along with others who not only harbor terrorists, but also decry American freedoms, will be drafting the “Treaty on Small Arms” in New York.

As Adolf Hitler warned his fellow fascists, “The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so.”

The Founders of America knew that fact long before Hitler's tyrannical regime, but the founding fathers had confidence and faith in the power of freedom and self-government to lead us to a better, stronger society than pure force could ever accomplish. James Madison noted this in the Federalist, No. 46: “[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation [where] the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”

Madison's words are still true today considering the majority of the 100 nations supporting the U.N. gun ban have nothing comparable to the Bill of Rights - they do not support freedom, they do not support self-government, and they cannot comprehend the liberties our troops protect every day in America.

“We the People” must stop the U.N. gun ban, and I would encourage you to join me by supporting the NRA's “Shot Heard ‘Round the World on the 4th of July.” For more information, please visit www.stopungunban.org/, and as the NRA states, “If millions of gun owners speak with one thundering voice of outrage, we'll stop the global gun ban treaty before it destroys our firearm freedoms.”

Gina Parker is a practicing attorney and CEO of Dental Creations, a dental product manufacturing company.

Link (http://www.navasotaexaminer.com/articles/2006/06/20/news/opinions/editorial03.txt)

c62

06-21-2006, 11:48 AM

Amendments aren't written in stone. They are called amendments because they amend...

+1 point to anyone who knows whats that from.

Maybe someday internationalism and humanity can overcome petty nationalism... If you're referring to the 2nd amendment of the US Constitution(I'm not sure exactly what you're reffering to really), then, no, it can not be amended. The first 10 amendments are the Bill of Rights and can not be amended now and forever more(that's why they're call the BoR).

Pandy

06-21-2006, 12:29 PM

I think on July 4, ALL 80 MIllion gun owners should show up in New York, in camo, weapons out and showing and show how many americans they need to kill before the ban can work... ;)

ROAD TRIP TO NEW YORK EVERYBODY!

My motto, "Take my rights away, I'll kill you." If they sign this and ask us to disarm. I think we should head over to the countries who signed off on them and start our OWN insurgency. Hate goes both ways, and I'm hating them mother ****ers.

Moose

06-21-2006, 12:30 PM

Geezah

06-21-2006, 12:46 PM

^ The UN, IANSA, Oxfam and a few other groups would like to see Americans renounce their 2nd Am rights, just where have you been?
As far as the UN being useless, well, lets see, Rwanda, Liberia, former Yugoslavia, Oil for Food Program just to name a few, and I'm not critising the troops that have have had to serve under the blue flag but the UN is.....well.......crap.

ed316

06-21-2006, 12:47 PM

Really? Are you dumb enough to believe that every American hates the UN? Maybe your media pass text and notes around talking up how good the UN is. Some parts of humanitarian works it's good some not. When the UN wants to trump my rights because it somehow came to a conclusion that I, owning a gun, is somehow fueling a crisis in Africa.

About Saddam here is the resolution pertaining to Iraq. All talk and no action.

http://www.casi.org.uk/info/scriraq.html

Pandy

06-21-2006, 12:55 PM

Why is it that almost every US citizen keeps saying that the UN is useless and bad. What has your media been telling you? I seriously think that there must be some political agenda being trumpeted out of some lobbying groups trying to make the UN look bad. What is it that makes you people hate the UN so much?

And if you seriously think that the UN is trying to take your guns away now or in the future you are being led in to the propaganda fog by Gina Parker (who the ¤%¤% is she) and her likes who probably get paid on their spare time to write this kind of nonsense.

The reason why US people don’t like the UN is because your political top doesn’t want you to like the UN thus there has been a massive character assassination of the UN were these kinds of purposefully misunderstood texts are circulated on “your fair an balanced” media outlets.

You who bring up the UN not dealing with Saddam should seriously take some time and read up on the organisation the conflict the effects of the conflict and look at what the UN wanted to do.
US politicians are skitsophrenic when it comes to the UN.
When it can be used to back an argument they do, but when the UN can be used against their arguments they say that the UN is useless ineffective and has no legal ground…

WRONG MOTHER ****ER, WRONG.

