UN/IANSA Gun Ban(or is that treaty)

[Geezah]

Well it's kicked off at the UN, and it would seem that there are some countries that do not like the idea of civilians legally owning firearms.
And I thought this had nothing to do with legally held firearms???


Indonesia’s representative
“We believe that no armed group outside of the State should be allowed to bear weapons. We also believe that regulating civilian possession of Small Arms/Light Weapons will enhance our efforts to prevent its misuse. In our view, the issue of ammunition should also be addressed in the context of the Program of Action because in the absence of ammunition, small arms and light weapons pose no danger.”

Link (http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/CamEdwards/2006/06/27/202729.html)


portion of Canada's statement to the conference
Mr. President, we must reduce the misuse of small arms and light weapons by civilians, as civilians possess more than 60% of the world's 600 million or more small arms . Most are used responsibly for hunting or target shooting . Others are used for illicit purposes .

Tremendous gains can be made by States through simple measures such as the implementation of a licensing regime that establishes clear criteria for the lawful ownership aid use of firearms . These criteria should include establishing a reasonable minimum age so as to keep guns out of the hands of children, ensuring that prospective owners and users are screened for a history of violence or criminal activity and ensuring as well, that each individual possesses a basic knowledge of firearms safety .


Costa Rica's address to the conference
We are of the view that there is a need to strengthen regulations on civilian acquisition and possession of small arms and light weapons. Measures could include limits on the types and numbers of arms that civilians are allowed to acquire and possess as well as strict requirements for licensing, authorization and registration.


From the Russian Federation's address
In order to prevent the uncontrolled proliferation of SALW (Small Arms Light Weapons), their diversion into the illicit trade and in the hands of terrorists the following measures, in our view, could be useful:

4. A ban on transfers of all types of SALW to non-state actors, not only MANPADS (Man Portable Air Defense Systems). Such transfers increase the risk of weapons falling into the hands of anti-governmental groups, extremists, terrorists and criminal elements.


Ambassador Miriam Ziv, Deputy Director General for Strategic Affairs, Mnistry of Foreign Affairs, Jerusalem
Against a backdrop of the daily reality of terrorism and illicit transfers to terrorist
groups in our region, the government of Israel is determined to reduce the number of
handguns in private ownership. As one measure, Israel has enacted more strenuous
licensing criteria for civilian possession of handguns and their ammunition. Today,
we can note that the number of civilian-owned handguns has been reduced by onethird,
and we expect a greater drop in the future .

Doesn't look good..........


The US address to the conference
But, with the goal of making an effective contribution to stopping the international illicit trade in small arms aid light weapons, I will be equally clear about those actions we will not accept. In this regard, we agree with the remarks made by the Secretary General to this conference yesterday, namely that the Program of Action is not "intended to deny law-abiding citizens their right to bear arms in accordance with their national traditions" and that our efforts should be "directed toward illegal weapons and not legal ones ."

The U .S . Constitution guarantees the rights of our citizens to keep and bear arms, and there will be no infringement of those rights. The United States will nod agree to any provisions restricting civilian
possession, use or legal trade of firearms inconsistent with our laws and practices . Many millions of American citizens enjoy hunting and the full range of firearmsports, and our work will not affect their rights and opportunities . As as officer of the Executive Branch of my government, I took an oath to protect the Constitution -- a duty that is an honor to uphold .

I would say the idea of IANSA getting anything passed that imposes on the law abiding citizens rights to bear arms is pretty much DOA.

[Hiroshima]

I'd have to say the people who did the knee-jerk to this all wear tin-foil hats...

[signatory]

Well it's kicked off at the UN, and it would seem that there are some countries that do not like the idea of civilians legally owning firearms.

No one said that in the statements you pasted. Care to elaborate?

[Geezah]

No one said that in the statements you pasted. Care to elaborate?

Here you go,
United Nations Conferrence to Review Progress Made in the Implemention of the Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All it's Aspects (http://www.un.org/events/smallarms2006/mem-states060626.html)

[Hiroshima]

Looks like illicit small arms stuff, Geezah....what does illegally obtained weapons have to do with legally obtained weapons?


http://disarmament.un.org/cab/poa.html

[tsuri]

I hardly find it suprising that people who are against general gun ownership would support a treaty that fights illegal arms trade.

What is important is not how they want to appeal to their lobby groups but what actually ends up in the text of the treaty.



United Nations Conferrence to Review Progress Made in the Implemention of the Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms adn Light Weapons in All it's Aspects

Always those short and catchy names ;)

[Hiroshima]

True, Tsuri....

I'd like to see the UN's definition of SALW (Small Arms Light Weapons) though... that'd be good for a laugh.

[signatory]

Here you go,
United Nations Conferrence to Review Progress Made in the Implemention of the Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms adn Light Weapons in All it's Aspects (http://www.un.org/events/smallarms2006/mem-states060626.html)

That doesn't explain your statement. It only further prove the stance is on illicit weapons only.


for instance you pasted this to make your point:


“We believe that no armed group outside of the State should be allowed to bear weapons. We also believe that regulating civilian possession of Small Arms/Light Weapons will enhance our efforts to prevent its misuse.

1. “We believe that no armed group outside of the State should be allowed to bear weapons.

armed groups = not individual civilians

2. We also believe that regulating civilian possession of Small Arms/Light Weapons will enhance our efforts to prevent its misuse.

further proved by a wish to regulate not ban civilian possession

[Geezah]

That doesn't explain your statement. It only further prove the stance is on illicit weapons only.

And they will leave legal civilian ownership of firearms along, right.
Click on the PDF text links for the individual countries listed, then start reading.

[tsuri]

True, Tsuri....

I'd like to see the UN's definition of SALW (Small Arms Light Weapons) though... that'd be good for a laugh.



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

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

“Light weapons” are, broadly speaking, weapons designed for use by two or three persons serving as a crew, although some may be carried and used by a single person. They include, inter alia, heavy machine guns, hand-held under-barrel and mounted grenade launchers, portable anti-aircraft guns, portable anti-tank guns, recoilless rifles, portable launchers of anti-tank missile and rocket systems, portable launchers of anti-aircraft missile systems, and mortars of a caliber of less than 100 millimetres.
http://www.un.org/events/smallarms2006/faq.html
Trying to find a working link to the resolution with the full definition.

