NRA bashes U.N. on small-arms reduction

UPI / Wash Times ^ | 2/18/05 | Sebastian Christ and Philipp Heinz

[Mr. Mojo]

Washington, DC, Feb. 18 (UPI) -- Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association of America, has used the Conservative Political Actions Conference as a forum to harshly criticize U.N. efforts to reduce the amount of small arms in the hand of civilians.

At the same day the U.N. Security Council debated its actions to implement sanctions and arms embargoes, LaPierre accused the United Nations of denying U.S. citizens the right to bear arms. His speech, filled with open distain toward the international organization, concluded, "Others here may suggest the U.S. to get out of the U.N. Right now I just want the U.N. to get out of the U.S."

Meanwhile Stuart Holliday, alternate U.S. representative in the United Nations for Special Political Affairs, welcomed U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan's report on small arms, calling the weapon-confiscation programs a relatively modest investment that could lead to large dividends in threat reduction.

In his speech Thursday LaPierre claimed the United Nations was responsible for allowing the genocide in Rwanda and its corruption and domination by dictators. He directly linked the U.N. firearms-reduction programs to the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution that allows people in the United States to own guns: "If you take away the right to bear arms, all other freedoms are at risk and, in time, lost. But confiscating civilian firearms worldwide is a major mission of the U.N. right now. That's why I want the U.N. out of the U.S."

LaPierre added, "Why does the National Rifle Association care about the United Nations? Because the U.N. is out to destroy firearm freedom -- the one freedom that preserves all the others."

Reaching the peak of his speech, LaPierre said: "The U.N. is the world's wealthiest and most organized enemy...

[Oztrich Boy]

That's the problem with one issue orgs...

Like people so intent on controlling The Other, that they are willing to accept the loss of freedim by all?

[Mr. Mojo]

"if the U.S. "gets out of" the UN, then the U.S. can't veto UN weapons confiscation programs"

If you're referring to the UN programs providing for the confiscation of small arms from U.S. citizens, you've got to be kidding. First of all, a U.S-less UN wouldn't have enough teeth to bite their own fingernails. And secondly, what makes you think American citizens would submit to laws originating from an criminal organization that we've both booted out of the country and withdrawn from? Sheeeet, most of us (American gunowners) wouldn't submit to firearms-confiscation laws that originated in our own congress.

[Southack]

"Without our tax dollars, those UN vetos are a moot point. Because without our tax dollars, the UN doesn't exist."

Don't play dumb.

You think that the Ted Turner's and George Soros' of the world wouldn't be giving the UN a billion Dollars each for anti-gun programs simply because the U.S. left?!

You think that China and Europe wouldn't fund UN gun confiscations world-wide without the U.S. in the UN?!

If the U.S. surrenders its UN veto without firing a shot as you Frenchies wish, then within 5 years the UN will have all guns eliminated from law-abiding civilians worldwide...forming a global bloc against the lone U.S.

There would be dancing in the streets of Paris and Beijing and Berlin if the U.S. were to be so foolish as to give the UN unfettered control of the rest of the world's geopolitics.

The UN, without U.S. veto restraints, would mass resources, leverage treaties, and hammer one nation at a time into submission until finally only the U.S. was left standing, and then the whole world would take us on.

Fortunately, we're led by adults rather than by such easily manipulatable suckers, so we aren't going to surrender our UN veto without putting up a fight first.

[Southack]

"If you're referring to the UN programs providing for the confiscation of small arms from U.S. citizens, you've got to be kidding."

Without a U.S. veto, the UN would ban the international sale and transport of all civilian firearms and ammo. Forget your cheap Russian "Wolf" ammo. Forget your South American Taurus pistols. Forget your imported Berretas, AK-47's, or semi-auto Uzi's.

Civilians would be disarmed in every nation outside of the U.S. and perhaps Israel. We'd be the last free nation standing, with the rest of the world hammering on our "primitiveness" as they engaged in trade embargoes on things such as oil in their attempts to punish us for our gun freedoms.

...We've been down this road before. The whole world condemned the U.S. for slavery back in the 1850's and 1860's, culminating in our own Civil War that ended said slavery per globalist demands.

Well, you'll see far more geopolitical pressure placed onto the U.S. for gun confiscation today than to eliminate slavery in 1860...if the U.S. surrenders its U.S. veto in the UN.

The UN would then have unrestrained political power to leverage one at a time against tiny nations in Africa and South America and Central America and Asia and Europe. One by one they'd all ban civilians from owning firearms. Then they'd do the same to the Middle-East, culminating in a push against Israel.

In the end, it would only be the U.S. left for the whole world to rail against our gun freedoms.

No doubt that radical lefties in Paris, Beijing, and Berlin would simply *love* for such nonsense to come to fruition, all because some simpletons thought that they could gamble the world's freedom and future on the chance that eliminating U.S. funding for the UN and surrendering our UN veto would somehow kill that beast.