I don't read the news, don't news nothing, I don't media ****. I just know what I know from pass history and actions the united nations has done and review their support and dissupport for our actions as a nation. and my views are that the united nations no longer serves the united states. I didn't say it doesn't serve other weaker nations. NOTE: WEAKER NATIONS

And plus, if the United nations did it's job, it would be helping us with Iraq, or defending Iraq against the united states WITH troops in 2003. They don't do **** but bitch.

tsuri

06-21-2006, 01:07 PM

Oh the ever egocentric United States.

In a world of Genocide, Civil Wars and international arms traficking, a resolution against such is automatically an insult to their constitution?

The effectiveness is debateable but to call this an insult to the constitution of one country among 190 is laughable.

What kind of threat is it for the US not to pay the UN? Like they would do it today..
The General Assembly will take away your voting rights and there is nothing to complain about as this is demanded in the UN charter written by the US themselves ;)

Moose

06-21-2006, 01:23 PM

@ ed316
I said that almost every US citizen on this board not in the usa seems to think that the UN is useless. “Some parts of humanitarian works it's good some not” THANK YOU for enlightening me I could not have reached this conclusion without your help. Seriously though please read the link you gave me and tell me that the UN is all talk and no action. You seem to have the same problem as Geezah.

@ Geezah
I could give similar examples of uselessness of the US government I could also give hundreds upon hundreds of examples of how the UN has proven its importance. I am sorry but you don’t seem to have enough understanding of the organisation and its history.

@ Pandy
Hahaha omh oh my god
I am not kidding you when I say that after reading your post I was seriously laughing out loud. I want to read your comment as sarcasm and I would but I have learned through previous discussions to ask: are you being sarcastic MR Pandy?
I will comment further when I get your answer.

Geezah

06-21-2006, 01:26 PM

Oh the ever egocentric United States.

In a world of Genocide, Civil Wars and international arms traficking, a resolution against such is automatically an insult to their constitution?

And no doubt if employed will work just as well as all the other well thought out plans the UN has put into effect.

The effectiveness is debateable but to call this an insult to the constitution of one country among 190 is laughable.

Even though we foot majority of the bill, but it's ok for 190 nations to make decisions on our tab.

What kind of threat is it for the US not to pay the UN? Like they would do it today..
The General Assembly will take away your voting rights and there is nothing to complain about as this is demanded in the UN charter written by the US themselves ;)

And if we were to lose our voting rights, I'm sure nothing would really change, the UN would still be viewed as a paper tiger.

Geezah

06-21-2006, 01:35 PM

@ Geezah
I could give similar examples of uselessness of the US government I could also give hundreds upon hundreds of examples of how the UN has proven its importance. I am sorry but you don’t seem to have enough understanding of the organisation and its history.

We're talking about how useless the UN is, just what did the UN do in Rwanda, Liberia, former Yugoslavia, and with the Oil for Food Program?
The UN has outlived its usefulness, it's time for it to be revamped, currently the organisation is a laughing stock that as I mentioned above is nothing more than a paper tiger.

Over the years, the UN has played a major role in helping defuse international crises and in resolving protracted conflicts. It has undertaken complex operations involving peacemaking, peacekeeping and humanitarian assistance. It has worked to prevent conflicts from breaking out. And after a conflict, it has increasingly undertaken action to address the root causes of war and lay the foundation for durable peace.

Link (http://www.un.org/Overview/brief2.html)

They do not seem to be doing a very good job do they??????

Clarsachier

06-21-2006, 01:44 PM

tsuri

06-21-2006, 01:49 PM

And no doubt if employed will work just as well as all the other well thought out plans the UN has put into effect.

Maybe, maybe not. The point is, the nations in the UN can do it, want to do it and they are doing it.

Even though we foot majority of the bill, but it's ok for 190 nations to make decisions on our tab.

No. You foot 20 something % of the Bill(if you can be ever be bothered to pay), and you are constantly cutting down funding. In an ideal world the United States would pay 27% of the funds, just as it´s share of the global distribution of money would dictate.