[signatory]

And they will leave legal civilian ownership of firearms along, right.
Click on the PDF text links for the individual countries listed, then start reading.

Wait, you create a new thread every fvcking day regarding this issue but you don't want to talk about it. That qualifies as propaganda not a discussion nor a rant.

[Herrmannek]

For sake of country independence, countrys shouldn't sign any of that...

[Geezah]

Wait, you create a new thread every fvcking day regarding this issue but you don't want to talk about it. That qualifies as propaganda not a discussion nor a rant.

We can discuss it all you want, but I have highlighted a few examples of what other countries would like to impose on the World. Now, you asked me to elaborate, I suppleid a link to all the transcripts, now you call foul when asked to start reading the transcripts, and while I don't mind doing some of the work,I won't do it all.

[Hiroshima]

Huh? Why Herrmannek? How would a country's independence be threaten by restrictions on Illicet Arms Trade (except, maybe, a heavy markup by illicet arms dealers)?

Tsuri - Wow....I can understand the Small Arms ones, but the Light Weapons? I guess I need to update my definitions then.

[Geezah]

Huh? Why Herrmannek? How would a country's independence be threaten by restrictions on Illicet Arms Trade (except, maybe, a heavy markup by illicet arms dealers)?

I see no problem in making it harder for criminals or terrorists getting their hands on weapons, but I will not agree to anything that restricts access for the law abiding above what is already in place.

[ed316]

Why would you need another treaty if there is already one to combat illicit arms trade?

[Geezah]

Why would you need another treaty if there is already one to combat illicit arms trade?

Good point, this meeting is to see what progress has been made since 2001.

[Hiroshima]

I've selected some bits from a few countries, after having read their proposals. It's all fine and dandy that those countries you selected have opted to restrict private arms ownership, that's their citizen's probelms. The UN's proposal deals with ILLEGAL... you know, not lawful in any shape or form... arms trades. So unless you're buying fully automatic AK-47s from from one in the Middle East, you shouldn't be effected at all.


From New Zeland:
New Zealand remains fully committed to the Programme of Action and to
the advancement of initiatives which are designed to prevent small arms
and light weapons falling into the wrong hands, or being used illegally. Our
delegation to this meeting has been strengthened by the participation of ~
NGOs, reflecting my Government's recognition of the vital role of civil
society in making the Programme of Action work in the real world .

From Kenya:
Finally Mr. President, I recognize аnd commend the important role civil society continues to play in implementation of the PoA. The technical and financial partnerships with states have indeed facilitated the development of our Action Plans, awareness creation аnд advocacy . They are crucial elements in the campaign against illicit small arms and light weapons . At the National level, Kenya we are indebted to Saferworld for support in National Action Plan development and implementation, Saferafrica аnд Security Research Information Centre for technical support in the National Action Plan development, Oxfam GB for technical and financial support to the National Focal Point, Afriса Peace Forum for awareness creation, Norwegian Church Aid and UNDP for support inn arms destruction аnд development interventions .

From Bangladesh:
Bangladesh, a country with impeccable disarmament and non-proliferation record, remains committed to the full implementation of the Programme of Action . We have put in place legislative norms and administrative, procedures for regulating lawful possession, manufacture, conversion, transfer and tráпspоrt of SALW . Strict procedures are followed in the management of stockpiles including storage, physical security, control of access, inventory management aid accounting control . Confiscated illegal small arms aid light weapons are routinely and publicly destroyed as provided for in our National Stockpile Management Programme. Bangladesh, observes 9~ Julу every year as "Small Arms Destruction Day" to raise public awareness about the human, social aid economic cost extracted by illicit trade in SALW . We have eliminated oar entire stock of anti-personnel landmines in fulfilling our obligations under the Ottawa Convention .


From Vietnam:
Under Vietnamese law, the Government fully manages the manufacture,
repair and transportation of weapons . The State has promulgated laws and other legal documents stipulating that small arms and light weapons and their
equipments are only for the purpose of national defense and security, that the importation of weapons, except in cases permitted by the State, is prohibited and that the illegal acts of transporting, using, trading in and acquiring weapons and explosive materials constitute criminal offences . Viet Nam does not export weapons ; weapons manufactured in Viet Nam are marked ; there are regulations related to weapon storage management and collection and destruction of small arms and light weapons ; there are also laws and regulations related to export control and marking and tracking small arms and light weapons . Law enforcement and education are important elements of Viet Nam's policy concerning small arms and light weapons . Viet Nam participates in various regional and global schemes relating to dealing with the illicit trade of small arms and light weapons . A national contact point and an inter-agency working group have been established to support the implementation of the Program of Action. The details of Viet Nam's implementation of the Program of Action are contained in the Country Report that Viet Nam has submitted to the United Nations and this conference .

Various bits from Colombia
-With regards to transfer controls, my government agrees with the efforts made by the international community to prevent the diversion of small arms and light weapons towards illicit channels.
-On the issue of brokering, we resolutely support the Group of Experts, which Mas the challenging goal of drafting a text that consolidates everyone's interests and closes the legal loopholes we have in this aspect of the legal trade which facilitate the diversion of arms towards illicit markets .

[Hiroshima]

UN NOT NEGOTIATING ‘GLOBAL GUN BAN’, NOR IS THERE INTENTION TO DENY LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS, SECRETARY-GENERAL TELLS SMALL ARMS CONFERENCE




Following is the text of the address by UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan to the United Nations Small Arms Review Conference in New York today:

Mr. President, let me first congratulate you on your election to chair this important session. I am sure you are going to lead us to a successful conclusion and you will, I trust, have the support of all the members.

Five years ago, United Nations Member States made a commitment to urgently address the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons. The Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons represented a landmark consensus against the trafficking of small arms, and it gave us a blueprint to staunch the flow.

Today, we gather to mark that milestone, and to review our progress in realizing its commitments.

The problem remains grave. In a world awash with small arms, a quarter of the estimated $4 billion annual global gun trade is believed to be illicit. Small arms are easy to buy, easy to use, easy to transport and easy to conceal. Their continued proliferation exacerbates conflict, sparks refugee flows, undermines the rule of law and spawns a culture of violence and impunity.

The majority of people who die directly from conflicts worldwide -- tens of thousands of lives lost each year -- and hundreds of daily crime-related deaths can be traced to illicit small arms and light weapons.

