Showdown on Global ‘Gun Control’ Looming at UN June 24-July 7
Study after study has shown that disarming of the people, especially the targets for genocide, is the essential precursor to these mass murders.
The global anti-gunners like the people at Amnesty International, the International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA), Oxfam and their government and philanthropic supporters like to blame such organized mass murder on guns. They sometimes use the terms “small arms” and “light weapons.”
In just a few weeks, they will meet under UN auspices in New York City (June 24-July 7) to try and impose a binding international gun control treaty on the world. The meeting is officially called a review of the 2001 agreement entitled “the UN Programme of Action on Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects.”
There have been two views expressed by different governments. In the first, there is reliance on general guidelines for the manufacture, import-export and possession of such firearms. In the second camp, the focus is on a binding international agreement that would supercede national laws and constitutions, including that of the United States.
The whole process is a complex one in which the nations of the world have been creeping ever closer to what some might call an “international firearms preemption law.” They would like it imposed by governments which in many cases have either sponsored or been complicit in oppressive tyranny, if not outright genocide and ethnic cleansing.
Yes who can forget the British holocaust. Not to mention the Canadian, Austailian or Swiss ones.
HOLY Gun shot batman…
HOW, are you going to REMOVE what is ALREADY out there..? CANT.
And those countries that MAKE weapons?? NOT.
SMALL ARMS?? does this include Machetes?? Clubs, and sticks, and groups larger then 10…. NO?? Then WHY NOT give everyone a GUN, and at LEAST let the little guy SHOOT BACK..
Look at Africa, and the Genicide there…Squads running around in PACTS, killing 1 whole group(or whom ever).
It would be EASIER, to STOP making bullets, then the GUNS.
Well this is interesting. So let me get this straight. The Liberals are concerned about the Government listening to our phone calls (and only when they are coming in from suspected, or confirmed terrorist sources). The liberals are calling for the head of Bush for this. But when it comes to gun control, and someone points out that when a Government outlaws, or bans guns, sometimes that leads to reduced rights, if not all out oppression. Then you liberals are expecting the Government to be angels, and not start reducing our rights, freedoms, and liberties. Hippocrates.
Yes all those people living in the crushing oppression of the Netherlands and Denmark.
Umm, in the US, treaties have the same general weight as statutory law. Neither of the two trump the Constitution.
Actually, Jeremy, this might be the only thing we’d agree on, but I’m very much a bleeding heart and I’m with you 100% on this. Nukes? Sure. Guns? That’s a lot different. Outside of the CDCs ten year study that demonstrated that there was no correlation between gun control laws enacted during the time and violent crime, the only time I’m aware of where unilateral disarmament worked was in Feudal Japan. Factoid I’m remembering from a 1980 documentary, War, Gwynne Dyer (yeah, very anti-nuke, hadda love it) pointed out that Japan successfully got rid of all its guns at one time, long before they became common. The Emporer apparently didn’t think it was right that a peasant should be able to kill a Samurai, so he ordered them all destroyed.
The reason it was successful?
He didn’t keep any of them for himself.
That said? I wouldn’t object to a ban on US weapons exports, landmines… Hopefully we aren’t selling anyone DU. But guns? If the EU can successfully FIND all of the guns in any country, we need them to find Bin Laden, first. If Rwanda taught us nothing at all, its that all you need are some truck springs and a radio station. But no one should have to take a truck spring to a gun fight.
The meeting sounds like it makes little sense and is even less likely to affect national policies. Aren’t there any fervent gun nuts here, though, who can write a coherent paragraph?
Oh, and Milo — though your attempt at irony is well-intended, you might look at one or two history books before you start off with a former colonial power like Britain as your best example. We can list dozens of nations oppressed and tens of thousands murdered by the Brits in the cause of Empire.
We may look back at those as military operations; but, the Brits considered those civil actions against unruly “subjects”.
“In just a few weeks, they will meet under UN auspices in New York City (June 24-July 7) to try and impose a binding international gun control treaty on the world.”
wow, somebody used “UN” and “impose” and “binding” in a sentence, while leaving off the words “empty” and “futile” and “laughter.”
3. Nobody trusts all government, just the parts of government they like. Conservatives, for example, are all about “small government,” but are keen on cops, prosecutors, prisons, etc.