The other nations do not make decisions on "your tab". One state - one vote.

And if we were to lose our voting rights, I'm sure nothing would really change, the UN would still be viewed as a paper tiger.
Thanks to the permanent five, yes.

We're talking about how useless the UN is, just what did the UN do in Rwanda, Liberia, former Yugoslavia, and with the Oil for Food Program?
OFF worked as intendend. If the US were too stupid/lazy to excercise their veto rights in any stage of the program then I do not know why they complain today?! None of the deals involved in the program were secret, all the figures were available to the US and even the public on a freakin website.

UN Peacekeeping failed often. But Peacekeeping Missions are a symptom of the unwillingless of the Permanent Members to act as they are supposed to.

The UN has outlived its usefulness, it's time for it to be revamped, currently the organisation is a laughing stock that as I mentioned above is nothing more than a paper tiger.

We call that a UN Reform, guess who is blocking that.

Hollis

06-21-2006, 01:50 PM

One of the problem with the UN, is enforcement. They really don't have much of a way to enforce a "legal issue" out side of sanctions. Then with Sanction they don't have ways to insure 100% compliance.

Geezah

06-21-2006, 01:58 PM

I did some research cause I wanted a little more independant info about this that from the '2nd amendment' groups.

The info I found after two pages of hysterical sounding 2nd amendment groups was ;

http://www.globalissues.net/news/article1841.htm

From what I see, the initiative clearly indicates that the Ban is totally intended for international traffic of guns. I do not see any focus on internal
U.S. ownership. Exports, yes.

I'm tending to conclude that all this action from the NRA and SAF is more focused to telling the rest of the world how to handle their gun trade rather than the reverse.

Yeah right, international traffic.

Do a little research on Rebecca Peters

"The availability and misuse of guns, the high firearm death rates in many parts of the world and the means by which guns are spread around the world, are aspects of a common global problem - the uncontrolled proliferation of small arms," it said.

The perception that there is a difference between legal and illegal weapons is a dangerous fallacy, the report said.

Link (http://www.theage.com.au/news/World/Gun-violence-a-global-epidemic-report/2006/05/17/1147545354883.html)

It's a death by a thousand cuts, do you really believe it stops there, or once they have find that their Global Treaty is a shame, they will not look to tighten the control on firearms, all firearms.

Here is a line from the Open Society Institute, run by George Soros.

the illegal market in guns lie directly "downstream" from the legal market.

Their goal is to control the legal market, after all they want to disarm everyone, not just the crims.

A quote from IANSA,

“Reduce the availability of weapons to civilians in all societies.”

another from Rebecca Peters,

Semiautomatic weapons are designed to kill large numbers of people. They were designed for military use. Many people have bought them for other purposes, for example, for hunting because they’ve been available. But there’s no justification for semiautomatic weapons to be owned by civilian by members of the civilian population.

Yes, I believe that semiautomatic rifles and shotguns have no legitimate role in civilian hands. And not only that, handguns have no legitimate role in civilian hands….

and more,

I think American citizens should not be exempt from the rules that apply to the rest of the world. At the moment there are no rules applying to the rest of the world. That’s what we’re working for. American citizens should have guns that are suitable for the legitimate purposes that they can prove.

I think that eventually Americans will realise that their obsession with arming themselves in fear, in a paranoid belief that they’re going to be able to stave off the ills of the world through owning guns, through turning every house into an arsenal, eventually Americans will go away from that.

I think Americans who hunt -- and who prove that they can hunt -- should have single shot rifles suitable for hunting whatever they’re hunting. I mean American citizens should be like any other citizens of the world.

Link (http://www.iansa.org/action/gun_debate_transcript.doc)

Amazing how it's only those that favour legal civilian ownership of firearms that are out there.......