These weapons may be small, but they cause mass destruction.

I am glad to say that, since the adoption of the Programme of Action, we have seen significant progress.

Nearly 140 countries have reported on its implementation. An overwhelming majority of them have laws to restrict the flow of illicit small arms and light weapons, and well over half have established national coordinating bodies to check their spread.

In addition, a third of all States have made efforts to collect weapons from those not legally entitled to hold them. And a majority have implemented standards and procedures to secure and manage weapon stockpiles.

Regional and subregional cooperation to stem the flow of illicit weapons across national borders is on the rise. I particularly welcome the entry into force of the Southern African Development Community and Nairobi Protocols, and the recent transformation of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) moratorium into a legally binding instrument.

There are other noteworthy developments, as well. The Firearms Protocol is now in force. The United Nations General Assembly has adopted the International Tracing Instrument to identify and trace illicit small arms. Disarmament, demobilization and reintegration are now part of all United Nations peacekeeping and post-conflict programmes.

And we have made advances on illicit brokering in small arms. A group of governmental experts are set to study this problem later this year. I hope they will come up with concrete recommendations on ways for States to act effectively against this nefarious activity.

Clearly, much has been accomplished, and much is currently being done. Yet, important challenges remain.

There is an urgent need for Member States to introduce or update legislation meeting the standards outlined in the Programme of Action. Countries also require better stockpile management and security procedures to reduce weapons pilferage. And we must reach agreement on a realistic and effective approach to end-user certification. Without such certification, any effort to regulate the trade and brokering in small arms and light weapons will be found lacking.

At the same time, 55 States have yet to report on the Programme of Action. Some of the reports submitted contain insufficient data for the assessment of progress, while many national coordinating bodies lack the capacity or resources to carry out their functions. Weapon collection efforts have destroyed a mere fraction of the illicit weapons available in conflict zones, or on city streets. There is a need for even better international cooperation and increased donor funding to match unaddressed needs.

Inevitably, States must take the lead in dealing with these complex problems, and in clamping down on the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons. But, civil society plays a significant role, as well. Through awareness campaigns, advocacy, community initiatives, research and technical expertise, civil society actors have been instrumental in our efforts to implement the Programme of Action. I am, therefore, delighted to see so many civil society organizations present here today. I look to them to share their perspectives, their concerns and their expertise; I suspect they will do so vigorously! I also want to thank them for bringing me the Million Faces [Campaign Petition], the million faces of people around the world, who are standing with us and who are fighting to make sure that this Plan of Action is implemented.

Let me also note that this Review Conference is not negotiating a “global gun ban”, nor do we wish to deny law-abiding citizens their right to bear arms in accordance with their national laws.

Mr. President, with your permission, I would want to repeat, because there are people around who either have not heard this, or do not want to hear. We are not negotiating a global ban, nor do we wish to deny law-abiding citizens their right to bear arms in accordance with their national laws.

Our energy, our emphasis and our anger is directed against illegal weapons, not legal ones. Our priorities are effective enforcement, better controls and regulation, safer stockpiling, and weapons collection and destruction. Our targets remain unscrupulous arms brokers, corrupt officials, drug trafficking syndicates, criminals and others who bring death and mayhem to our communities, and who ruin lives and destroy, in minutes, the labour of years. To halt the destructive march of armed conflict and crime, we must stop such purveyors of death.

This is an ambitious -- but achievable -- goal. The Programme of Action has already provided us with a framework. Now, it is up to all of us, States, international and regional organizations, and civil society participants, to realize its aims.

It is in that spirit that I wish all of you a very successful Review Conference.

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

[Geezah]

UN NOT NEGOTIATING ‘GLOBAL GUN BAN’, NOR IS THERE INTENTION TO DENY LAW-ABIDING


CITIZENS RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS, SECRETARY-GENERAL TELLS SMALL ARMS CONFERENCE

Following is the text of the address by UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan to the United Nations Small Arms Review Conference in New York today:

Mr. President, let me first congratulate you on your election to chair this important session. I am sure you are going to lead us to a successful conclusion and you will, I trust, have the support of all the members.

Five years ago, United Nations Member States made a commitment to urgently address the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons. The Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons represented a landmark consensus against the trafficking of small arms, and it gave us a blueprint to staunch the flow.

Today, we gather to mark that milestone, and to review our progress in realizing its commitments.

The problem remains grave. In a world awash with small arms, a quarter of the estimated $4 billion annual global gun trade is believed to be illicit. Small arms are easy to buy, easy to use, easy to transport and easy to conceal. Their continued proliferation exacerbates conflict, sparks refugee flows, undermines the rule of law and spawns a culture of violence and impunity.

The majority of people who die directly from conflicts worldwide -- tens of thousands of lives lost each year -- and hundreds of daily crime-related deaths can be traced to illicit small arms and light weapons.

These weapons may be small, but they cause mass destruction.

I am glad to say that, since the adoption of the Programme of Action, we have seen significant progress.

Nearly 140 countries have reported on its implementation. An overwhelming majority of them have laws to restrict the flow of illicit small arms and light weapons, and well over half have established national coordinating bodies to check their spread.

In addition, a third of all States have made efforts to collect weapons from those not legally entitled to hold them. And a majority have implemented standards and procedures to secure and manage weapon stockpiles.

Regional and subregional cooperation to stem the flow of illicit weapons across national borders is on the rise. I particularly welcome the entry into force of the Southern African Development Community and Nairobi Protocols, and the recent transformation of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) moratorium into a legally binding instrument.

There are other noteworthy developments, as well. The Firearms Protocol is now in force. The United Nations General Assembly has adopted the International Tracing Instrument to identify and trace illicit small arms. Disarmament, demobilization and reintegration are now part of all United Nations peacekeeping and post-conflict programmes.

And we have made advances on illicit brokering in small arms. A group of governmental experts are set to study this problem later this year. I hope they will come up with concrete recommendations on ways for States to act effectively against this nefarious activity.

Clearly, much has been accomplished, and much is currently being done. Yet, important challenges remain.

There is an urgent need for Member States to introduce or update legislation meeting the standards outlined in the Programme of Action. Countries also require better stockpile management and security procedures to reduce weapons pilferage. And we must reach agreement on a realistic and effective approach to end-user certification. Without such certification, any effort to regulate the trade and brokering in small arms and light weapons will be found lacking.

