Conversely, if you want off my ping-list, let me know.
And my apologies for any redundant pings.
Posted on 7/10/2006, 10:01:20 AM by Oakleaf
U.N. Conference Ending, Freedom Winning!! As of 6 p.m. eastern time, the word from the United Nations small arms conference is that the conference is concluding with NO final document, and NO plans for any follow-up conference. It was the latter issue that prevented an agreement about a final document. The officials who had been charged by the conference chair with drafting the conference document presented a final take-it-or-leave it document a little while ago; that draft document eliminated various provisions that the U.S. delegation had found objectionable, but also declared that there would be at least two more conferences. The U.S. delegation refused to assent, and so the conference ended with no consensus agreement, and no plans for future conferences. The back-up plan of the international gun prohibition movement, and their many allies within the U.N. and national U.N. delegations, was to give up on significant progress in 2006, but to keep the game going with future conferences, when a more pliant U.S. administration might welcome an international gun control program.
If a few hundred votes had changed in Florida in 2000, or if 60,000 votes had changed in Ohio in 2004, the results of the 2001 and 2006 U.N. gun control conferences would have been entirely different. There would now be a legally binding international treaty creating an international legal norm against civilian gun ownership, a prohibition on the transfer of firearms to "non-state actors" (such as groups resisting tyrants), and a new newspeak international human rights standard requiring restrictive licensing of gun owners. With a Presidential signature on such a treaty (even if the treaty were never brought to the Senate floor for ratification), the principles of the anti-gun treaty would be eroding the Second Amendment, through Executive Orders, and through the inclination of some courts to use unratified treaties as guidance in interpretting the U.S. Constitution.
At the domestic level, the Bush administration has been close to neutral on the gun issue — doing very little to promote or oppose gun control in Congress. One rare exception was that the Ashcroft Department of Justice returned to the historic (pre-LBJ) DOJ position that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right. And of course President Bush has signed all the pro-Second Amendment legislation which Congress has sent him, most importantly the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Firearms Act.
At the United Nations, however, the Bush administration has twice rescued our right to keep and bear arms from destruction.
There are plenty of issues on which pro-Constitution Americans can legitimately complain that the Bush administration has continued or worsened bad policies from previous administrations — such as federal interference in education, erosion of the Fourth Amendment, and allowing the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to ignore statutory controls on its behavior. But in regards to the United Nations assault on the Second Amendment, the Bush administration, including John Bolton (in 2001 as Undersecretary of State, and in 2006 as U.N. Ambassador) has performed magnificently. The gun rights activists whose hard work in 2000 and 2004 was the sine qua non of Bush's narrow electoral victories can take satisfaction that their work has, literally, saved the Second Amendment.
Today's victory is extremely important, but it should not be mistaken for a final victory in the international arena. The international gun prohibition lobbies are already looking towards other international fora where they can advance their goals, including their ultimate prize--a binding treaty requiring severe restriction of citizen gun possession. The various U.N. departments which have been providing funding and propaganda for gun prohibition and confiscation will almost certainly continue to do so.
For now, everyone who cares about the right to arms has much to celebrate.
Two of the most important, but less-known heroes of today's victory are Dr. Paul Gallant and Dr. Joanne Eisen, Senior Fellows at the Independence Institute. They have worked relentlessly to give a voice to the victims around the world for whom gun confiscation really was the crucial step to the destruction of all their other rights, or the destruction of life itself — in places such as Bouganville, Uganda, Kenya, Bosnia, and Zimbabwe. Today, the world is a better, freer place because of Paul and Joanne.
N.B. 2 See how even without ratification as required by the Constitution such a treaty could facilitate the erosion of our rights.
Think of these points when you are tempted not to vote, tempted to think it doesn't matter, tempted to just give up the good fight. As an added spur, imagine this story in the Slimes:
"President Kerry: U.N. Treaty Requires Stricter Gun Control"
Washington - President Kerry announced that the just-signed U.N. Treaty on Light Weapons and Small Arms "...requires stricter gun control in the U.S. As part of the International Community we must increase the controls on small arms and light weapons in the U.S. to prevent these weapons being exported into the wrong hands. No one's right to hunt will be infringed...".
I added the bolding to the text in the article by Kopel above. It is not in the original.
I've been wanting an AK for some time now, and I've decided that the commemoration of the end of this idiotic affair is the perfect occasion to buy. I'm therefore soliciting opinions in the form of a survey. Specifically:
1. Which is better, the (civilian version) of the AK47 or the AK74?
2. Which point of manufacture is best, e.g., Romania, China, etc.?
Any and all comers are welcome to leave an opinion and contribute to the celebration in the Hammer household of the end of this useless UN conference.
This whole conference was directed toward the US. We didn't blink.....Game Over!
bump to read later
It is illuminating that the anti-American, anti-freedom UN's global gun control summit collapsed in defeat. The ONLY defense that free people have against totalitarian government rule is the ability to own and bear arms. This was the entire goal of the Founding Fathers when they created the Bill of Rights to balance the freedom of the citizens against the potential for an over-bearing, oppressive government to rule unopposed.
The Second Amendment has been a target of the Left for that very reason. As long as we have a counter-balance against the government, totalitarian rule is kept in check. Should we ever lose our right to keep and bear arms as a counter-balance against totalitarian rule, our form of government will be lost.
On a related note, it is revealing that, with more than 20,000 active gun control laws actively on the books, leftists seek more. To date, these laws serve only to curtail the activities of law-abiding citizens. Outlaws are not affected by these laws. Additional food for thought - if all of the active gun control laws were enforced, would we still consider ourselves a "free people"?
http://www.ak47.net/
www.assaultweb.net
Here in CT I HAD to go with the AK 74.Because even though it's a twin of the AK 47, it doesn't say Kalashnakov on it. It's illegal in CT for your AK to have the word Kalashnakov on it because, apparently, it's a mean word & words kill.
I know, I know....it's laughable isn't it?
May I please ask how you intend to use an AK? I'm curious. thanks
Conversely, if you want off my ping-list, let me know.
And my apologies for any redundant pings.
The 2nd Amendment PROTECTS Homeland Security
Does it matter?
They will be back, and as you point out, they're hoping for a President Kerry or some other turd like him.
Last thing I need is to be added to one more ping list - but this one is really important. I don't own a gun, but I'm very much a supporter of our right to bear arms.
Go ahead and add me Joe.
It really depends on whether you prefer 7.62x39 or 5.45x39 ammo. The current theory favors the 5.45, bt the 7.62 is a lot easier (read cheaper) to get. I'm pretty much committed to 7.62x39 for reasons having to do with money.
There's nothing I can see to stop them from the same track, just because they didn't announce it on paper during this conference.
Ping
Having an AK protects your "hunting" rifles.
God Bless George W. Bush, Condie Rice, John Bolton, Dr. Paul Gallant, and Dr. Joanne Eisen.
We have quite a bit of work ahead of us in the upcoming primaries to ensure we actually have the option to "Vote Freedom First".
Be Ever Vigilant!
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.