Moose

06-21-2006, 02:21 PM

@ Geezah

I can not change you mind and I don’t want to. Your opinion is an opinion and I will show you respect for that. Your opinion has been formed under the circumstances of your life and I can not spend the time nor energy to explain what needs to be explained so that you could balance that against you previous knowledge and perhaps change your viewpoint. I am sorry but you do not SEEM to have enough information of the organisation and its history, neither its modern nor past history.
The view you are expressing sounds like the talking points being delivered by politicians with political agenda in the back of their heads. There is a reason they are saying that the UN is useless there is a reason Mr Bolton was placed in the UN. This does not mean that what the politicians are saying is true however necessary it is for them to say it.

By saying that the UN is “a laughing stock” you are indicating you lack of understanding of issues regarding international politics.

“Over the years, the UN has played a major role in helping defuse international crises and in resolving protracted conflicts. It has undertaken complex operations involving peacemaking, peacekeeping and humanitarian assistance. It has worked to prevent conflicts from breaking out. And after a conflict, it has increasingly undertaken action to address the root causes of war and lay the foundation for durable peace.”

It has done all of this. If you can not accept that you have been affected by an agenda that has turned a large part of the US population against the UN you do not want to see it in any other way.

Let me quote one of your countrymen and you should be able to see how bizarre things look:

“””WRONG MOTHER ****ER, WRONG.

I don't read the news, don't news nothing, I don't media ****. I just know what I know from pass history and actions the united nations has done and review their support and dissupport for our actions as a nation. and my views are that the united nations no longer serves the united states. I didn't say it doesn't serve other weaker nations. NOTE: WEAKER NATIONS

And plus, if the United nations did it's job, it would be helping us with Iraq, or defending Iraq against the united states WITH troops in 2003. They don't do **** but bitch.”””

Pandy wrote this.
There is so much wrong in his statement that I can not even begin to respond.

The UN is IMPORTANT. Anybody saying its not is ……. i am lacking words

BlackRain

06-21-2006, 02:31 PM

@ Geezah
I could give similar examples of uselessness of the US government I could also give hundreds upon hundreds of examples of how the UN has proven its importance. I am sorry but you don’t seem to have enough understanding of the organisation and its history.

I would love to hear just one example of how the UN has proven its importance!

Me and the 300,000 Rwandans, the 100,000 Sudanese, the 200,000 Iraqi's, the Kurds, etc, etc, would love to hear this tale.

The UN these days serves just itself. It is a beaucracy that only knows how to spend money on salaries, perks, meetings, and graft and accomlishes little. The change in its importance in the world is directly related to the number of dictatorships and genocidal regimes that took on leadership positions there.

Moose

06-21-2006, 02:48 PM

@ BlackRain
I am sorry but you do not seem to have enough information of the organisation and its history, neither its modern nor past history.

"The first Human Security Report documents a dramatic, but largely unknown, decline in the number of wars, genocides and human rights abuse over the past decade. The Report argues that the single most compelling explanation for these changes is found in the unprecedented upsurge of international activism, spearheaded by the UN, which took place in the wake of the Cold War"
http://www.humansecurityreport.info/
Produced by the Human Security Centre at the University of British Columbia with support from several governments and published by Oxford University Press.

http://www.wfp.org/english/
http://www.who.int/en/
http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=29008&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html
http://www.unicef.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_UN_peacekeeping_missions

Moose

06-21-2006, 03:27 PM

@ BalckRain and the likes of him

Do a little research I can only help you get started but I do not have the time nor energy to explain everything. I would be glad to discuss some of this after you have read up on the subject, we should be able to have an interesting discussion in a week or so when you have acquired a small light that can guide you out of the abysmal darkness that you seem to be submerged in.
Don’t let your notion of the UN be befuddled by the political smear campaign conducted in the wake of the Iraq war.

Let there be no doubt about it, if the UN would fade away so would millions upon millions of lives too.

The UN is IMPORTANT

Clarsachier

06-21-2006, 04:11 PM

[Geezah]Yeah right, international traffic.

Do a little research on Rebecca Peters

Is she sponsoring the UN Gun Ban herself? I have no problem with her words you posted. I have respect for some of those on both sides of the argument,

As a gun owner, and ofttime carrier since my earliest years, I can't help but be alienated but some of these lunatics on the gun side of the equasion.