At the same time, 55 States have yet to report on the Programme of Action. Some of the reports submitted contain insufficient data for the assessment of progress, while many national coordinating bodies lack the capacity or resources to carry out their functions. Weapon collection efforts have destroyed a mere fraction of the illicit weapons available in conflict zones, or on city streets. There is a need for even better international cooperation and increased donor funding to match unaddressed needs.

Inevitably, States must take the lead in dealing with these complex problems, and in clamping down on the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons. But, civil society plays a significant role, as well. Through awareness campaigns, advocacy, community initiatives, research and technical expertise, civil society actors have been instrumental in our efforts to implement the Programme of Action. I am, therefore, delighted to see so many civil society organizations present here today. I look to them to share their perspectives, their concerns and their expertise; I suspect they will do so vigorously! I also want to thank them for bringing me the Million Faces [Campaign Petition], the million faces of people around the world, who are standing with us and who are fighting to make sure that this Plan of Action is implemented.

Let me also note that this Review Conference is not negotiating a “global gun ban”, nor do we wish to deny law-abiding citizens their right to bear arms in accordance with their national laws.

Mr. President, with your permission, I would want to repeat, because there are people around who either have not heard this, or do not want to hear. We are not negotiating a global ban, nor do we wish to deny law-abiding citizens their right to bear arms in accordance with their national laws.

Our energy, our emphasis and our anger is directed against illegal weapons, not legal ones. Our priorities are effective enforcement, better controls and regulation, safer stockpiling, and weapons collection and destruction. Our targets remain unscrupulous arms brokers, corrupt officials, drug trafficking syndicates, criminals and others who bring death and mayhem to our communities, and who ruin lives and destroy, in minutes, the labour of years. To halt the destructive march of armed conflict and crime, we must stop such purveyors of death.

This is an ambitious -- but achievable -- goal. The Programme of Action has already provided us with a framework. Now, it is up to all of us, States, international and regional organizations, and civil society participants, to realize its aims.

It is in that spirit that I wish all of you a very successful Review Conference.

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

Lets hope those States that have decided to go after legally held arms pay attention to Kofi's nice little speech, even though they may be working off of transcripts from 2001.
Bottom line, I don't trust Kofi one bit, and he may be feeling the pressure from all the cards he's recieved from concerned 2nd Am loving Americans.

[ed316]

Good point, this meeting is to see what progress has been made since 2001.

5 years and they want another treaty. No wonder the UN is soo buerocratic.

[Hiroshima]

Well, Geezah, remember the UN can handle international things, but it has a hard time enforcing stuff inside their memeber countries. Those states that have voluntarily restricted their citizen's legal arms are beholden to non but their citizens. If their social contract with their citizens allows them to place restrictions on weapons, then they can do it since they have the majority support of the citizens. Heck, here in the US we've gotten in our social contract that we're allowed to bear arms, as you well know, but the majority of the citizens gave the government permission to restrict what types of guns we're allowed to have (barring licencing and the such).

And no, he's probably laughing at the 10,000 or so idiots that started writing in about an non-existant treaty to ban legal firearms in the possession of law-abiding citizens.

[Hiroshima]

5 years and they want another treaty. No wonder the UN is soo buerocratic.


Umm..this is an UPDATE. A review as it were. They meet, discuss how the treaty has gone, where changes could be made, how the various gaps in the treaty can be filled or where the treaty is too restrictive, and bam, you get part VI or something like that...

[tsuri]

he may be feeling the pressure from all the cards he's recieved from concerned 2nd Am loving Americans.
I doubt he even reads those. He can´t influence the treaty more than Mr Bolton (or even less, considering he does not have a vote)

[Geezah]

Well, Geezah, remember the UN can handle international things, but it has a hard time enforcing stuff inside their memeber countries. Those states that have voluntarily restricted their citizen's legal arms are beholden to non but their citizens. If their social contract with their citizens allows them to place restrictions on weapons, then they can do it since they have the majority support of the citizens. Heck, here in the US we've gotten in our social contract that we're allowed to bear arms, as you well know, but the majority of the citizens gave the government permission to restrict what types of guns we're allowed to have (barring licencing and the such).


"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)

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.

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)

They have legally held firearms in their sights, it' just that some member states aren't all that savy about keeping quiet for the minute.



And no, he's probably laughing at the 10,000 or so idiots that started writing in about an non-existant treaty to ban legal firearms in the possession of law-abiding citizens.

No, I would say he's laughing at the idiots that didn't send him a note letting him know where to go.

[Pandy]

Umm..this is an UPDATE. A review as it were. They meet, discuss how the treaty has gone, where changes could be made, how the various gaps in the treaty can be filled or where the treaty is too restrictive, and bam, you get part VI or something like that...

Any stats on the treaty itself. How many illegal weapons were found and taken, how many legal weapons were found and taken.

Anyways;

Who has the right to say something is illegal?

The way I been seeing it, unless it gets into the hands of a terrorist or criminal, all small arms and light weapons are legal. Only when it reaches the hands of a terrorist or criminal, or transported by a terrorist or a criminal, and used by a terrorist and criminal is when it's illegal.

Like I keep saying, countries are aways trying to find ways to control their people. Most countries out there are ruled by dictators, and who does those dictators support? The United Nations. I want them out, and the first person who's running for president who says "US leaving UN, cutting support." I'm voting for, no questions asked. I want the money to get free healthcare, and a better life in the US.

[Geezah]

I doubt he even reads those. He can´t influence the treaty more than Mr Bolton (or even less, considering he does not have a vote)

He's reading something, otherwise why else would he come out and try and calm down the American public, telling them that the UN is not trying to ban legally held firearms in the US?

[ed316]

Umm..this is an UPDATE. A review as it were. They meet, discuss how the treaty has gone, where changes could be made, how the various gaps in the treaty can be filled or where the treaty is too restrictive, and bam, you get part VI or something like that...

Isn't tracking small arms, firearms registration? I know he says he doesn't want to take guns away from law abidng citizens but firearms registration is one way of infringing on those rights. I might be wrong here but that's what I get from reading some of the transcript from the UN.

