Posted on 06/09/2006 11:31:54 AM PDT by neverdem
www.gunowners.org
Jun 2006
|
Wednesday, June 7, 2006
The letter to one of our GOA members starts off innocently enough.
"Dear Friend," it says. "Thank you for taking the time to contact me... regarding United Nations (UN) firearm regulation and protection of Second Amendment rights."
The senator goes on to say, "As an American citizen, I believe that is of the utmost importance to protect our liberties guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. Among these is the Second Amendment."
Sounds like one of our guys, right?
Actually, this May 11, 2006 letter was penned by none other than one of the most anti-gun senators in the Congress -- Sen. Herb Kohl (D-WI).
What especially caught GOA's attention is that Sen. Kohl emphatically states that the UN is NOT trying to disarm us.
"Current UN proposals do not infringe upon these [Second Amendment] rights," he says. "The State Department has assured me that 'the Convention is intended to address the problem of transnational trafficking in firearms, and is not meant to regulate the internal firearms trade' of individual nations, including the United States."
Did Kohl really say that? And did the State Department really say that current UN proposals don't infringe upon Second Amendment rights? That the UN is only interested in stopping the international trafficking of firearms, and is not trying to infringe the rights of law-abiding citizens?
Well, as they say on the farm: that's just horse-pucky.
The fact is, the United Nations has ALREADY TRIED to impose mandatory gun controls for member nations. In 2001, delegates from more than 140 nations met together to hammer out various firearms restrictions. But there were a few countries -- most notably, the United States -- that resisted all efforts to discuss legally binding measures or restrictions on civilian ownership of firearms.
The hero at that conference was our very own John Bolton, who at that time was an undersecretary for arms control at the State Department. Bolton, who is now the US ambassador to the UN, said that our country would not support any language that conflicted with the constitutional right of our citizens to keep and bear arms.
That was the proverbial monkey wrench in the cog wheel. Without US support for mandatory restrictions, the agreement became a "voluntary" one.
But make no mistake about it, the overwhelming majority of member nations at the UN hate the idea of civilians owning guns, and they want to bring an end to such freedoms. They despise our Second Amendment to the US Constitution.
The leading organization that is pushing for global gun control is IANSA (International Action Network on Small Arms). They are the umbrella lobby group for all the anti-gun groups at the United Nations.
IANSA is helping coordinate an international convention this July 4 to discuss, among other things, "the importance of regulating guns owned by civilians." This is the latest series of conferences where nations are putting together a global gun control treaty.
But Sen. Kohl is either lying or is ignorant to what the UN has been up to. All he needs to do is check the IANSA website to see what the global gun grabbers are saying about the upcoming global meeting on small arms. Kohl tells his constituent that the UN "will not infringe upon the rights of U.S. citizens to bear 'firearms such as hunting rifles and pistols.'"
But that is exactly what a majority of the UN delegates want. In its 2006 report, Bringing the Global Gun Crisis Under Control, IANSA defines small arms as "weapons that can be carried and used by an individual, for example, revolvers, pistols, rifles, shotguns, sub-machine guns and assault rifles." So, it sure sounds like they're talking about regulating the kinds of guns that average citizens own.
IANSA laments that "there are no international guidelines to assist states in regulating gun ownership among their own citizens." So what kinds of guidelines (that is, gun restrictions) would IANSA like to see imposed in countries around the world? Consider just a sampling:
* Registration of all firearms
* A national system of licensing
* Prohibition on the private ownership of military-style rifles, including semi-automatic variants
* Mandatory, lock-up-your-safety storage requirements
Thankfully, there is something that we can do about this.
Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) has introduced the Second Amendment Protection Act (S. 1488), which will "withhold funding from the United Nations if the United Nations abridges the rights provided by the Second Amendment to the Constitution."
If the UN wants to meddle with America's internal affairs and attempt to undermine our freedoms and our U.S. Constitution, then the American taxpayer will stop paying a huge portion (22%) of the entire UN budget, something we can ill afford and which serves no great purpose at any time.
If the UN tries to mess with us, they will pay a price for it.
CONTACT INFORMATION:
1. Please urge your two U.S. Senators to cosponsor the Vitter legislation (S. 1488) to withhold funds from the UN. To contact your senators, you can visit the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send them the first pre-written message below.
2. Please send a message to the State Department, encouraging Secretary Condoleezza Rice and our ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, to oppose these global gun controls. While there is no direct email that is available, you can contact them via phone or fax (Talking Points are provided below to assist you):
Phone: 202-647-9572
Fax: 202-647-2283
Dear Senator:
I find it extremely irritating that the United Nations is holding another gun control conference from June 27 - July 7. While we are celebrating one of our most sacred national holidays on July 4, gun grabbers will be meeting on U.S. soil to discuss plans for our disarmament.