Just so you know my personal feelings.

But so far as this iniative goes, I read more on it and yes, it has the potential
to effect the U.S. gun market. Any international treaty concerning gun trafficing's going to affect the United States.

But this article's asserting that it's just an attack on our gun ownership rights and strongly appears to me to be fanatacism verging on paranoia. These people arn't representing my 2nd amendment rights.

Atlantic Friend

06-21-2006, 05:48 PM

I would love to hear just one example of how the UN has proven its importance!

Korean War comes to mind. Cuban missiles crisis is another - although then the UN was more a battleground than a protagonist. Or in 1990 when Iraq invaded Kuwait.

ColonialMarine0431

06-21-2006, 05:51 PM

From my dead cold hands baby.

c62

06-21-2006, 06:38 PM

Korean War comes to mind. Cuban missiles crisis is another - although then the UN was more a battleground than a protagonist. Or in 1990 when Iraq invaded Kuwait. You mean back when the U.S. basically ran the UN? Interesting point AtlanticFriend. It is ironic that the only time the UN seems to function is when Uncle Sam buries his right foot square in it's @$$.

Examples:
Rwanda: No right foot getting buried, no UN action
Bosnia: No right foot, no action
Korean War: Right foot firmly embedded in UN @$$, UN action
Kuwait Invade: Right foot planted, UN action
Human Rights Council overhaul: Right foot planted, some action

c62

06-21-2006, 06:41 PM

@ BalckRain and the likes of him

Don’t let your notion of the UN be befuddled by the political smear campaign conducted in the wake of the Iraq war.
How about the smear campaign over the UN's failure in Rwanda? Balkans? Forcefully confront tyranny?

Let there be no doubt about it, if the UN would fade away so would millions upon millions of lives too. Like Rwanda and the Balkans conflict?

Atlantic Friend

06-21-2006, 06:42 PM

You mean back when the U.S. basically ran the UN? Interesting point AtlanticFriend. It is ironic that the only time the UN seems to function is when Uncle Sam buries his right foot square in it's @$$.

Oh, you basically ran the UN from 1945 to 1990 ? And suddenly in 1990, at the peak of US power, you lost control and everything went awry ? p-)

Hollis

06-21-2006, 06:49 PM

Korean War comes to mind. Cuban missiles crisis is another - although then the UN was more a battleground than a protagonist. Or in 1990 when Iraq invaded Kuwait.
\

I think you brought out what the UN is best for....... TALK. It is a conduit between countries when no other means of commication could be possible. That in itself is justification. My gripe is the UN is in NYC, I think the UN would be better in Paris.

Clarsachier

06-21-2006, 07:05 PM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060621/ts_nm/arms_un_dc;_ylt=AhpGyCk4wJrZrwBEcIuSpYis0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3b2NibDltBHNlYwM3MTY-

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

For another, the U.N. conference will look only at illegal arms and "does not in any way address legal possession," a matter left to national governments to regulate rather than the United Nations, he added.

BlackRain

06-21-2006, 07:19 PM

Oh, you basically ran the UN from 1945 to 1990 ? And suddenly in 1990, at the peak of US power, you lost control and everything went awry ? p-)

In a manner of speaking.

The number of countries that have joined the UN has dramatically increase in the past 25 years.

The influence of the USA has waned since as evidenced by a previous thread showing that the majority of these countries consistently vote against the USA in matters such as reform at the UN, corruption investigation, and international security.

How can take an organization seriously when their Human Rights Committees are chaired by dictatorships and composed of human rights violators.

Its seems that the only thing the UN Human Rights Committee (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0921-03.htm)can focus on is the USA's alleged torture.

ttunavy

06-21-2006, 07:37 PM

I'd like to see you trying to fight back

do you think if it came down to it the united nations would try to disarm america by force?

zad

06-21-2006, 07:52 PM

do you think if it came down to it the united nations would try to disarm america by force?

yeah, they will use the black helicopters and the UFO technology of their alien masters of puppets.....

sorry but the question is so stupid that needs a stupid answer p-)

tsuri

06-21-2006, 07:54 PM

You mean back when the U.S. basically ran the UN? Interesting point AtlanticFriend. It is ironic that the only time the UN seems to function is when Uncle Sam buries his right foot square in it's @$$.