[Hiroshima]

I'm with tsuri on that one...who can read crayon scribbled letters of a 10,001 or so people?

And Geezah, why are you quoting someone from the International Action Network on Small Arms (http://www.iansa.org/) which has no say beyond issuing suggestions to the United Nations?

And what does the Open Society Institute have to do with the UN's review of the small arms topic? Honestly, the quote you got was from this: http://www.soros.org/initiatives/justice/articles_publications/publications/gun_report_20000401/GunReport.pdf talking about gun control in the United States.

[ed316]

I'm with tsuri on that one...who can read crayon scribbled letters of a 10,001 or so people?

And Geezah, why are you quoting someone from the International Action Network on Small Arms (http://www.iansa.org/) which has no say beyond issuing suggestions to the United Nations?

And what does the Open Society Institute have to do with the UN's review of the small arms topic? Honestly, the quote you got was from this: http://www.soros.org/initiatives/justice/articles_publications/publications/gun_report_20000401/GunReport.pdf talking about gun control in the United States.

But the UN is asking non-governmental orgs. to help out with this.

[Hiroshima]

Any stats on the treaty itself. How many illegal weapons were found and taken, how many legal weapons were found and taken.

Anyways;

Who has the right to say something is illegal?

The way I been seeing it, unless it gets into the hands of a terrorist or criminal, all small arms and light weapons are legal. Only when it reaches the hands of a terrorist or criminal, or transported by a terrorist or a criminal, and used by a terrorist and criminal is when it's illegal.

Like I keep saying, countries are aways trying to find ways to control their people. Most countries out there are ruled by dictators, and who does those dictators support? The United Nations. I want them out, and the first person who's running for president who says "US leaving UN, cutting support." I'm voting for, no questions asked. I want the money to get free healthcare, and a better life in the US.

Umm....well, first off you've raised some valid questions. Who has the right? Well, as per the social contract between the citizens and their government, we give them the right to declare something legal or illegal. If we disagree (as a majority) with that decision, the government is usually obligated with changing that.

As for your view of the United Nations, I'd like to point out that we havn't been paying our dues anyway. Also, it was our creation, we came up with the idea of an international forum in an attempt at preventing WWIII by giving everyone a voice in the international stage....I do believe we also wanted to give the UN a military branch, but that was struck down.

Also, you want free healthcare and a better life in the US? Well, stop accepting tax cuts and other stuff so the government has the chance to actually balance the budget (darn earmarks and other pandering stuff), then get people in there that understand what you want.

As for the numbers...

I don't rightly know, you might find something here: http://www.un.org/events/smallarms2006/documents.html

[Hiroshima]

But the UN is asking non-governmental orgs. to help out with this.


Sure, but it's still the governments that make the final decision. What's a non-government organization (lacking authority granted to it by governmental organizations) going to do? Sanction people into submission? If at most, the two groups Geezah's quoted are in an advisory role, not a decision making roll.

[Hiroshima]

Isn't tracking small arms, firearms registration? I know he says he doesn't want to take guns away from law abidng citizens but firearms registration is one way of infringing on those rights. I might be wrong here but that's what I get from reading some of the transcript from the UN.

Hmm....well, no. Asking you to register your guns isn't like saying you can't use those weapons you've just told us about. How is me going to my local police department, presenting them with a list of the firearms I own, with serial numbers and everything, a violation of my rights?

Read through section II of the following document: http://disarmament.un.org/cab/poa.html

[ed316]

Sure, but it's still the governments that make the final decision. What's a non-government organization (lacking authority granted to it by governmental organizations) going to do? Sanction people into submission? If at most, the two groups Geezah's quoted are in an advisory role, not a decision making roll.

NGOs have powerful lobbyist.



The rising power of NGOs
Transnational groups are making their voices heard, and governments and corporations are taking notice
By Joseph Nye

Tuesday, Jun 29, 2004

When Human Rights Watch declared last January that the Iraq War did not qualify as a humanitarian intervention, the international media took notice. According to the Internet database Factiva, 43 news articles mentioned the report, in publications ranging from the Kansas City Star to the Beirut Daily Star. Similarly, after the abuses of Iraqi detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison were disclosed, the views of Amnesty International and the International Committee of the Red Cross put pressure on the Bush administration both at home and abroad.

As these examples suggest, today's information age has been marked by the growing role of non-governmental organizations (NGO's) on the international stage. This is not entirely new, but modern communications have led to a dramatic increase in scale, with the number of NGO's jumping from 6,000 to approximately 26,000 during the 1990's alone. Nor do numbers tell the whole story, because they represent only formally constituted organizations.
Many NGOs claim to act as a "global conscience," representing broad public interests beyond the purview of individual states. They develop new norms by directly pressing governments and businesses to change policies, and indirectly by altering public perceptions of what governments and firms should do. NGOs do not have coercive "hard" power, but they often enjoy considerable "soft" power -- the ability to get the outcomes they want through attraction rather than compulsion. Because they attract followers, governments must take them into account both as allies and adversaries.
A few decades ago, large organizations like multinational corporations or the Roman Catholic Church were the most typical type of transnational organization. Such organizations remain important, but the reduced cost of communication in the Internet era has opened the field to loosely structured network organizations with little headquarters staff and even to individuals. These flexible groups are particularly effective in penetrating states without regard to borders. Because they often involve citizens who are well placed in the domestic politics of several countries, they can focus the attention of media and governments onto their issues, creating new transnational political coalitions.
A rough way to gauge the increasing importance of transnational organizations is to count how many times these organizations are mentioned in mainstream media publications. The use of the term "non-governmental organization" or "NGO" has increased 17-fold since 1992. In addition to Human Rights Watch, other NGO's such as Transparency International, Oxfam, and Doctors without Borders have undergone exponential growth in terms of mainstream media mentions. By this measure, the biggest NGOs have become established players in the battle for the attention of influential editors.
In these circumstances, governments can no longer maintain the barriers to information flows that historically protected officials from outside scrutiny. Even large countries with hard power, such as the US, are affected. NGOs played key roles in the disruption of the WTO summit in 1999, the passage of the Landmines Treaty, and the ratification of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control in May last year.
The US, for example, initially had strong objections to the Convention on Tobacco Control, but dropped them in the face of international criticism. The Landmines Treaty was created despite the opposition of the strongest bureaucracy (the Pentagon) in the world's largest military power.
Similarly, transnational corporations are often targets of NGO campaigns to "name and shame" companies that pay low wages in poor countries. Such campaigns sometimes succeed because they can credibly threaten to damage the value of global brand names.
Royal Dutch Shell, for example, announced last year that it would not drill in any spots designated by UNESCO as World Heritage sites. This decision came two years after the company acceded to pressure from environmentalists and scrapped plans to drill in a World Heritage site in Bangladesh. Transnational drug companies were shamed by NGOs into abandoning lawsuits in South Africa in 2002 over infringements of their patents on drugs to fight AIDS. Similar campaigns of naming and shaming have affected the investment and employment patterns of Mattel, Nike, and a host of other companies.
NGOs vary enormously in their organization, budgets, accountability, and sense of responsibility for the accuracy of their claims. It is hyperbole when activists call such movements "the world's other superpower," yet governments ignore them at their peril.
Some have reputations and credibility that give them impressive domestic as well as international soft power. Others lack credibility among moderate citizens but can mobilize demonstrations that demand the attention of governments. For better and for worse, NGOs and network organizations have resources and do not hesitate to use them.
Do NGOs make world politics more democratic? Not in the traditional sense of the word. Most are elite organizations with narrow membership bases. Some act irresponsibly and with little accountability. Yet they tend to pluralize world politics by calling attention to issues that governments prefer to ignore, and by acting as pressure groups across borders. In that sense, they serve as antidotes to traditional government bureaucracies.
Governments remain the major actors in world politics, but they now must share the stage with many more competitors for attention. Non-governmental actors are changing world politics. After Abu Ghraib, even US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld must take notice.
Joseph Nye is dean of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government and author of Soft Power: The Means to Success in World


