[LANMaster]

NRA warns of U.N. gun control
U.S. participating in upcoming small-arms conference

An American delegation will participate in a controversial United Nations small-arms conference criticized by Second Amendment advocates as a threat to U.S. gun ownership.

The U.N. Small Arms Review Conference will meet in New York City June 26 to July 7 to discuss illegal trafficking in arms, "ineffective national controls" and related issues.

The U.N.'s disarmament effort features a program in which it buys back weapons in nations torn by civil strife. But National Rifle Association Vice President Wayne LaPierre insists the U.N. is concerned about more than illicit arms in African hot spots. He says the global body wants the firearms of American citizens – and much more.

"So, after we are disarmed, the U.N. wants us demobilized and reintegrated," says the NRA's executive vice president, Wayne LaPierre, according to the Economist magazine. "I can hear it now: 'Step right this way for your reprogramming, sir. Once we confiscate your guns, we can demobilize your aggressive instincts and reintegrate you into civil society.' No thanks."

LaPierre sees the U.N. as a club of governments, some of which want to "strip opposition forces of the means to challenge their authority."

Noting that during the 20th century, governments murdered 169 million people in various parts of the world, the NRA leader says individual gun ownership is the "ultimate protection against tyranny."

Although an effort by the U.N. to control Americans' guns seems far-fetched and improbable to some, as WorldNetDaily has reported in a major investigation, that plan has its roots in the early 1960s with a 20-page State Department pamphlet titled "Freedom From War: The United States Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World."

Visit the link and take part in the poll.

Story
Poll

[Wiskycoo]

...about time... you guys are so paranoid your neighbour will step on your property and you might need to have a gun strapped to your waist to fend off some' weapons of mass destruction' kind of incident.... only cops and other military personel ON DUTY should be allowed to carry a gun or have hand gun.

Here in Canada, you need to give warning to the local police that you are transporting your gun from one place to another...you need permission by the police in order to be able to do it....great stuff! Keeps us safe. We certainly have less crime and murder to prove a system without guns works.

[bassetman]

You also have universal health care!

[Littlefield]

Thank God for the NRA proud member.

[LANMaster]

Originally Posted by Wiskycoo

...about time... you guys are so paranoid your neighbour will step on your property and you might need to have a gun strapped to your waist to fend off some' weapons of mass destruction' kind of incident.... only cops and other military personel ON DUTY should be allowed to carry a gun or have hand gun.

Here in Canada, you need to give warning to the local police that you are transporting your gun from one place to another...you need permission by the police in order to be able to do it....great stuff! Keeps us safe. We certainly have less crime and murder to prove a system without guns works.

You'll not take my guns away.

[DublHelix]

Surely firearms are too prolific in the US that any attempt at imlementing a ban, wuold be logistically impossible ?

Though here in Britain, we are just over a week into a 'knife amnesty.'

Some 17,000 have been dropped in 'bins' o/side police stations ... not sure how many were deposited by muggers who have been persuaded to see the error of their ways though.

The intent is to implement a 5 yr minium sentence on those carrying a knife with a blade over 3 inches. Though the prospect of this is purely a knee jerk reaction by politicians who are responding to tabloid newspaper headlines about knife crime being 'out of control.'

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by Wiskycoo

...about time... you guys are so paranoid your neighbour will step on your property and you might need to have a gun strapped to your waist to fend off some' weapons of mass destruction' kind of incident.... only cops and other military personel ON DUTY should be allowed to carry a gun or have hand gun.

Here in Canada, you need to give warning to the local police that you are transporting your gun from one place to another...you need permission by the police in order to be able to do it....great stuff! Keeps us safe. We certainly have less crime and murder to prove a system without guns works.

A point of clarification, citizens here are not permitted to carry guns either, unless you get a special permit and you have to have a very good reason--like a security guard or a district attorney or something like that. Its a myth that Americans are all running around with guns strapped to their waists--its very rare that a person actually is carrying a gun (other than a criminal)--I'd be willing to bet more Canadians are carrying guns on their person than Americans (aside from criminals)--but that would be those living in the remote locations.