Haha so you ARE an idiot. Korean War could commence because a permanent veto power chose to boycot the security council meetings. The US did not have more influence or more votes than the other states back then, the UN simply worked which shows that the security council sucks totally.

How about the smear campaign over the UN's failure in Rwanda? Balkans? Forcefully confront tyranny?

The UN cannot intervene, Only the Security Council can. The US are in the Security Council, did they call for a Resolution to end genocide anywhere? Not?
The UN General Assembly can send peacekeepers to try to secure cease fire agreements. With very ****ty ROE unfortunately. But as you can see in recent developments, peacekeeping is constantly improving.

The influence of the USA has waned since as evidenced by a previous thread showing that the majority of these countries consistently vote against the USA in matters such as reform at the UN, corruption investigation, and international security
And yet all I can see is the US voting against an international criminal court, against UN Reforms, against the international human rights council

All of these states have one vote, you wanted it when you founded the UN and only lost interest because you can´t use the UN to push your political agenda. Of course the third world is a large voting block, but they vote in western favour since the soviets invaded afghanistan, so I don´t see any problems really.

About the wonderful US UN Reform.
Cut financial aid for the poorest countries? Smooth move! That will surely win the votes...

Its seems that the only thing the UN Human Rights Committee can focus on is the USA's alleged torture.

This is why it was replaced by the Human rights council (http://www.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/)
Human rights violator free as it gets.

do you think if it came down to it the united nations would try to disarm america by force?

How should they ever do that? I think you have a very bizzare image of the UN. The UN cannot pass a resolution against the United States as long as they sit in the Security Council. And even then, no country would be stupid enough to trigger World War 3 only because the US fail to comply with international law. Besides nothing calls for disarming people. Civilian Weapons are to be marked so if they end up in the wrong hands leaks can be traced.

Geezah

06-21-2006, 08:37 PM

The UN is IMPORTANT. Anybody saying its not is ……. i am lacking words

Once upon a time the UN was important, now they are nothing more than a paper tiger.

And as far as my exeriences go, well, it took 6yrs of me living here to realize it is not the firearm that is evil but those that stand behind them and use them to do bad things.

Geezah

06-21-2006, 08:43 PM

Is she sponsoring the UN Gun Ban herself? I have no problem with her words you posted. I have respect for some of those on both sides of the argument,

She is one of the members thta organised the first meeting back in 2001, she is a big part of what will be taking place at the UN and her organisation(IANSA) is funded heavily by George Soros.
Rebecca Peters is a scary woman and should not be ignored, her goal is to totally disarm the law abiding she shes no reason why I as a law abiding citizen should own firearms and this meeting will be one of many that look to disarm all Americans.

But so far as this iniative goes, I read more on it and yes, it has the potential
to effect the U.S. gun market. Any international treaty concerning gun trafficing's going to affect the United States.

But this article's asserting that it's just an attack on our gun ownership rights and strongly appears to me to be fanatacism verging on paranoia. These people arn't representing my 2nd amendment rights.

Trust me, I'm not swayed by those that stand on their soap boxes and preach "the end is nigh", but Rebecca Peters will keep on pushing until the law abiding in the US are no longer allowed to choose to won firearms for their own protection.

TheStorm

06-21-2006, 08:47 PM

This is why it was replaced by the Human rights council (http://www.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/)
Human rights violator free as it gets.

rofl

Are you serious? Have you seen this (http://www.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/membership.htm)? China and Cuba will be members, among other questionables.

LaoSexMachine

06-21-2006, 09:23 PM

yeah, they will use the black helicopters and the UFO technology of their alien masters of puppets.....

sorry but the question is so stupid that needs a stupid answer p-)

As stupid as you believing that conflicts will dissapear if we regulate small arms.