http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2004/06/29/2003177021


Thinking NGOs don't have any sway is a bit naive.

[Hiroshima]

Well, pardon me for thinking that governments have balls. :)

Of course, the article you've posted seems to speak more towards public opinion and the effects of NGO's on it through the international Media.

[Geezah]

I'm with tsuri on that one...who can read crayon scribbled letters of a 10,001 or so people?

And Geezah, why are you quoting someone from the International Action Network on Small Arms (http://www.iansa.org/) which has no say beyond issuing suggestions to the United Nations?

And what does the Open Society Institute have to do with the UN's review of the small arms topic? Honestly, the quote you got was from this: http://www.soros.org/initiatives/justice/articles_publications/publications/gun_report_20000401/GunReport.pdf talking about gun control in the United States.

Rebecca Peters the mouth piece of IANSA is there to push her agenda of disarming everyone(which some states agree with), and George Soros, well he's her sugar daddy with the funds.

The UN's goal is for global disarmament, both legal and illegal.


"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)

[Hiroshima]

Again you quote the article that has Rebecca Peter's IANSA report, which isn't the UN, and claim that it's the UN.

"If 1,000 people a day were dying of avian flu, the world would sit up and take notice," said the report, published by IANSA, a group of agencies including Amnesty International and Oxfam.

My response beyond that is thus:

Taken from the UN's FAQ on the Programme of Action:

--What is the Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects?
The Programme of Action is a politically binding international instrument that aims to curb the proliferation of illicit small arms and light weapons. It was adopted unanimously by UN Member States at the July 2001 United Nations Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects.
The PoA seeks to develop and strengthen agreed norms and measures with a view to promoting concerted and coordinated international efforts to curb the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons. It also intends to develop and implement agreed international measures to curb illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in those weapons, to mobilize political will throughout the international community and to encourage cooperation to such ends. In addition, the PoA aims to raise awareness about SALW issues and to promote responsible actions by States to help prevent the illicit manufacture, export, import and transfer of such weapons.

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

[ed316]

Hmm....well, no. Asking you to register your guns isn't like saying you can't use those weapons you've just told us about. How is me going to my local police department, presenting them with a list of the firearms I own, with serial numbers and everything, a violation of my rights?

Read through section II of the following document: http://disarmament.un.org/cab/poa.html

What about criminals? Will they register thier firarms? How would registering my firarms make anyone safer?

Who's business is it to know how many guns I have? Isn't registering guns the same as the government looking at your phone records?

[ed316]

Well, pardon me for thinking that governments have balls. :)

Of course, the article you've posted seems to speak more towards public opinion and the effects of NGO's on it through the international Media.

So you are denying that NGOs don't have sway in policy? Look at your newspaper and your news shows. Aren't NGOs the ones who are constantly on there wanting the government to do this and that. Look more deeper into NGOs around the globe and policy and you'll see what I'm talking about.

[Hiroshima]

Criminals will not register their firearms, I'm not going to say it any other way. Frankly, I don't see anything wrong with having to register my firearms. I just have a .22 target rifle (I hope to by my first handgun sometime within the year) at the moment. The whole phone records thing seems kinda wonky to me anyway, and in all honesty the gun registery bit should be more of a local government thing instead of a federal government bit.

Though, if you really want to, let's go with the concept of 'why do *** offenders have to register with the local government? Isn't their need for privacy equally good as someone who has firearms'?


While we're on this line of thought, why do we have to have hunting licences? Or fishing licences?

[Hiroshima]

So you are denying that NGOs don't have sway in policy? Look at your newspaper and your news shows. Aren't NGOs the ones who are constantly on there wanting the government to do this and that. Look more deeper into NGOs around the globe and policy and you'll see what I'm talking about.

I'm denying nothing of the sort, really, but it's a foolish thing when a NGO from, say, Albania has enough sway to get Canada to require its citizens to wear moose hats (which in of itself is a crappy example, but that's what you get at 2:05pm). I really miss my political science courses, and thanks ed316 for actively debating with me on this topic (International Non Governement Organizations was a tricky topic covered in my course on Globalization).

[ed316]

Criminals will not register their firearms, I'm not going to say it any other way. Frankly, I don't see anything wrong with having to register my firearms. I just have a .22 target rifle (I hope to by my first handgun sometime within the year) at the moment. The whole phone records thing seems kinda wonky to me anyway, and in all honesty the gun registery bit should be more of a local government thing instead of a federal government bit.

Though, if you really want to, let's go with the concept of 'why do *** offenders have to register with the local government? Isn't their need for privacy equally good as someone who has firearms'?


