UN wants to control US guns as well...

Hopefully this wont turn into a train wreck!

Plenty more information available on the WWW by doing a search of "UN USA NRA GUNS".

BTW - I'm a Lifetime Member of the NRA! I'll not be getting into any arguments here, just saw the post about the UN wanting to take over the Internet and felt this one was "on topic" as well...

I know this sounds, at least at first glance, to be a non-issue for us.

But remember, there is a very vocal, visible, well-funded and politically astute group of anti-gun fanatics in the US who will stop at nothing to destroy our individual rights to own and use firearms. This UN issue just gives them more ammo (pun intended).

It sounds like the same old song, but it's true -- join the NRA or at least, if you don't want to "join", send a few $$ to the NRA lobbying effort. www.nra.org

Additionally, consider supporting your state NRA affiliated association. If it were not for the TSRA (Texas State Rifle Association) Texans wouldn't have half the firearm freedoms we currently enjoy.

This is a huge issue as free citizens should be allowed access to firearms. The only reason to not allow access of firearms to free men is if somebody(Read Governments) want to control them.

Please contribute to the NRA, GOA or whomever. I fear others will see just how much gun rights will effect their other rights in the future.

Chris

I'm pretty sure Bolton will slap them down. :goodjob:

Reading that article I can't really tell what the goal of the UN is in that. Are they just interested in documenting the international sale and import/export of small arms? So that they can know that such and such country is gearing up for war or something? I wouldn't be completely against documenting such things on a national level, ie, China exported 100 million ak47 rifles to this list of countries sort of thing. But if they want to actually control it, and control the internal sales or import/export of guns from other countries to the US, then I think things will get interesting.

One would almost hope that they'd go through with trying to do it and that it would be the straw that breaks the camels back and we can finally evict those megalomaniacs. But politicians and political groups have more lives than a cat and they just keep coming back no matter how stupid or illegal the things they try to do are.

I agree, for now.

My concern is that a future administration might use the issue as a bargaining chip.

lymph said:

I'm pretty sure Bolton will slap them down. :goodjob:

Click to expand...

Not by himself he won't.
Consider this....
"First they arrested the Communists -- but I was not a Communist, so I did nothing. Then they came for the Social Democrats, but I was not a Social Democrat, so I did nothing. Then they arrested the trade unionists -- and I did nothing because I was not one. And then they came for the Jews and the Catholics, but I was neither a Jew nor a Catholic and I did nothing. At last they came and arrested me -- and there was no one left to do anything about it."
- Rev Martin Niemoller (Nazi Prison Survivor)

Then consider that we can no longer motivate enough people to agree to act on any one thing. It is soooo much more easier to sit behind our keyboards, and do nothing but talk, than to risk losing everything we have. As for the NRA, they are almost a joke themselves. For all the members, and money they have the oil lobbyist get more accomplished.

It certainly bears watching. The UN anti-gun connection is certainly nothing new in the various firearms enthusiast circles. Bolton is the perfect man for the job IMO…

I will give a millimeter and acknowledge that some of the UN's "concern" is legitimate, if misguided. They do worry over small arms imports to areas of unrest, ethnic cleansing, civil wars etc. in the third world. Although I would argue that it's really more a matter of the _right people NOT having access to guns_ bein the problem.

A couple crate loads of AK's to the victims in any of the recent genocides would have made things quite different, IMO. And to anyone who'd lay out the old "fuel to the fire" argument, I'd point out that much of the Rwandan genocide was committed by hand with machetes, _after_ "peace" was declared, and a massive gun turn-in program to promote said "peace" was completed.

The underlying cause, of course, is that the UN is largely the ultimate distillation of both the "kumbyah collectivist" and the more pedestrian "totalitarian collectivist" thought on earth. Examples of free armed people (i.e. rampant individualism and self-sufficiency) make them uncomfortable. The UN has allways had an ambvalent relationship with the U.S. because of this and other factors in our way of life such as Capitalisim. While inconveniently (for them), our success born of that way of life means we're paying the lion's share of their bills...

The big worry is that per the U.S. Constitution, ratified treaties are as binding as U.S. law, and the articles of the Constitution itself. A ratified treaty that directly undermines an article of the Constitution hasn't been tested yet, and I hope one never is. (I suppose those with other pet peeves on the international scene might disagree, and say there's already several...)