[Redbob]

"First La Pierre should consider getting the NRA out of the UN, since the NRA is one of many "NGOs" in the UN."

Being an "NGO" doesn't mean you support the UN - it does however mean that
(a)you get to comment on UN programs, and
(b)you get to learn what "the other side" is planning.

It's called "strategy," and the NRA would be foolish to withdraw.

[NRA2BFree]

Civilians would be disarmed in every nation outside of the U.S. and perhaps Israel. We'd be the last free nation standing, with the rest of the world hammering on our "primitiveness" as they engaged in trade embargoes on things such as oil in their attempts to punish us for our gun freedoms.

Now, THAT is really good bar talk. Of course you'd be laughed out of the bar for talking like that. Some of those "good ole boys' would disagree with you.

I'll tellya what, WHEN I see ALL of the Muslim countries disarmed by the U.N. I'll give them my guns. LOL I can say that because it's NEVER going to happen. Just like I'm NEVER going to give up my guns. :)

The U.N. is a criminal organization and we NEED to get out of there NOW!!

[Southack]

No, the UN is a dangerous international organization that we need to shut down by vetoing everything of note that even hints of socialism, wealth redistribution, gun confiscation, etc.

...and we don't get to do that by surrendering our UN veto without so much as a shot being fired against us.

Heck, Spain after Madrid's 3/11 train bombing had more guts than that.

[Colorado Buckeye]

In the end, it would only be the U.S. left for the whole world to rail against our gun freedoms.

Maybe you've been asleep for the last 20 years because that describes our situation today.

[NRA2BFree]

No, the UN is a dangerous international organization that we need to shut down by vetoing everything of note that even hints of socialism, wealth redistribution, gun confiscation, etc.

How exactly are we going to do that? Did you not notice that our vetoes mean NOTHING to the U.N.? The U.N. put Syria on the Security Council, over our protests. They vetoed us on Iraq, and the list goes on and on.

...and we don't get to do that by surrendering our UN veto without so much as a shot being fired against us.

The U.N. administration and the U.N. members hate the U.S. and they are going to continue to vote against us every single time. Why are we giving them millions of OUR tax dollars and a piece of prime RE with a building in NYC when they vote no against us every single time.

They stole our money in the "Oil for Food" program in Iraq. They have raped and abused people all over the world. They have embezzled money in other departments, and the latest involved rape and abuse of power in the recent tsunami ravaged nations. Those are CRIMES, and THAT is why I say they are a criminal organization. They CANNOT be trusted.

Heck, Spain after Madrid's 3/11 train bombing had more guts than that.

The crimes the U.N. have committed have been against the most helpless of victims. IF we don't pull the plug on that bunch of criminals, then how can you justify being a part of that to those victims. Look what's going on in Sudan right now. As long as it's Christians being killed, the U.N. turns a blind eye. Perhaps it's because Kofi is a Muslim.

[Southack]

"Maybe you've been asleep for the last 20 years because that describes our situation today."

You think that Israel, Switzerland, Serbia, South Africa, Italy, Norway, Russia, Finland, Ukraine, Turkey, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Mexico, and Canada ban all firearms from all civilians?

[Southack]

"The U.N. administration and the U.N. members hate the U.S. and they are going to continue to vote against us every single time. Why are we giving them millions of OUR tax dollars and a piece of prime RE with a building in NYC when they vote no against us every single time."

Cutting off our money to the UN would be fine, if that's what the situation demands.

But cutting off our funding is a far, far different thing than surrendering our UN veto.

After the UN is dead and buried, then, and only then, do we yield up that veto.

Not the other way around. We don't surrender our UN veto as you've been demanding in the wild-eyed *hope* that somehow that kills off the UN.

First, the UN dies. Only then do we surrender our UN veto.

[philetus]

"Sustainable Development" is the Evil You Face

By Tom DeWeese

On July 23, 2004, Tom DeWeese, president of the American Policy Center, addressed the fifth annual Freedom 21 Conference in Reno, Nevada. The following is the first of two parts of his address on the agenda, the threat, and the defeat of "Sustainable Development."

My friends, we come here today from many walks of life. A wide variety of reasons got each of us started on the road to activism.

Some of us started simply because we noticed something funny about our child's curriculum in school. Some of us were outraged by government trying to take away our guns. A good many of us suddenly found government agents and members of private groups plotting to take away our land. Some have had their livestock confiscated. Some have found themselves facing jail - just for doing what their fathers and grandfathers have done on the same land for decades.

Some of us just wanted to be allowed to go to church, pray to God, and celebrate Christmas without being fined for it. A few of us would even like to be able to go to a restaurant and order food we like - even if it is greasy, fattening and full of carbs and calories.

