The United Nations And Its Cohorts Want Your Guns

Toogood Reports ^ | June 10, 2003 | Allan C. Stover

[Tailgunner Joe]

One of the numerous UN conferences that sounded noble but soon gave Americans who believe in our Second Amendment rights a sense of foreboding was the UN Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Weapons in All its Aspects. It was supposedly concerned with “international trade in illicit arms,” but the words “in all its aspects” tacked on to the end of its name revealed its true intent. References in their reports to gun control within countries horrify Americans who know the dangers of international control of anything.

Remember the first press releases on the International Criminal Court? One-world-government radicals at first insisted it would affect only those responsible for genocide, such as the bloodthirsty maniacs who directed the slaughter of almost a million people in Rwanda while the UN stood by and did nothing. Some naïve citizens fell for their spiel. Who wouldn´t support prosecuting some monster who had masterminded a mass slaughter of innocent civilians? Then we learned that our soldiers sent on missions of mercy and our wartime leaders could be victims of a zealous prosecutor, just as former Chilean leader Augusto Pinochet was stalked by a leftist Spanish prosecutor who was probably perturbed that Pinochet had kicked the commies out of Chile. And the same one-world-government activists are hoping for international control over our environment and economy through the Kyoto Protocol, but that's another horror story.

Ambassador Peggy Mason gave her report on a preparatory meeting for the UN gun conference. On the positive side, she applauded the participation of 144 nations, underscoring the fact that this was a major UN operation. “On the negative side,” she continued, “a few key states persisted in their efforts to limit the conference to a narrow law enforcement focus, despite the excellent work being done on the Firearms Protocol in Vienna with broader preventive and reduction measures.” And what “broader preventive and reduction measures” did the Firearms Protocol come up with? It called for international control of “manufacture, possession, and transfer” of commercial shipments of small arms, “traders and forwarders to register and obtain licenses,” and “marking and tracking mechanisms” for all weapons. Gee, sounds familiar. Just get legitimate dealers, manufacturers, and even owners to “register,” and illegal weapons will magically disappear from the hands of criminals. (I´m sure those Palestinian machine shops turning out weapons will comply.) If you wade through the pompous verbiage, you sense the taint of an international Handgun Control, Inc. The words “control,” and “register” are, as Yogi Berra would say, déjà vu all over again.

One of the many NGOs that participated in the conference was the International Action Network on Small Arms. IANSA is “an international network of over 340 organizations from 71 countries working to prevent the proliferation and misuse of small arms and light weapons.” (And you thought this was a small effort!) Here is what just one section of IANSA´s Founding Document states it wants to accomplish:

“Effective domestic control over small arms requires: Establishing laws and regulations governing the ownership of small arms, including licensing and registration arrangements, along with promotion of the political will and technical capacity to enforce those laws. . . .” Now there´s a statement that could come from our own gun grabbers. “Domestic control” means just what it says. Our government controls our weapons by passing even more “laws and regulations governing the ownership of small arms.” We have some 20,000 of them already, but IANSA wants more “licensing and registration” and “the political will and technical capacity to enforce those laws.” While UN documents tend to drag on and on, this NGO says a lot in a few words.

They have another goal: “Reducing the availability of weapons to civilians in all societies.“ Even Sarah Brady couldn´t have summarized it in fewer words. That´s what both groups want, although this group says it wants to do it around the world, while Brady supposedly just wants to impose gun control on America. The IANSA website lists a link to Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. Brady changed the name to clean up its image, but we all know that the original name meant what it said. In fact, you can still get the Brady website.

Another IANSA link is Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, whose goals the IANSA site says, “include handgun licensing and registration, regulating firearms as consumer products, banning assault weapons and Saturday night specials; and establishing a national one-handgun-a-month purchase limit. Additionally, the Coalition actively opposes gun lobby efforts to weaken America's gun laws, such as weakening state concealed weapons laws or protecting the gun industry from liability.”

IANSA also wants to promote “cultures of solidarity, peace and non-violence.” That´s a familiar refrain, a reminder of the Soviet-sponsored international peace movement whose real goal was to weaken America enough to give the Soviets the edge. Old peaceniks never die; they just join international organizations that work to deprive us of our Constitutional rights. Michael Douglas, anti-American actor and Hollywood´s one-world-government booster, was made a “Messenger of Peace” by another one-worlder friend, Kofi Annan. The UN website of the Office of the Spokesman for the Secretary-General (not spokesperson?) said Michael demonstrated a strong commitment to “stemming the tide of small arms and light weapons. . . . He has also spoken out in favour of greater controls over the illegal possession and circulation of small arms and light weapons.”

We shouldn´t be surprised that the Hollywood crowd is trying to cloak its one-world-government and gun-control activities under the guise of UN peace efforts. They work with the gun grabbers and global-villagers to weaken our Constitutional rights and achieve their internationalist goals. It´ll take a lot of patriotic Americans working very hard for a long time to stop them in their tracks from achieving those goals.

[Tailgunner Joe]

[Jay D. Dyson]

If they're serious about such nonsense, then perhaps they should first disarm Kofi Annan's security detail. Those chumps were recently busted in New York for carrying illegal assault weapons.

Funny how the Left gave them a pass on that, eh?