A ratified treaty with the UN to ban private firearms ownership might just be the "end run" some future anti-gun administration tries to pull. Of course, all those privately held arms would have to be our "end run", if the populace is up to it, something I'm not very convinced of.

Bravo25 said:

Not by himself he won't.
Consider this....
"First they arrested the Communists -- but I was not a Communist, so I did nothing. Then they came for the Social Democrats, but I was not a Social Democrat, so I did nothing. Then they arrested the trade unionists -- and I did nothing because I was not one. And then they came for the Jews and the Catholics, but I was neither a Jew nor a Catholic and I did nothing. At last they came and arrested me -- and there was no one left to do anything about it."
- Rev Martin Niemoller (Nazi Prison Survivor)

Then consider that we can no longer motivate enough people to agree to act on any one thing. It is soooo much more easier to sit behind our keyboards, and do nothing but talk, than to risk losing everything we have. As for the NRA, they are almost a joke themselves. For all the members, and money they have the oil lobbyist get more accomplished.

Click to expand...

Dude, what in the hell are you talking about?

Since when did NRA become a joke?

and "For all the members, and money they have the oil lobbyist get more accomplished."? What the heck is that even saying?

AJDual -- well said.

Bravo25 -- huh? As far as the NRA is concerned, we are the most powerful lobby in current politics. Respected and/or feared -- depends on which side you're on.

Tell me exactly what the NRA has accomplished. The second ammendment has stood since the inception. The NRA has not kept it there. The oil companies with all of the billions, and lobbyist in DC have done more to rape the american people over fuel prices, destroy the environment, prevent alternative energy, and water down the EPA. I will admit the NRA has a lot of good going for it, but when it comes to politics it has been relatively ineffective. Why have they not charged the SCOTUS to rule if the 2nd admmendment is an individual, or collective right? Why do we not have federal legislation allowing the bearing of arms, when the SCOTUS has ruled that the LEO's are not responsible for your protection? How did the Brady bill pass?, and the assault weapon ban? (admittably it did sunset), but the NRA had nothing to do on these matters. You do the math. Figure the number of members, the dues they pay, and then tell me where that money goes, and how it has kept the second ammendment in the constitution.
I have extended an open invitation to the NRA to come to my city, and protest over the laws denying my constitutional rights. I even agreed to lead the march on city hall. I am still waiting for them to show up.

Train Wreck!!!!

Bravo25 said:

Why have they not charged the SCOTUS to rule if the 2nd admmendment is an individual, or collective right?

Click to expand...

That's one thing I'd love to see the Supreme Court rule on. I love it even more if they ruled that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual, not a collective, right. It would great watching all the local City Council members having to throw all NYC's gun control laws right out the window, and also seeing their doomsday scenario reactions. Finally, it would be really fun to watch the crime rate suddenly drop in the face of all the dire predictions to the contrary, and to see lots of would-be criminals in the morgue instead of in jail.

I'm amazed a case of this nature has never come before the Supreme Court before. Also on my wish list is a case ruling whether or not the government can force people to pay into Social Security, and whether or not an income tax is constitutional. Along with gun control, to me these are far bigger issues than the usual hot-button topics like abortion.

Bravo25 said:

Tell me exactly what the NRA has accomplished.

Click to expand...

Maybe we should be asking not what they haven't done, but where we'd be without them. We would have far fewer freedoms and rights had they not pressured our legislators into voting down more restrictions. Yes, we could be better off, but we could be far worse off without them.

Why have they not charged the SCOTUS to rule if the 2nd admmendment is an individual, or collective right?

Click to expand...

No one can force the Supreme Court to hear an issue, never mind rule on one. They have chosen many times to refuse to even hear 2nd Amendment issues. That is the reason we have an appointed Court and not an elected one, so that they can not be pressured into any decisions, even if they choose not to make a decision.

I have extended an open invitation to the NRA to come to my city, and protest over the laws denying my constitutional rights. I even agreed to lead the march on city hall. I am still waiting for them to show up.

Click to expand...

The NRA is a federal organization, not a state or local one. You should be asking your state organization.

We are sometimes our own worst enemies. Just as the Ford/Chevy thing, there is infighting within the firearms community. Whether we are pistol shooters, rifles shooters or shotgun shooters, we need to stop saying "that doesn't affect me", or "that won't help me". We'll either sink together or swim together. Similarly, we need to support groups like the NRA, and say, "they've done some good things for US", not say, "they've never done anything for ME".

