The United Nations Small Arms Review Conference began Monday and will go through July 7. The National Rifle Association has said that the UN intends to eliminate private ownership of firearms. But, responding to over 100,000 letters of complaint, secretary-general Kofi Annan said: “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.”
What’s really going on?
“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,” Annan said at the opening ceremonies Monday. “Our targets remain unscrupulous arms brokers, corrupt officials, drug trafficking syndicates, criminals and others who bring death and mayhem into 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.”
Is that so?
Maybe you should read that Programme of Action.
You will read repeatedly through the materials that the UN does not wish to involve itself in the legal manufacture and ownership of firearms. What is said rarely is that the transfer of firearms is a target of UN expected action. At the very least, the UN expects each nation to end the private transfer of firearms and implement nationwide registration of all firearms. — Gun Law News
And eventually they’ll be coming after your guns, just like they did in Kenya and Uganda. That worked out very well — for the purveyors of death.
“Human Rights Atrocities: The Consequences of United Nations Gun Confiscation in East Africa”
That’s the subject of a new Issue Backgrounder just published by the Independence Institute, co-authored by Paul Gallant, Joanne Eisen, and me. The monograph details how U.N.-backed gun confiscation programs in Kenya and Uganda have led to murder, torture, and arson, and have turned tens of thousands of pastoral tribespeople into starving refugees. — The Volokh Conspiracy (Hat tip)
That’s right, gun confiscation leads to human rights atrocities, especially by the government confiscating the guns. It always has — that’s the whole point. And maybe Kofi Annan doesn’t want your guns, but it’s clear that others do:
“We believe that no armed group outside of the State should be allowed to bear weapons,” said Slamet Hidayat, the Indonesian delegate.
Much more coverage from the UN conference, and other Second Amendment related news just in time for Independence Day, is available from the Second Amendment Carnival.
And I leave you with one final thought, especially if you’re one of the many progressive Democrats reading here: The Second Amendment is what secures the First.
Except where otherwise noted, content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works license.
Video published by this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Sampling+ license.
Bad Behavior has blocked 3423 access attempts in the last 7 days.
Facebook
Digg
del.icio.us
reddit.com
Newsvine
IndianCowboy
Jul 01, 2006
from my cold dead hands is all I have to say
Collin
Jul 01, 2006
“The Second Amendment is what secures the First.”
How? Maybe one hundred years ago this was the case, but that is an outdated ideology. Today the government has a hundred tools that can kill a person from one hundred miles away. How can an weapon legally ownable in the states counter the first? Even a poorly armed despot like Hussein can easily put down a insurrection with small chemical weapons.
Its pretty great that you get your sources from extreme right wing sites, unforunately the Kenya/Uganda report is unavailable so I cannot respond to that so readily.
Michael Hampton
Jul 01, 2006
I draw from a wide variety of sites of vastly different political persuasions, most of which I have various disagreements with.
As for today’s government and its weapons, it certainly has us outgunned. And it has a further disadvantage: if it gets too tyrannical, its own military (who have all those nice weapons) may rise up against it. Or so one would hope.
And if it didn’t, there are still a couple hundred million guns out here. So they’re heavily outnumbered. All that would be strictly needed to overthrow a tyrannical regime here would be the smallest bit of organization and a lot of creativity.
(I would say more, but there’s actually still a law against it on the books, and the ACLU’s record on this sort of issue is atrocious at best.)
Collin
Jul 02, 2006
Well that is great that you spread out your sources but that doesn’t get past my animosity towards nearly any website as a valid source.
Now you only validated the UN’s position by naming the military as the valid wing to oust an out of control government. There have been many instances of revolution attempted which failed horribly before the government was less well armed, I still really do not find a scenario that history would not repeat itself.
Can we be civilised enough to turn political tides without the barrel of a gun?
Scott
Jul 02, 2006
What I find is that the U.N. is filled with a bunch of hypocrites. The five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council (being China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States) are the biggest arms dealers in the world. THEY are the ones that are providing the means for war. THEY are responsible for the deaths of millions of people. THEY are the ones that armed Kenya and Uganda, and many hundreds of other Countries throughout the world. Yet THEY are trying to take away any means of the people being able to protect themselves, while they sell to the other side. Screw the U.N.! I have no problem dying for the ideals that this Country was founded on. Just try to take away my means to defend myself. Come and get some!
Michael Hampton
Jul 02, 2006
The question is not whether we can be civilized; and the question itself betrays a lack of understanding of what’s going on.
Under our current system, someone holds political power over each given bit of land on the planet. And force is, of course, the basis of that power, and what happens to you if you don’t like what that political power is doing.
Anything that points to a consolidation of power, such as the United Nations itself, is going to make things worse.
(And I said the military is a way to resist a tyrannical regime, not the way. It might fail. And if it does, it’s hundreds of millions of our guns versus the dictator. The question is, will you live like a slave, under the barrel of a gun, or risk everything to be free?)
Timothy
Jul 02, 2006
The UN has no ability to ‘take away’ guns with-in the USA. Period.
Jul 03, 2006
The Jawa Report
forstand
Jul 03, 2006
It is the politicians who worry about citizens shooting them. They don’t care much if we kill each other, just don’t declare an open season on politicians. I am not advocating assination to solve any problem so don’t get me wrong on that point. I am looking at the ‘real’ reason governments (read: those in power) want to disarm the people.
All it takes is one bullet from a pistol or rifle. Both are effective.
My 30.06 is effective to more than 400 meters with my poor eyesight. The military has rifles effective to 1400 meters or more.