In a nutshell, everyone is a hypocrite, to some extent. “Foolish consistency is the nabob of little minds.”
(from a liberal anti-gun-control voice – a war on guns would be as great a success as the war on drugs has been)
I await the arrival of the black helicopters.
Yes, the gun enthusiast and the Right would never let the UN enforce any laws here in the US that is as extreme as this. I can pretty much make that statement with 100% certainty. This would never go over in the United States. Max, I appreciate your candor. We often get caught up on our sides that it’s hard to admit when the other side has a better idea, or is just all out right. I respect a person, who stands by what they believe in, and believe in it because that’s what they think/feel. Not because that’s what they heard a comedian/actor/musician said, and it sounds nice. It’s even more impressive, when you admit you are one way or the other, and state that the other side is right about a singe issue. I know you don’t know me, but way to go!
WOW, I need to learn how proof read!
(Revised)
Yes, the gun enthusiast and the Right would never let the UN enforce any laws in the US that is as extreme as this. I can pretty much make that statement with 100% certainty. This would never go over in the United States.
Max, I appreciate your candor. We often get caught up on our sides, and it’s hard to admit when the other side has a better idea, or is just all out correct. I respect a person, who stands by what they believe in, and believes’ in it because that’s what they think/feel. Not because that’s what they heard a comedian/actor/musician say. It’s even more impressive, when you admit you are one way or the other, and state that the other side is right about a singe issue. I know you do not know me, but I am impressed!
Dave you get credit for the number one post, with a bullet.
For the record:
http://www.smartalix.com/alixguns.JPG
“We can list dozens of nations oppressed and tens of thousands murdered by the Brits in the cause of Empire.”
And it all started with those gun laws! Yes it’s a fact of history that the British got guns banned in India then conquered it!
Furthermore who can forget the Danish oppression of Iceland?
Shorter Jeremy: The Liberals, the liberals, the liberals, the liberals.
Hey Jeremy, I’m a liberal and I’m a gunner and I’m far from alone. While you’re on the subject of “The Liberals”, perhaps you could tell us why “liberal” GW Bush is supporting “liberal” theocrats in Iraq who want to disarm the civilian populace and leave them at the mercy of militias and the oh-so-trustworthy Iraqi police.
I’m picking on you because “the Liberals” is not an argument. So many people coming from your point of view seem to just shut down their brains down and think they’ve said something that has meaning when you says “the Liberals”. They haven’t.
James and Sarah Brady, staunch Republicans both, were the founders of Handgun Control Inc (now the Violence Policy Center) and they effectively pushed the ban on scary looking guns (AKA “assault weapons”) with the backing of that old “liberal” Ronald Reagan. GHW Bush denounced the NRA.
My position on gun control here in the US boils down to this: NY city may need different gun laws than Butte, Montanna. LA may need different laws than Midland, Tx. Oddly enough, that’s also the position of “crazy liberals” like DNC head Howard Dean, Montanna governor Brian Schweitzer and quite a few more putatively Democratic/Progressive/Liberal leaning people who know that the right to self defense is fundamental.
Bottom line is, if you want to discuss the issue, discuss the issue. Pulling out a bogeyman like “the Liberals” just shuts your mind down and precludes any real debate.
BTW, the “right” that you say would never allow the gutting of the 2A here in America? Given that so many fell right in line with gutting the first, fourth and fifth amendments just as soon as their Supreme Leader said “Trust the government, we must not allow the terrorists to undo our way of life so effective right now, we aren’t going to bother with things like charges, trials, due process, warrants or privacy”, I’m not at all sure that you are correct. All we need is for the Supreme Leader to come out and say “private ownership of guns helps the terrorists” and I have no doubt that many (not you) would again line up like sheep.
Anyway, on the gun issue I suspect that you and I actually agree when it comes to the individual right to keep and bear arms. I’d love to pursue that but I have a hard time getting past “the liberals, the liberals, the liberals” bogeymen in your posts.
Recommended reading: We don’t need no steenking 2nd Amendment
Cripes, Milo — can’t you come with better send-ups than that?
The Iceland touch is cute. There must be 3 of us who know about that — continuing — dispute over leftovers from Danish imperialism.