In California, for many years it was a felony (IIRC) to own mace or pepper spray whereas concealed carry was only a misdemeanor (don't know the gun laws in CA now--I am afraid to look)... Look at the laws against "scary knives".

Without the 2nd amendment groups, I am sure guns would have already been banned. In some sense, banning could have been a good thing... Then it would have been appealed to the SCOTUS. Although, that does not seemed to have helped NYC and Washington DC…

-Bill

I looked at the article in the original post and read...

Secretary-General Kofi Annan has said that small arms -- mostly AK-47 assault rifles, grenade launchers, machine guns, anti-personnel landmines, rifles and grenades -- are the weapons of choice in conflicts in Asia, Africa, the Middle East, Europe and the former Soviet republics. Last month he announced the creation of a new U.N. Department of Disarmament whose mandate also covers small arms, along with weapons of mass destruction and conventional arms.

Click to expand...

So if grenade launchers, machine guns and anti-personnel landmines are small arms, the "conventional arms" must be cannons, bombs and such.

Personally, I don't see a great harm in slowing down the proliferation of machine guns and landmines in war torn portions of the world. It even makes sense. It's harder to fight a war with knives, and the outcome is much less certain.

The last time I looked, many people had successfully defended their property with nothing more than a deer rifle or shotgun.

And finally, if a country wants to allow imprts of small arms, that is OK with me. It seems no-one is truely bound by a UN resolution if they don't want to be. The worst that happens is the other countries won't play with them anymore.

Daniel

The great paradox of the NRA is that on a national level, we have 4 million members. But as far as per capita, that means 1 in 90, yes, 90 people are in the NRA. How the hell are we supposed to take on 90 people who are anti-gun/never shot one/never needed to protect themselves/put all their faith in the system?

Do you realize how much money it takes to run a non-profit organization that has to shoulder the responsibility of fight a nation of pampered self-righteous people who thin kthe police is the only answer?

that's damn right the oil lobby can do more, consider the oil industry is a multi-trillion dollar one, whereas the NRA has a total buddget in the millions with dues and donations. that's a reeaallll good comparison, ain't it?

BIGIRON said:
"But remember, there is a very vocal, visible, well-funded and politically astute group of anti-gun fanatics in the US who will stop at nothing to destroy our individual rights to own and use firearms. This UN issue just gives them more ammo (pun intended)."

damn straight!!! as gun owners, we are perpetually being challenged by the society that demonizes us as fanatics, proponents of violence as opposed to the peace loving mothers marching against deaths of innocent children. We sure look bad on TV and newspapers don't we?

If everyone were in the NRA, our voice would be stronger, it's a unfair thing to say, "look, NRA is a joke because it's not as effective as a trillion-dollar industry lobby" while there are critics of it everywhere, gun owners or not.

That reminds me, time to renew my member ship.

Nick

I'm a proud NRA member, but they're not the most powerful lobby in DC. Wish they were, but the AARP's bigger. And very anti-gun - apparently an association of retired folks finds it necessary to take a position against the 2nd ammendment. I don't know why, really, except that whenever I read the AARP literature or hear their speakers, I realize that they're essentially socialists - and forced redistribution of wealth doesn't always go hand-in-hand with individual rights/property rights/gun rights/etc.

Anyway, I like the GOA and JPFO and all the rest, but the NRA _is_ doing things. There's an article in American Rifleman about the UN and IANSA. I don't think the NRA is just sitting around watching all the bad stuff happen. The fact of the matter is that our enemies -and those without an opinion and no desire to form one- outnumber us.

Ain't no joke that there are WAY more anti's than us!

My Uncle scared off two 20 somethings with a Pitbull trying to take from him during the Rita evacuation by using his .380

And I'll never be too far from firepower!

270winchester said:

Do you realize how much money it takes to run a non-profit organization that has to shoulder the responsibility of fight a nation of pampered self-righteous people who thin kthe police is the only answer? People like you, Bravo25?

Nick

Click to expand...

Excuse me, but my post contained no personal attacks to anyone. You don't know me, you don't know my position on the police, and you don't know how I am involved with changing the current laws, and you sure have no reason to attack me personally. Regardless of my opinion of the "Famed" NRA. Read you first sentence" how much money it takes to run a non-profit organization..." Someone in this organization is making money! So if you disagree with I wrote stick to the facts, and show me the numbers. Keep your personal attacks limited to PM's please.