While we're on this line of thought, why do we have to have hunting licences? Or fishing licences?

*** offender is a person who can, on his own free will, go out thier and commit crimes. A gun is an object. Left alone will not hurt anyone.

Hunting and fishing licenses does not require you to register anything. Just pay your dues. Are guns like animals where they need special protection?

[ed316]

I'm denying nothing of the sort, really, but it's a foolish thing when a NGO from, say, Albania has enough sway to get Canada to require its citizens to wear moose hats (which in of itself is a crappy example, but that's what you get at 2:05pm). I really miss my political science courses, and thanks ed316 for actively debating with me on this topic (International Non Governement Organizations was a tricky topic covered in my course on Globalization).

I majored in Poli Sci. The only time I ever use it is with my friends and on MP.net. Thank you GI bill.

[Hiroshima]

Woot, no wonder why you make pretty good arguments!

Ok, let's see....that's correcton the *** offender...what about registration of automobiles then? Apart from tax purposes, what other things stem from that? There is the regulations aspect we go through in order to get our little tax sticker, but that not a direct result of registration...maybe an indirect result...

[Geezah]

Criminals will not register their firearms, I'm not going to say it any other way. Frankly, I don't see anything wrong with having to register my firearms. I just have a .22 target rifle (I hope to by my first handgun sometime within the year) at the moment. The whole phone records thing seems kinda wonky to me anyway, and in all honesty the gun registery bit should be more of a local government thing instead of a federal government bit.

I'm dead against registering my firearms, registration is one step closer to confiscation, and while it may sound played out, it happens and has.



Though, if you really want to, let's go with the concept of 'why do *** offenders have to register with the local government? Isn't their need for privacy equally good as someone who has firearms'?

Because they have commited a crime ******ly and it has been proven time and again that most reoffend. Are you seriously trying to compare inanimate objects to *** offenders???



While we're on this line of thought, why do we have to have hunting licences? Or fishing licences?

Have no idea as I don't hunt or fish, and I do not have to get a license to shoot my firearms.

[Geezah]

Woot, no wonder why you make pretty good arguments!

Ok, let's see....that's correcton the *** offender...what about registration of automobiles then? Apart from tax purposes, what other things stem from that? There is the regulations aspect we go through in order to get our little tax sticker, but that not a direct result of registration...maybe an indirect result...

Automobiles are not protected by the 2nd Am, I do not have a protected right to drive, where as I have a protected right to own firearms.
And if we want to register things,let register speech, after all it's a protected right.

[Geezah]

Again you quote the article that has Rebecca Peter's IANSA report, which isn't the UN, and claim that it's the UN.

"If 1,000 people a day were dying of avian flu, the world would sit up and take notice," said the report, published by IANSA, a group of agencies including Amnesty International and Oxfam.

My response beyond that is thus:

Taken from the UN's FAQ on the Programme of Action:

--What is the Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects?
The Programme of Action is a politically binding international instrument that aims to curb the proliferation of illicit small arms and light weapons. It was adopted unanimously by UN Member States at the July 2001 United Nations Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects.
The PoA seeks to develop and strengthen agreed norms and measures with a view to promoting concerted and coordinated international efforts to curb the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons. It also intends to develop and implement agreed international measures to curb illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in those weapons, to mobilize political will throughout the international community and to encourage cooperation to such ends. In addition, the PoA aims to raise awareness about SALW issues and to promote responsible actions by States to help prevent the illicit manufacture, export, import and transfer of such weapons.

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

Member states have shown their eagerness to further disarm and restrict the law abiding, and their access to firearms, and maybe Kofi might not be open about it, I know that's also his plan.

A working paper by the Chairman of the Preparatory Committee for the Small Arms Conference (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/smallarms/2001/0109draf.htm)

[ed316]

Woot, no wonder why you make pretty good arguments!

Ok, let's see....that's correcton the *** offender...what about registration of automobiles then? Apart from tax purposes, what other things stem from that? There is the regulations aspect we go through in order to get our little tax sticker, but that not a direct result of registration...maybe an indirect result...

Registering firearms doens't generate revenues like registering automobile. It's just a way for govenrment to know who has firearms and how many. Automobiles is not in the 2nd Amendment.

[Pandy]

Umm....well, first off you've raised some valid questions. Who has the right? Well, as per the social contract between the citizens and their government, we give them the right to declare something legal or illegal. If we disagree (as a majority) with that decision, the government is usually obligated with changing that.

As for your view of the United Nations, I'd like to point out that we havn't been paying our dues anyway. Also, it was our creation, we came up with the idea of an international forum in an attempt at preventing WWIII by giving everyone a voice in the international stage....I do believe we also wanted to give the UN a military branch, but that was struck down.

Also, you want free healthcare and a better life in the US? Well, stop accepting tax cuts and other stuff so the government has the chance to actually balance the budget (darn earmarks and other pandering stuff), then get people in there that understand what you want.

As for the numbers...

I don't rightly know, you might find something here: http://www.un.org/events/smallarms2006/documents.html

You know what, it's good that we ain't paying our dues. I never wanted the tax cuts anyways, I throught it was a dumb idea in the first place. I still think the United States should fall back away from the international stage a good bit and do what we need to do. Back Iraq, A-Stan, South Korea, Japan, UK, Poland, and other ally nations.

I want to cut support to nations who don't support our views (no matter if I support it or not), they need to support US if they want our support ($$$).

UN is a ****ty creation.

Pandy for President! 2034!

[Hiroshima]

You know, Geezah, I don't have much of an argument to pick with you, especially after that Kofi phrase there... What member states do in their own territory on this issue is really their thing. If they want to say 'no, you can't have guns' to their own people (who, by virtue of their social contract, have given the government the right to do this), then that's their buisness. They went that extra little step in compliance to a treaty that a majority of member states agreed to. Now, I want you to name me one country that required its people to first register, then turn in their guns.

Oh, and the *** offender thing was an arguement about privacy, all be it a rather poor one. It was the best thing that came to mind at the time.

And you put a working draft up....how about I respond with the same: http://disarmament.un.org/cab/poa.html


Ed, that's true, but then again, why do we have to register those vehicles? Saying that they're not in the 2nd Amendment is fine and dandy, but doesn't go further than that. Could I be a way of verifying that that particular vehicle belongs to someone?