All of us just want to live in an America where our rights and pursuit of happiness is protected. And, so we fight. And, now, we've found ourselves here today in a room with hundreds of others in the same boat.

I have one thing to tell you. You are not going to win. Because the other side has cut us up into little pieces. They've divided us, and conquered us.

They've succeeded because you think your fight is against gun control. Because you think your fight is against bad schools. Because you think your fight is against the Endangered Species Act and roadless programs, and wetlands regulations, and water rights and Heritage Areas. Because you think your fight is against Democrats, and not Republicans. Because you think it's a fight between evil liberals and good guy conservatives.

You're wrong. Your fight is against a well-planned, well orchestrated agenda for the complete transformation of America. And, unless you learn that fact now, today... and, unless you fully educate yourselves to every aspect of that agenda and fight it on the proper terms - then you cannot win!

I'm here to tell you that every one of these issues you are facing is interrelated. There is an agenda being implemented before your very eyes. It's called Sustainable Development.

And I will tell you now, if you want to keep your guns, your property, your children, and your God - if you love liberty - then Sustainable Development is your enemy!

So, what is Sustainable Development? Imagine an America in which a specific "ruling principle" is created to decide proper societal conduct for every citizen.

That principle would be used to consider everything you eat, what you wear, the kind of homes you live in, the method of transportation used to get to work, the way you dispose of waste, perhaps the number of children you may have, even your education and employment decisions.

Sustainable Development is that "ruling principle" for the implementation of what former Vice President Al Gore said we must all suffer through in order to purify our nation from the horrors of the Twentieth Century's industrial revolution.

In his book, Earth in the Balance, Gore called it a "wrenching transformation of society." Those are pretty powerful words, that should concern anyone who values liberty. It's a warning that the rules are changing. That a new power elite is taking control.

Perhaps you are beginning to notice such changes as you go about your daily routine, but haven't understood where those changes, and the ideas behind them, are coming from. But Sustainable Development is a very difficult concept to grasp. It's written in an almost foreign language - designed to mislead and refrain from alarming you.

Let me put it in the simplest language I possibly can. The Atkins Diet is not sustainable. Now, why do I say that? Because on page 350 of the U.N.'s Global Biodiversity Assessment Report it says that the grazing of livestock, including cows, sheep, goats, and horses is not sustainable. One reason for that concept is because Sustainablists contend that the animals pollute and damage the banks of streams.

Getting us to stop eating beef is a major effort needed to fully implement the Sustainable Agenda. Since they are cowards, who fear your reaction to an outright banning of eating meat, they have to try to trick you into thinking that not eating meat is your idea. So, they use scare tactics. For years, they have told you that eating meat raises your cholesterol. Fat is bad for you. Meat causes heart attacks. With PETA's help they were succeeding in turning us all into little sissies eating salads.

Then, along comes Dr. Atkins who shows us that a low carb beef diet will help you lose weight, in a healthy way. Suddenly, the nation has gone Atkins crazy. Beef sales are sky rocketing. The Sustainablists are in a tail spin. They've lost control of your eating habits.

Now, watch what they are doing to get you back on track. Suddenly, reports are being published in leading women's magazines about Atkins being dangerous to your health. Lawsuits have begun to pop up against the diet.

Do you see how it works? That's how the Sustainable Development agenda is implemented. Behavior modification, based on fear. Freedom of choice is not part of Sustainable Development. And, so I repeat, - the Atkins Diet is not sustainable.

Now, perhaps you'll understand why there are Sustainable Development papers, guidelines and regulations to impose the ruling principle:

On our public education system - to prepare our children to live in a sustainable world.

On our economy - to create partnerships between business and government, making sure business becomes a tool to help implement the policies.

On the environment - leading to controls on private property and business.

On health care - the new drive against obesity is leading directly toward controls on what we eat.

On farming - Sustainable Development policies affect farmers' ability to produce more crops by regulating or banning precious chemicals, biotechnology, and genetic engineering in the name of environmental protection.

On our social and cultural environment - where political correctness is controlling policy hiring practices, immigration policy, multiculturalism, marriage laws, etc.

On our mobility - with emphasis on carpools and public transportation, and away from the freedom of personal transportation.

And on public safety - where the rule of law and the court system is being challenged by new regulations that affect the right to privacy and unreasonable search and seizures.

It's important to understand that these leading issues we face today are not just random concerns that find their way into the forefront of political debate. They are all interconnected to the policies of Sustainable Development.

And, you must understand that Sustainable Development is the official policy of the government of the United States of America - and every state, city, and small burg in the nation.

It is completely bi-partisan. It is being equally implemented by Republicans and Democrats. No matter the outcome of any election - the Sustainable Development agenda moves forward, unabated.