What 2-bit crook will carry one of these rifles to hold up an easy stop (7-Eleven and the like)? Does Feinstein, Kerry or the Clintons really care about the local muggings when they are surrounded by police and Secret Service for protection? I contend that their biggest fear is assination.
I would rather vote them out of office or never vote them into office in the first place.
Walter Clark
Jul 04, 2006
Maybe the UN “Peacekeepers” want to take away the guns so they don’t get a fight when they molest little girls?
To paraphrase, “When they took away the guns in Darfur, I didn’t complain because I wasn’t in Darfur. When they took away the guns in the rest of Africa, I didn’t complain because I wasn’t in Africa. When they took away the guns in the rest of the world I didn’t complain because I still had mine. After they took away the guns in the rest of my country I was helpless because I was the only one left with a gun.”
Walter M. Clark
Collin
Jul 05, 2006
Oh, yeah that was me again too btw
Anonymous
Jul 05, 2006
But all of the arguments presented by the prior three of you are fairly ridiculous hyper-masculine concepts. Look at Somalia; the current conflict wouldn’t exist if guns weren’t ubiquitous. Not just because the Islamic Courts wouldn’t have the means to power, but because the population appreciate their apparent ability to control the petty fighting by warlords.
All of you are spoiled Americans in the sense that you live sheltered lives compared to the plight of the average African. These people are not dying for some existential fight for human dignity, they are dying for materialistic squabbling between shelter, distant warlords. Cut the machismo and cut the libertarianism; this is an important attempt a saving lives and not an effort towards New World Order ™.
Michael Hampton
Jul 05, 2006
Excuse me? If you’re so bent on saving lives, why are you pushing an agenda which will make things worse and get more people killed?
Cut the libertarianism? That isn’t going to happen.
Collin
Jul 05, 2006
This one piece of partisan material is absolutely not a valid resource for you to make accusations that gun regulation increases violence. The examples presented are strong fisted governments doing what they do best, being strong fisted.
I say cut the libertarianism because in the context of African, it is a luxury and a philosophy so tragically inaccessible to the majority of the continent’s people. People, believe it or not, after centuries of pure violence want stability even if it does mean despotism.
So, the people of Somalia actually would rather have (for the most part) the African equivalent of the Taliban than anarchy.
I’m fine libertarianism in the context of American politics, but you are making a grave mistake by using it everywhere.
I’m sorry if this reply was a little incoherent, I got sick from the food I ate last night for the 4th.
Collin
Jul 05, 2006
Wait, what? That is kind of ridiculous, because they don’t subscribe to your notion of the world, you don’t trust them?
Michael Hampton
Jul 05, 2006
And that’s why the majority of Africa’s people live in extreme poverty and despair. What good is a sense of order when there is no food to be had?
The other side of the story that your source doesn’t seem to have mentioned is the state of Somalia’s economy since 1990. In the midst of all that supposed anarchy and war, Somalia’s economy grew (see Wikipedia, CIA World Factbook). Not all is rosy and picture perfect, of course, with a widespread perception of anarchy even in the country where they should know better.
As for the Associated Press, I don’t trust their foreign correspondents as far as I can throw them. Their domestic reporting is frequently suspect, too.
Collin
Jul 05, 2006
Sure, that is certainly the classic problem of journalism. In the end, why do you think that the UN has a conspiracy to take your guns away?
Michael Hampton
Jul 05, 2006
Oh, no, it’s not that. It’s the fact that they’re too biased. A one-sided story is just that: one-sided. Reality is rarely one-sided.
Michael Hampton
Jul 05, 2006
Because the delegates said so.
Collin
Jul 05, 2006
Ridiculous answer.
Michael Hampton
Jul 05, 2006
Ridiculous and true. Or didn’t you bother to listen to them?
Jul 09, 2006
UN won’t snatch your guns this year - Homeland Stupidity
Tremblor
Jul 10, 2006
In the actuall wording of the proposal by the UN i think it says at least 4 times”We do not wish to limit any private legal gun ownership” it states repetedly that its goal is to stop illegal guns getting to terrorists and genocidal militas. They repetedly state that a country’s gun laws are to be left alone, and only illegal arms are to be stopped.
Read the whole things before you freak out, and never trust the NRA.
I own 2 guns (A bolt action and a SKS) and am in the market for another, before you paint me crazy
M Btok
Feb 10, 2010
I wouldn’t trust the UN as far as i can spit! After the Copenhagen Treaty we know for sure they are all about lies and fraud!
I just found out about this and no one is speaking of! Is this going to affect Canada? Hunters and Sportsmen, Sports Shops are certainly not going to go for this secret con- job by the United Nations! Read this: Dear fellow patriot,
With willing one-world accomplices in Washington, D.C., gun-grabbers around the globe believe they have it made.In fact, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton just announced the Obama Administration would be working hand in glove with the UN to pass a new “Small Arms Treaty.”Disguised as legislation to help in the fight against “terrorism,” “insurgency” and “international crime syndicates,” the UN Small Arms Treaty is nothing more than a massive, GLOBAL gun control scheme.Ultimately, the UN’s Small Arms Treaty is designed to register, ban and CONFISCATE firearms owned by private citizens like YOU.
http://www.nagr.org/UNpetition1.aspx?pid=n12
Ron
Apr 19, 2010
When this thing starts we have to fight like never befor, I have what I need to take out a hand full of the basterd and I hope everyone that loves ths USA will fight to the death like I am going to.