Ok, I did use “The Liberals” comment a little too much. I admit that, however, when a majority of “the liberals” back the same philosophy about gun control, you can not blame a person for lumping all “the Liberals” together. I have found out from Max, that not all “the liberals” feel the same. I must admit, he is the first that I have come across that feels that way. I live in Kansas, but work in Kansas City MO (If you are not familiar with the area, where I live, and work are at polar opposite (on most issue’s)) As far as James and Sarah Brady goes, they have switched their allegiance to a Anti-Gun stance. I suppose I can understand why they would, however, I completely disagree with it. I am sure you and I do agree on this subject, however, I am not going to back away from “the liberals” statement, because like the old saying goes, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then it most certainly is a duck!!
Oh and btw, Roman, I will look at this site that you offered, maybe it can enlighten me on some “Liberals” stance.
Liberals are so evil. After all they are responsible for Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Universal suffrage, Emancipation, labor laws, universal education etc.
Where as conservatives are to be credited with such achievements as Penal colonies, child labor, debtor’s prison, slavery, property qualifications for voting etc.
Oh, before some wit dimly remembers high school history and says “But Lincoln was a Republican” in the 1860s the Republicans were considered the most radical of liberals and were roundly castigated for passing the Homestead Act, considered at the time a land “give away” to the poor and middle class.
As they say “walks like a closed minded shell-back conservative etc.”
BTW – For the record I am a heavily armed liberal and in the words of Penn and Teller believe gun control is “bullshit”.
I would also add that Republican’s were considered socially liberal right up until FDR.
Ok, I have read the article, thank you. I can say that it is pretty much the stance that I have. Except for the Founding Fathers saying that all of our rights are afforded to all humanity. They may agree that everyone has these rights, but only our Constitution demands that these rights are givin to every United States Citizen. Not entire humanity. What you are insinuating is that they were setting the United States, to eventually inspire a one world government. That is part of what I took away from the article. In fact, the exact opposite would be more along the correct lines. Most of the Founding Fathers where Christian. And the last thing that most Christians want is a one world government. Well actually, llet’s just put it this way; a one world government signifies the coming of the Anti-Christ. Well, enough on the religion angle. I just wanted to make that point.
Hi Fellow Dhimmi’s,
It’s only a matter of time before either the Dawin Economic’s of the Right or the Communism of the Left lead us into world where no one has the right to self-defense. Rebecca Peters, a prime Global political leader, has repeatedly advocated such a position. In Britain they are now beginning to collect knives from the population, crime victims have been arrested for defending themselves with nail clippers in Britian.
The supposition that gun control is the beginning of a “Sustainable Environment” means the elimination of a large portion of the current world population. Artificial mass starvation occurred in China during the “Great Leap Forward”, only absolute arrogance of a people never exposed to suffering could lead anyone to think that it couldn’t happen here or that one could ever trust the government. History teaches us, the last thing that can be trusted is the government or the elite caste that populate them.
Sounds the Alarm,
Man, so much anger, it can be felt. I am not going to delve to deep into your rant, but I will make a statement. Lyndon Johnson could not have gotten the 1964 Civil Rights passed with out help from the Conservative Republicans. And btw, this is not a Republican vs. Democrat debate, this is an ideal debate. I could care less which party is in office, as long as they are representing Conservative/Libertarian values. I would like the ratio to be about 60/40. Also, most of that government crap is just that, crap.
Social Security, yes, I would like to pay almost as much to it as I pay in federal taxes, for a system that will not be there when I reach retirement age,
Medicare/Medicade Yes, can I please, please pay for someone else’s medicine, where do I sign up for that?? I work 40-50 hours a week, I am so glad to give my money for some who choose not to work. Oh, and also, one of the reasons that the system is so messed up today, it is because that the government got involved.
An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a peasant.
Hitler outlawed the private ownership of firearms, ammunition, stabbing weapons, and truncheons in 1938.
I bet that the Jews in the Warsaw ghettos of 1941 had wished that they hadn’t complied with that ban and confiscation. If they had resisted, maybe they wouldn’t have been relocated to Treblinka.
Mark T.:
“An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a peasant.”