What we are telling you here today, my friends, is that Sustainable Development isn't just some land use policy. It is a complete transformation of American society; away from the rule of law; away from the ideals of property ownership, free enterprise, free travel, and even free association.

Sustainable Development. It's a life plan. Planned by someone else. Not you.

And, Sustainable Development is not a myth, or a theory, or a conspiracy - as I've heard some in our own movement call it.

Since the 1970s, literally hundreds of issue papers, charters, guidelines, and treaties have been presented at scores of international meetings, each becoming a building block in the creation of what would eventually become Sustainable Development.

Finally in 1992, the U.N.'s Earth Summit in Brazil brought all of these ideas together in two major documents called Agenda 21 and the Biodiversity Treaty. Here, the ideas were officially presented to world leaders that all government on every level, needed to be transformed into top-down control over housing, food production, energy, water, private property education, population control, gun control, transportation, social welfare, medical care, and literally, every aspect of our lives.

To get the full picture, add to these the U.N.'s Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women, both of which create U.N.-mandates on abortion, child rearing and government interference on families.

In 1993 President Clinton created the President's Council on Sustainable Development. From that Council, came a flood of policy papers and recommendations to enforce it as government policy.

And, the Clinton Administration didn't need Congress to get into the act. All Cabinet officials had to do was change some wording of existing programs, and reroute already-approved funding to begin to implement the agenda - without Congress and without debate. Former Commerce Secretary Ron Brown told a meeting of the President's Council that he could implement 67 percent of the Sustainable Development agenda in his agency with no new legislation. Other agencies like Interior, EPA, HUD, and more did the same thing. To help it all along, Clinton issued a blizzard of Executive Orders.

The American Heritage Rivers Initiative was born that way. So were roadless policies designed to stop logging in national forests. National parks have become core biosphere reserves designed to shut out any human activity. And, the buffer zones around them are designed to shut off existing human activity, allowing the core to continually grow like a cancer tumor.

Any possible excuse to control human development or activities began to sprout up - from rails-to-trails bikeways to wetlands regulations to historic preservation projects. Endangered species, real or made up, have been used to close down industry and steal private lands. Valuable natural resources have been locked away in national parks and preserves.

In this way, an international agenda to transform the world into global governance under Sustainable Development policy took hold, and became official policy of the United States of America.

Tom DeWeese is the president of the American Policy Center and publisher/editor of "The DeWeese Report," a monthly public affairs newsletter.

[NRA2BFree]

Please read post 32 and then come back and tell me you still think we should stay in the U.N.

[NRA2BFree]

Sustainable Development, Agenda 21, NAFTA, CAFTA, FTAA, WHO, UN, WTO, i.e. are all tools used by those 'elite' people who have planned all of this.

The gang of criminals in DC that make our laws are going right along with it. They should be tried for treason!!!!!

[Southack]

"Please read post 32 and then come back and tell me you still think we should stay in the U.N."

Yes, we stay in the UN in order to keep vetoing their confiscation proposals for civilian firearms, as well as vetoing every other crackpot idea that they roll out.

The alternative to vetoing their lame ideas is to idly watch them pass and be hammered by foreign nations, our universities, and our Corrupt Old Media for having the U.S. always be "out of compliance."

What you keep proposing, probably because you have good intentions but simply don't know any better, is to surrender our UN veto and pretend that the big bad globalists will leave us all alone...or that China and Europe and globalists like Soros and Ted Turner won't donate more billions upon billions to make up for the loss of U.S. government funding.

Well, culture wars don't work like that. Surrendering our UN veto power, as you advocate, won't give us *anything* positive. It will mean that we have suffered a self-inflicted defeat in this great war...something that I see no gain in brokering.

So yes, we stay in the UN. Defund it if you can, that's fine...veto everything that doesn't enhance freedom...that too is fine...but no, we don't give up our UN veto power for some pipe-dream of a fantasy that somehow the UN will just "crumble" if the U.S. leaves it.

Neville Chamberlain was wrong to give up Czechoslavkia to Germany. He said that surrendering that country to the Nazis without a fight would lead to "peace in our time."

He was wrong. Like you, he had good intentions. He simply didn't know any better. He didn't want to fight another war, so he surrendered an entire nation.

Well, that's not me. I'm not like Chamberlain. I'm not surrendering *anything*, much less our UN veto power.

[w6ai5q37b]

It's called "strategy," and the NRA would be foolish to withdraw.

By becoming an NGO under the UN, the NRA only adds prestige to the UN by giving the impression that it is a legitimate authority. I seriously doubt that anything good comes of any "comments" made by the NRA in the UN, and I also seriously doubt that they learn anything from the opposition. On the contrarary, I suspect that the NRA becomes more like it's opposition by adopting this "strategy" and thus becomes neutralized in the process.