[columbo]

LAN,

I'm suprised that you would actually buy into such paranoid, delusional nonsense ("So, after we are disarmed, the U.N. wants us demobilized and reintegrated," says the NRA's executive vice president, Wayne LaPierre, according to the Economist magazine. "I can hear it now: 'Step right this way for your reprogramming, sir. Once we confiscate your guns, we can demobilize your aggressive instincts and reintegrate you into civil society.' No thanks.")...

Where is the evidence to show that this nefarious scheme has any basis in reality? What solid information is the NRA basing these speculations on?

At one of the last UN conferences on small arms control, the U.S. delegation (led by John Bolton if I'm not mistaken) simply walked out. I don't believe that U.S. opposition is really about the 2nd amendment; I think it is more about concerns that any resolutions stemming from such conferences might interfere with or prevent the U.S. from supplying certain forms of military aid to certain countries in the future, or U.S. companies from selling arms to certain countries (in other words, affecting "national interests").

The U.S. is already taking important steps to curb the illicit trade of small arms, but I think the problem lies in balancing that responsibility against the aforementioned "concerns".

The fact of the matter is that restricting and monitoring the trade of small arms around the world will end up saving lives (as acknowledged by the U.S. State Dept. -- see: http://usinfo.state.gov/is/Archive/2...12-171805.html)

I think you've let your intense hatred of the UN and your right-wing paranoia overtake your ability to look at this from a logical and rational perspective.

[Littlefield]

"Any anti-gun president could call the U.N. document an agreement instead of a "treaty "and bypass needing two-thirds of the U.S. senate for ratification. Bill Clinton did this to get the North American Free Trade Agreement ,which Congress passed with simple majorities." quoted by Wayne LaPierre ,Executive Vice President of NRA.

[bill.aam]

Originally Posted by Mulder

A point of clarification, citizens here are not permitted to carry guns either, unless you get a special permit and you have to have a very good reason--like a security guard or a district attorney or something like that. Its a myth that Americans are all running around with guns strapped to their waists--its very rare that a person actually is carrying a gun (other than a criminal)--I'd be willing to bet more Canadians are carrying guns on their person than Americans (aside from criminals)--but that would be those living in the remote locations.

Are you talking about a CCW?

I know in Michigan all you need to do is attened a saftey class and submit your CCW permit and you will get your permit. The onus is on the state now to prove why you can't have one. PA I believe is basicly the same...

[Chicon]

The ban of the weapons is a pure nonsense because it drives people to have them under-the-table.
For example, in Belgium, the laws are very strict to own a weapon, you must be seriously and repetitively threatened to obtain a licence. Therefore, there are nearly 2 millions of hidden unrepertoried weapons for 10.5 millions people according a study made by Amnesty International.

[Ciberblade]

In every case where the CCW has been put into place, violent crime has dropped

And it requires a background check

[Wino]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

You'll not take my guns away.

Well, they don't have to knock on your door any longer to walk into your home, so be prepared.

[bassetman]

Originally Posted by bill.aam

Are you talking about a CCW?

I know in Michigan all you need to do is attened a saftey class and submit your CCW permit and you will get your permit. The onus is on the state now to prove why you can't have one. PA I believe is basicly the same...

MN is very similar, but few who have the permit actually carry.

[columbo]

Originally Posted by Littlefield

"Any anti-gun president could call the U.N. document an agreement instead of a "treaty "and bypass needing two-thirds of the U.S. senate for ratification. Bill Clinton did this to get the North American Free Trade Agreement ,which Congress passed with simple majorities." quoted by Wayne LaPierre ,Executive Vice President of NRA.

What UN document is LaPierre referring to? Which specific provisions are cause for alarm?

Even if a U.S. president did declare that a "UN document" supercedes the 2nd Amendment (which would never happen) there is no existing practical enforcement mechanism (at least not one that I could think of).

The U.S. and every other world power simply ignores the UN when their interests are threatened or challenged. There is no reason to believe that the U.S. government would suddenly find itself "forced" to obey the UN, or that any governmental branch would conspire with the UN to nullify the 2nd Amendment.