Clarsachier

06-21-2006, 11:14 PM

She is one of the members thta organised the first meeting back in 2001, she is a big part of what will be taking place at the UN and her organisation(IANSA) is funded heavily by George Soros.
Rebecca Peters is a scary woman and should not be ignored, her goal is to totally disarm the law abiding she shes no reason why I as a law abiding citizen should own firearms and this meeting will be one of many that look to disarm all Americans.

Trust me, I'm not swayed by those that stand on their soap boxes and preach "the end is nigh", but Rebecca Peters will keep on pushing until the law abiding in the US are no longer allowed to choose to won firearms for their own protection.

Well if she wants to disarm us, this is a bizzare way to do it. The effects on U.S. gun ownership rights stemming from an international anti-proliferation law should be very minimal.

Undoubtedly export regs and sales will be tightened and I know pro gun folk
who will object to that on varying grounds. This is going to be interesting.

There's a lot of private proliferation, from the U.S.. Once when I worked for the Japanese, I was requested to assist provincial Japanese LE who were trying to determine how to respond to a big increase of (mainly) handguns which were purchased here and brought to Japan in luggage. Japanese obviously arn't shooting each other very much so I guess they just want them cause they think they're cool. (Pretty much like a lot of people.)I hooked up 'em up with LAPD Japanese liason. I'm pretty sure that the Japanese will appreciate Rebecca .

Geezah

06-21-2006, 11:36 PM

Well if she wants to disarm us, this is a bizzare way to do it. The effects on U.S. gun ownership rights stemming from an international anti-proliferation law should be very minimal.

How else would she do it, there is no way she would get the public support she recieved in Australia or the UK for the law abiding to hand over their firearms. Again, it is a death by a thousand cuts, any means possible, she wants to disarm the law abiding and will do what ever it takes to do this.
Do a little research on this new messiah, she is quite scary and I view her as a legitamate threat to my rights, and as such will keep a set of peepers in the back of my head.

Do some research on her and her affiliation to George Soros.

zad

06-22-2006, 04:57 AM

As stupid as you believing that conflicts will dissapear if we regulate small arms.

Frankly I don´t get your point of view, what is wrong with increase the control on international trade of weapons?

Regulate small arms will not end the conflicts but will make more dificult to became small conflicts into bloddy civil wars.

Actually the main problem in Africa is that is too easy to buy rifles and amunitions in the black market, mainly because there are not enought controls on international trade of weapons.

Rifles are force multiplicators, it is better to make sure that they don´t end in the wrong hands.

Can you tell me what do you see wrong in trying to avoid this weapons to fall in the hands of the wrong guys? (islamic terrorists, african militias, narco militias.....)?

Atlantic Friend

06-22-2006, 05:07 AM

U.N. Insult to Constitution a Good Reason to Halt U.S. Funding, Says SAF
Yes it is ! And, and, to destroy the UN building too ! And, and, to lob nukes on the rest of the planet as well !;)

tsuri

06-22-2006, 12:50 PM

Are you serious? Have you seen this? China and Cuba will be members, among other questionables.

I am aware of that. The thing is.
1)There are safeguards that make it possible to remove a country from the council if violations on their part occur
2) Due to the fact that the whole world has to be represented, you unfortunately have to compromise. If you have not noticed, countries with flawless human rights records are not in abundance outside of europe.

The system is better yet not perfect. The best possible solution is good enough because it is possible.

Yes it is ! And, and, to destroy the UN building too ! And, and, to lob nukes on the rest of the planet as well !

I can agree on the first part. The only thing holding this building together are the bugs that various countries installed in the walls.

LaoSexMachine

06-22-2006, 09:50 PM

Frankly I don´t get your point of view, what is wrong with increase the control on international trade of weapons?

Regulate small arms will not end the conflicts but will make more dificult to became small conflicts into bloddy civil wars.

Actually the main problem in Africa is that is too easy to buy rifles and amunitions in the black market, mainly because there are not enought controls on international trade of weapons.

Rifles are force multiplicators, it is better to make sure that they don´t end in the wrong hands.