Pandy, you would have loved pre-WW1 American then....

[ed316]

Ed, that's true, but then again, why do we have to register those vehicles? Saying that they're not in the 2nd Amendment is fine and dandy, but doesn't go further than that. Could I be a way of verifying that that particular vehicle belongs to someone?

....

Like I said registering firearms doesn't generate revenue like registering automobiles. Besides driving is a previlige not a right like the "Right to bear arms".

[Geezah]

Now, I want you to name me one country that required its people to first register, then turn in their guns.

The UK is one example, granted it didn't happen overnight but it happened.

[Pandy]

Pandy, you would have loved pre-WW1 American then....

No, I don't like pre-WW1 America. They were TOO... well, to themselves. But we shouldn't be helping nations who don't help us.

[Hiroshima]

Let's see...

Pandy - Hmm...well, that'd just be going back to our cold war stance then...

Ed - Well, they generate revenue for the local government via sales tax (except Deleware)....you have the gun itself, the ammo, then the targets you want to shoot at at the range, and if you don't have ear protection and eye protection you have to get those (common sense really...hot brass in the eye hurts)....then there's all the little accessories you want. But you're right, owning arms (be it swords, crossbows, or firearms) is a right, while owning a car is a privallege.

Geezah - Hmm....I know they have laws against owning anything but hunting firearms out in the countryside....how about you name me a non-parlimentary government then?

[Geezah]

Geezah - Hmm....I know they have laws against owning anything but hunting firearms out in the countryside....how about you name me a non-parlimentary government then?

And I was about to say Australia.

[Hiroshima]

Really, Geezah? Hmmm

Britain has the most severe gun control laws in the world. Handguns or pistols are banned for civilians, even for sports purposes. You must get a certificate from the police to own a shotgun or a rifle for hunting , and the certificates aren't easy to get. (from: http://www.learnenglish.org.uk/magazine/magazine_home_disarmament.html )

As for Australia (yikes)
There was objection by people (basically gun owners) who were concerned about losing their right to have firearms, but resistance was divided. Many gun owners and their representatives made statements accepting some of the restrictions and the basic concept that their governments could or should restrict based upon someone's idea of what need people might have for one kind of firearm or another. A huge demonstration (150,000) occurred in Melbourne. At least one other large (8000+) demonstration occurred in Brisbane, Queensland on June 29, 1996, but the media basically ignored these other demonstrations. (from: http://www.gunsandcrime.org/aussiegc.html ) Just a selection to wet the tastebuds....England, I'll look into more, but Australia...just wow.

[ed316]

Ed - Well, they generate revenue for the local government via sales tax (except Deleware)....you have the gun itself, the ammo, then the targets you want to shoot at at the range, and if you don't have ear protection and eye protection you have to get those (common sense really...hot brass in the eye hurts)....then there's all the little accessories you want. But you're right, owning arms (be it swords, crossbows, or firearms) is a right, while owning a car is a privallege.



I didn't say owning a car is a privilege. Driving is. You pay sales tax on a car too plus the registration fees goes to help upkeep roads and other things. Sales tax from guns is not that much when you look at the overall revenues generated by sales tax alone.

[Hiroshima]

True true. Though, in all honesty folks, I'm more of a gun safty person instead of a gun control person... I came here looking for a debate and I got it! Thanks folks!

And yes, I did say you said it was a privilege, and I was mistaken, Ed.

[Geezah]

Though, in all honesty folks, I'm more of a gun safty person instead of a gun control person... .

And registtration equals safety, please explain how this works?

[Hiroshima]

Never said that, now have I Geezah? All I said was I was willing to register my firearms. That's about it. Heck, I want schools to teach classes on firearm safety...make it a part of P.E. or something like that.

[Geezah]

Never said that, now have I Geezah? All I said was I was willing to register my firearms. That's about it. Heck, I want schools to teach classes on firearm safety...make it a part of P.E. or something like that.

Just putting two and two together, I guess I came up with 7.


Criminals will not register their firearms, I'm not going to say it any other way. Frankly, I don't see anything wrong with having to register my firearms.


Though, in all honesty folks, I'm more of a gun safty person instead of a gun control person...

Registration(which you said you would happily do) falls in line with gun control and then you say you're more of a safety guy, well, it's a little confusing that's all.

[Pandy]

Where the **** do you guys live, I want to bring a blunt, bottle of everclear, and a round table. We battle it out with yells and screams, it'll be fun as ****.

[Hiroshima]

Meh, don't worry about it Geezah...

Pandy, I'm in the D.C. Metro area.

[Pandy]

Meh, don't worry about it Geezah...

Pandy, I'm in the D.C. Metro area.


PARTY IN DC!

[Geezah]

Meh, don't worry about it Geezah...

Pandy, I'm in the D.C. Metro area.

Your location explains allot, now I understand why you're all for registration.

I hope you have your .22 broken down and stored away in a secure location, and how will you be able to buy a handgun when they are banned in DC?

[Hiroshima]

What by D.C. Metro Area do you mis-understand? the Metro area refers mostly to the counties surrounding D.C. within half and hour's drive (N. VA and a good portion of Maryland). I happen to be in N. VA, and am probably going to save up some money for a lovely semi-auto pistol I saw at one of my local gunstores. The .22 rifle is really hard to take apart, so after cleaning it, I put it in its carrying bag and leave it in my basement untill I go to the range (there's about three or so within the area open to the public for a small fee, then there's about two private ranges).

[Geezah]

What by D.C. Metro Area do you mis-understand?the Metro area refers mostly to the counties surrounding D.C. within half and hour's drive (N. VA and a good portion of Maryland). I happen to be in N. VA,

Allot, judging by my post above and thank you for clearing up that misunderstanding.



and am probably going to save up some money for a lovely semi-auto pistol I saw at one of my local gunstores. The .22 rifle is really hard to take apart, so after cleaning it, I put it in its carrying bag and leave it in my basement untill I go to the range (there's about three or so within the area open to the public for a small fee, then there's about two private ranges).

Well, hopefully as you build up your collection you might consider investing in a safe, or something that will act as a true detterant to crims if they ever break into your home. It's allot more of a detterant than registration;)

[Hiroshima]

True true...that and it keeps the kids away from the firearms till they're ready to learn how to shoot safetly.