One can find out what these international gun grabbers have planned by going to the IANSA website. As the umbrella lobby group for all the anti-gun groups at the United Nations, they have posted their agenda for all to see. They have, by no means, kept their plans secret.
The United Nations has ALREADY TRIED to impose mandatory gun controls for member nations. In 2001, delegates from more than 140 nations met together to hammer out various firearms restrictions. But at that time, it was our very own John Bolton, who said that our country would not support any language that conflicted with the constitutional right of our citizens to keep and bear arms.
Primarily because of Bolton's efforts, the 2001 meeting ended without any binding measures or restrictions on civilian ownership of firearms.
But the UN is at it again. And that's why it's essential that you support S. 1488, the Second Amendment Protection Act. This bill -- introduced by Sen. David Vitter -- will "withhold funding from the United Nations if the United Nations abridges the rights provided by the Second Amendment to the Constitution."
If the UN wants to meddle with America's internal affairs and attempt to undermine our freedoms and our U.S. Constitution, they should pay a price for it.
I would appreciate hearing whether you plan to cosponsor this bill. Thank you.
Sincerely,
I find it extremely irritating that the United Nations is holding another gun control conference from June 27 - July 7. While we are celebrating one of our most sacred national holidays on July 4, gun grabbers will be meeting on U.S. soil to discuss plans for our disarmament.
You both have been strong defenders of gun rights in the past. So I hope that you will do everything within your power to make sure that this great nation does not spend a single tax dollar in helping these global gun tyrants to enact a treaty putting international pressure upon the United States.
Senator Herb Kohl is claiming that your State Department has assured him that the intentions of current UN proposals are intended to "address the problem of transnational trafficking in firearms, and is not meant to regulate the internal firearms trade" of individual nations, including the United States.
This is just plain wrong. The United Nations has ALREADY TRIED to impose mandatory gun controls for member nations -- such as in 2001, when delegates from more than 140 nations met together to hammer out various firearms restrictions. Thankfully, that meeting ended without any binding measures or restrictions on civilian ownership of firearms.
But the UN is at it again. IANSA, the umbrella lobby group for all the anti-gun groups at the United Nations, has not kept their plans for our country a secret. They have their agenda posted on their website, and it is available for all to see.
Again, I hope you will stand against these plans. And please know that Americans all over this country are standing behind you and want you to stand firm against this onslaught against our rights.
Thank you.
Kick the UN out of the US.
As a matter of policy, I add at least one new gun to my arsenal every time the UN throws one of these disarmament-fests, whether I need another one or not.
Exactly!
It's bad enough having to deal with home-grown `grabbers' (who should know better) but now we have to deal with international gun-grifters?
Give Kofi and the UN the boot!
Right. I'll get Diane Feinstein and Babs Boxer on this immediately.
what keeps the UN building from falling over out into the river?
Even the guys "on our side" don't get it.
The UN RevCon for the Programme of Action for illicit small arms trade is that week, but July 4 is considered a UN Holiday. See for yourself.
http://www.un.org/events/smallarms2006/programme.html
and the US out of the UN
And to think the "Republican" Party of Wisconsin refuses to put up anything beyond a token challenge to Nobody's Senator.
I'm confused. Are you saying you would like to see the United Nations building in NYC bombed by a terrorist?
Nice sentiment, but 22,000 unConstitutional anti-gun laws later...
2 words for the UN regarding this issue,
MOLAN LABE!!
Semper Fidelis
Senators can be, and often are, both.
It is long overdue for the UN to become a world-class organization with high ideals, workable procedures, and an independent security arm to insure its safety, security, and freedom from corrupt practices. If that falls into the "too hard" category, we should ask the UN to relocate to Iceland.
-----------------------------------------
Wadsworth: Professor Plum, you were once a professor of psychiatry specializing in helping paranoid and homicidal lunatics suffering from delusions of grandeur.
Professor Plum: Yes, but now I work for the United Nations.
Wadsworth: So your work has not changed.
-----------------------------------------
Miss Scarlet: And I'm gonna sell my secrets--your secrets--to the highest bidder.
Col. Mustard: And what if we don't cooperate?
Miss Scarlet: You will. Or I'll expose you.
Professor Plum: We could expose you. Six murders?
Miss Scarlet: I hardly think it will enhance your reputation at the U.N., Professor Plum, if it's revealed that you have been implicated not only in adultery with one of your patients, but in her death -- (lowering the revolver at him) and the deaths of five other people.
Professor Plum: You don't know what kind of people they have at the U.N. I might go up in their estimation.
Bump for later.
Not a bad idea, all in all. Naturally, however, I'd always prefer to use good American labour rather than some shabby-ass terrorist.
One can do much better, though, with much less fuss. Just send a few chaps in, 3 am again, with canisters of some UN-banned pesticide, and give it a top-to-bottom spraying. Might as well mix in some sort of emetic, too -- so the UN turdocracy can puke and choke at the same time.
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.