Can you tell me what do you see wrong in trying to avoid this weapons to fall in the hands of the wrong guys? (islamic terrorists, african militias, narco militias.....)?

If people want it they will find a way. You regulate it, the black market will be a 100 times then what it is now. Look at the drug trade. If there is a need someone will provide it no matter how much you regulate it. What you need is to have dialogue between warring factions so it doesn't lead to arm conflict. If they can't get a gun a machete or club will do. Death no less.

Geezah

06-22-2006, 09:55 PM

Rwanda proved that you do not need firearms to wipe out hundreds of thousands, where there is a will there is a way.

Mastermind

06-23-2006, 10:22 AM

I stand behind my Constitution...I have defended it before and I will defend it again. There are millions more in the USA just like me.

Alael

06-24-2006, 08:46 AM

See what UN says:

http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?idq=/ff/story/0002/20060621/1735824548.htm

Gun owners accuse UN of July 4 conspiracy
By Irwin Arieff

UNITED NATIONS (*******) - Americans mistakenly worried the United Nations is plotting to take away their guns on July 4 -- U.S. Independence Day -- are flooding the world body with angry letters and postcards, the chairman of a U.N. conference on the illegal small arms trade said on Wednesday.

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

"That is a total misconception as far as we are concerned," Kariyawasam told reporters ahead of the two-week meeting opening on Monday.

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

For another, the U.N. conference will look only at illegal arms and "does not in any way address legal possession," a matter left to national governments to regulate rather than the United Nations, he added.

The campaign is largely the work of the U.S. National Rifle Association, whose executive vice president, Wayne LaPierre, warns on an NRA Web site (http://www.stopungunban.org/) of a July 4 plot "to finalize a U.N. treaty that would strip all citizens of all nations of their right to self-protection."

Kariyawasam said, "The U.N. conference will not negotiate any treaty to prohibit citizens of any country from possessing firearms or to interfere with the legal trade in small arms and light weapons."

U.N. CONSPIRACY -- OR STRONGER CONTROLS?

LaPierre, who also uses the site to pitch his new book, "The Global War on Your Guns," asks NRA members to send letters to Kariyawasam and U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan warning that "the American people will never let you take away the rights that our 4th of July holiday represents."

The group also asks members to write to John Bolton, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, urging him to "ensure the defeat of this treaty." Bolton's office confirmed he had received tens of thousands of cards from concerned Americans.

"We understand their concerns and will work during the conference to communicate their concerns," Bolton spokesman Richard Grenell said.

At the same time, 1 million people around the world -- symbolizing the number of people killed by guns since the last U.N. small arms conference in 2001 -- have signed a petition backing stronger controls on arms deals in a campaign organized by Oxfam International, Amnesty International and the International Action Network on Small Arms.

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

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

I observed that excepted in USA where the NRA is strong enought to protect legal gun owners, in Europe all firearms are progressively banned without effects on criminality. Criminality even get worse: like in UK after pistol ban in 1996-1997.
And in all countries in Europe there are legal guns ban programs, in UK they are now even try to ban swords, in France, in Belgium even in Switzerland where a great anti-firearms offensive is done on medias.

In Belgium a politician who suggests to ban legal guns is the same who suggests to not punish crimes and release criminals who are condamned to a sentence less than 6 month of jail, or to legalize some drugs.
In France we can see that as the gun ban mentality increase among politicians, an overprotection for criminals, in the name of "human rights" increase too, as if the will is to avoid people to shoot on criminals.
(This week (thursday night) in France 3 policemen was almost lynched by 15 youngs criminals, the same kind who set France into hell in november 2005, and these policemen though armed couldn't use their pistols, because a policeman who use firearms against "non-armed" criminals has lot of risks to go to jail, though one of these policemen was near to remain quadraplegic after been --like his 2 collegues-- caught by 5 criminals, immobilized on the ground and beated extremely violently. US laws allow a policeman to warn and shoot for far less, because the safety of a policeman is more important than the safety of a criminal)

It's funny: excepted in USA, a gun ban "epidemic" is spreading on the world, where could it come from?

....bless America and long live to NRA!...