Posted on 05/30/2006 12:14:27 PM PDT by neverdem
Sunday, May 28, 2006
THE NEW WORLD DISORDER
Michael Douglas backs
U.N. gun ban
TV commercial 'spotlights the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons'
 Michael Douglas |
Actor Michael Douglas – who for many years has been designated by the United Nations as a "U.N. peace messenger" – is backing the global body's upcoming conference on small arms trafficking.
In a public service announcement, Douglas "spotlights the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons and promotes an upcoming U.N. conference aimed at addressing the problem," according to the U.N. News Center.
The controversial conference wins the prize for having the longest name in memory: "The U.N. Conference to Review Progress Made in the Implementation of the Program of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons." It is scheduled for June 26 through July 7 in New York City.
"The conference is an opportunity for U.N. member states to build on the Program of Action and to encourage countries to strengthen their laws on the illicit trade," says Douglas. The plan was adopted in 2001.
Douglas's public service announcement is part of a U.N. public information campaign, and "calls attention to the dangers posed by the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons, including their humanitarian and social impact on children and the civilian population in general," says the U.N. website's story.
Douglas was appointed a "messenger of peace by Secretary-General Kofi Annan in 1998. His focus has been primarily on disarmament – from nuclear on down to small arms.
Last month Douglas presented Annan, who has been besieged with corruption complaints in recent months, with an award for his dedication to ridding the world of land mines.
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 back 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."
More recently, National Rifle Association Vice President Wayne LaPierre warns that the U.N. is concerned about banning a lot more than just land mines and illicit weapons in African hot spots. He says the global body also wants the firearms of American citizens as well.
In fact, says LaPierre in the just-released book, "The Global War on Your Guns," the U.N. is so sure it can commandeer the Second Amendment that it chose the Fourth of July, 2006, to hold its global gun ban summit in New York City.
In the book, LaPierre claims a 1997 land-mine treaty actually molded the U.N.'s new anti-gun strategy; that the U.N. funnels Americans' tax dollars to anti-gun member nations; that U.S. gun-control advocates are investing in the U.N.'s activities; and that even the most extreme U.N. gun laws can be enforced on Americans, without the benefit of a new treaty.
In exposing the labyrinth of international connections and cash flow that have made the controversial U.N. plan possible, LaPierre also spotlights global billionaires like George Soros, as well as an extensive coalition of domestic and worldwide gun-ban and animal-rights groups led by the International Action Network on Small Arms.
In any case, where do you draw the line in terms of allowing prvate ownership with no restriction?
They pontificate and go on and on about the "world-wide problems" supposedly associated with these things...but their real aim is, and always has been, to bring down the US and attack any item, from land mines to privately held hand guns, that could serve to defend the liberty and soveriegnty of the United States. The rest is just window dressing to them.
Michael Douglas should stick to what he does best - dumping Maureen Dowd for Catherine Zeta Jones.
Did Mr. Douglas' body guards check their pistols at the door of the UN before entiring? Perhaps Rosie's did also.
bump
No surprise here. Twit Douglas has always been anti-gun.
I support a ban on the UN's owning firearms too.
Mike is an old wrinkly ass...
It's not a man law until the old guy writes it in the book.
"In any case, where do you draw the line in terms of allowing prvate ownership with no restriction?"
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
In essence that means that the Civilian Population "The People" shall be as well armed as the standing army.
Look at Switzerland for an example. Every able bodied man is required by law to possess a military style weapon with a certain amount of ammunition and supplies for the field.
The entire country is armed and the country has the lowest crime rate of any in the world. It also has a history of having never been successfully invaded. Both World Wars saw them left completely alone.
I would love to see our country equally as armed.
Jihadists would have a much harder time of it than what they do now.
Doesn't he have some acting to do?
Dude, do you ever get tired of trolling?
'Bout the most reasonable restriction I can think of is that any personal weapon available to an Infantryman should be available to the private citizen. Including (but not limited to...) LMGs, SMGs, ARs, LAWs, grenades, launchers, .50 cal BMG rifles, etc.
I'm a little more radical. In the good ol' days, merchant ship owners used to equip their ships with "state of the art" cannon, esp. if they were headed to dangerous waters or ports. So the closest thing to a limit (and its bit fuzzy) is that I would allow the ownership of direct fire artillery, too. No IRBMs or ICBMs, MLRS, cruise missiles, howitzwers, mortars, etc.
Well, maybe they were fitting out their private warship...
Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. Perhaps you could specify just what of the Second Amendment allows such shading as 'hard core'. With which part of 'shall not be infinged' do you have problems?
Prepare an essay comparing and contrasting 'weapons' and 'arms' and considering such hermeneutics as may have caused our Founding Fathers to write the Second Amendment as the Right to keep and bear arms contra weapons.
Your premises reek.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.