A ‘peasant’ who is in danger of using his gun in the most common way — to commit suicide. Or to shoot a family member, friend or associate. The belief that American gun owners benefit from having guns in their homes has been disproven by every study to consider it. Truth of the matter is that contrary to empty-headed rhetoric about using guns to overthrow the government, gun owners mainly harm themselves and others with their guns.
#23
I was pointing out facts.
You think private corps do better? Half of them make their money off of tax breaks; the rest run to uncle sugar and have laws made to stifle competition so they can remain on top. I have worked for three major companies, and without a doubt each was as flawed or more flawed than the government.
As for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid – now its a mess – back in the 30s, 40s, 50s and 60s it was a God send for those who had nothing and had worked hard physical labor all their lives.
Also the argument that Medicaid goes to people that “don’t work” is total bullshit. It goes mainly to people like you and me who loose their jobs and can’t find another and their kid gets cancer or some other major medical issue. Like a good friend of mine who’s kid has CF and he’s lost his job and insurance. His wife is a contractor & has no insurance. They take Medicaid and thank God for it.
BTW Medicare goes to retirees and is the single largest source of medical insurance for elderly – that includes elderly that “work”. Maybe your parents or grandparents? Would you like to take Social Security away from your retired relatives?
You might still be glad of these services in the future – I noticed that Delta wants out of their pension obligations – and thus it all comes back on us. More corporate welfare.
Now the rest of your so called government “crap” – like labor laws? That’s crap? Freedom was crap?
As you pointed out it isn’t about party – it’s about ideas. Liberals have had good ideas as well as other points of view. What I don’t like is conservatives thinking they have all the answers. They don’t – no one does.
“Medicare/Medicade Yes, can I please, please pay for someone else’s medicine, where do I sign up for that?? I work 40-50 hours a week, I am so glad to give my money for some who choose not to work.”
I just had to quote this – I sould have in my origional post. I like the “refuse to work” part. Its my guess you have had little evperience with the poor here in the US, this quote proves it.
STOP, PLEASE…
Liberals, communists, Politicos, WHO CARES…Those are not deffinitions… They discribe NOTHING.
Thats like saying a MORMAN/CATHOLIC/DUCK dont carry a gun(except the duck(just checking).
think about the IDEA of dis-arming Iraq, citizians….STUPID.
GET them together to PROTECT themselves, and NOT fight each other, just cause 1 persons mother is a BItch, is no reason to FIGHT. OLD fueds should be SET ASIDE and DEFENCE of the nation, made PRIORITY…AND they WONT do it without GUNS, with those on the OUTSIDE, coming IN.
LEt everyone MAKE GUNs, just STOP them from making BULLETS.
this is like a fire hose WITHOUT water.
the GUN, becomes a EXPENCIVE CLUB.
BUT, a gun LOOKS impressive if I shove it in your face, and do you THINK its hard to make a GUN?? Give me some PIPE and a NAIL. Making GUN powder is ABIT harder, esp, the CLEAN stuff thet dont jam your GUN.
SCREW WHOM did what… THIS country needs to be FIXED, and BUSH aint helping…..
OLD addage… Keep the poor happy, because there ARE MORE of them, then US/WE…. Dont care if its drug, alcohol, or movies,,,
So, Podesta, are you saying that the Jews in Warsaw would NOT have benefited from owning firearms when the cattle cars started to arrive? Can you honestly answer that question and saw it was a good thing Germany banned gun ownership?
Is the parallel between this UN ban proposal and Hitler’s ban not obvious enough here? History does repeat itself, time and time again. But there are too many people in the world that refuse to acknowledge this fact.
And, for the record, I said absolutely nothing about overthrowing the government. I love my country and constitution just the way they are, thank you very much. Conversely, I do NOT like the U.N. telling me that our constitution is moot.
I live in Montgomery County, MD, which is adjacent to Washington DC. Washington DC has had a total ban on all civilian ownership of firearms since 1976, and its murder rate has been between 20 to 50 per 100,000, the same as Brazil. Meanwhile, in Montgomery County, which has Maryland’s comparably liberal (the traditional sense of the word) gun laws, the homicide rate is 2-3 per 100,000, the same as Singapore.
And the adjacent counties of Virginia, which has even more liberal gun laws, have homicide rates similar to or lower than Montgomery County (and Singapore).
So obviously there are other factors at work other than the mere availability of guns.