-Jay

[Darksheare]

A Danger in our own backyard.
I'm willing to bet this guy's in on the ideas espoused by the UN too:

Schumer fed up with gun-running

The Associated Press

New York- New York ranks first in the nation for crimes committed with out-of-state-guns, many of them arriving on a road dubbed "the firearm freeway," according to a study released yesterday.
"We have to contend with guns that come from states- often southern states- where the least possible effort is made to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-NY.
The study, released by the senator's office, is based on data from the Department of Justice's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.
Schumer said he will propose new legislation this week that would double sentences for interstate gun traffickers by prosecuting them under federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations laws.
Under this legislation, the maximum prison term for anyone convicted of gun running would double from 10 years to 20 years for each offense.
"Gun runners use our highways like firearm freeways to traffic illegal guns to criminals." said Schumer.
The number of guns that came from the South - and were then used to commit crimes in New York - more than doubled from 1999 to 2001, the last year for which data on out-of-state-guns is available, the study said.
In 2001, 3,662 New York crimes were committed with guns purchased in another state. Of those crimes, 1,971 involved weapons from Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Virginia.


Interestingly enough, this was in The Times Herald Record's Sunday paper on page 19, yet in their archives it doesn't show.
And the Assoc Press doesn't have it on their site anywhere either.
Did a websearch and came up dry.

[keithtoo]

I'd like to give the UN and its cohorts my bullets first.

[Just another Joe]

The United Nations wants to take your guns

FMCDH

[Dead Corpse]

They can "want" to take my firearms all they like. The minute they TRY to take my arms... on that day they find out exactly how good a shot I really am.

No more laws. No more restrictions. No more freakin' weird ass tax schemes to limit ownership and availability. If Bush re-signs the AWB, then he should move his residence back to Crawford as he sure as hell would finally have proved that he doesn't belong in the White House.

Period.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Click to download poster in PDF format

[manic4organic]

Come and try, Kofi. I can pick off your security detail from a longer range than their H-K's or whatever they're carrying.

[Tailgunner Joe]

[sheik yerbouty]

The U.N? FM!

[E. Pluribus Unum]

[BlackbirdSST]

Pfffft in the un's general direction! COME GET SOME! Blackbird.

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

...The United Nations And Its Cohorts Want Your Guns...

Well, I can hardly wait to share my ammunition with them.

[TERMINATTOR]

Those blue helmets make great targets!

Militia - Got Liberty?

[appalachian_dweller]

That's for posting the poster. Just downloaded it, saved it, printed it, and hung it up in my cube. Won't convince the libs I work with but it will irritate them to no end, which is a lot of fun.

FMCDH

[Maximum Leader]

This treaty would never pass the senate by a 2/3rds vote. Nor would it pass both house by a majority vote (for an executive agreement).

Even if it did, the Supreme Court has been clear that a treaty does not override the Constitution.

"This [Supreme] Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty." - Reid v. Covert, October 1956, 354 U.S. 1, at pg 17.

So even if it passed, the 2nd Amendment would still govern. The bigger question is whether the courts will acknowlege that the 2nd Amendment applies to the states as well as the federal government. The US Supreme Court has never ruled on this issue.

[PistolPaknMama]

bump for reference

[Maximum Leader]

Having said that, it only takes 5 justices to "amend" the constitution.

In the 50's, GOP Senator John Bricker proposed an amendment to spell out that treaties cannot override the Constitution. Ike lobbied against it, and the amendment failed in the Senate by one vote. I would feel much more confident if the Bricker Amendment was enacted.

The Bricker Amendment read:

"Section 1. A provision of a treaty or other international agreement which conflicts with this Constitution, or which is not made in pursuance thereof, shall not be the supreme law of the land nor be of any force or effect."

"Section 2. A provision of a treaty or other international agreement shall become effective as internal law in the United States only through legislation valid in the absence of international agreement.

"Section 3. On the question of advising and consenting to the ratification of a treaty, the vote shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against shall be entered on the Journal of the Senate."

[11B3]

It was a cold, rainy December night here in the Pacific Northwest, two months after the EU and the UN declared the US in violation of their new small arms treaties. Using positions in Canada and Mexico (who both signed and ratified the treaties), UN forces have begun infiltrating the US in preparations for an assault.

I'm sitting on my deck with the lights off, watching the field in front of my house with my AN/PVS-7s. It's getting late - about 3:00 AM - and I get a chill even though I'm wearing full GoreTex raingear. About to give up for the night, I turn for the house door when off in the distance the first IR trip flare is set off. The adrenaline rush causes me to nearly stumble while reaching for my weapons. Laughing under my breath like a lunatic, I run accross the field and cross the bridge to the treeline and get into my overwatch position. In position now, I check my watch - they should hit the second perimeter wire any minute.

Right on time, the patrol sets off the second row of flares. Hmmmmmm, must be a large squad or bigger I think to myself. Quickly, I attach the clackers to the wires of the Claymores and test all of the circuits. All good. The adrenaline is now making me almost shake with anticipation. A scan with the PVS-7s tells me that this patrol is not too bright. Rather than stay in the woodline, they've opted to cross the open field in front of the house, evidently assuming that I can't see them at night. Suckers. They even stay in a gaggle, and now I can even hear them talking. Not English - sounds French. Even better.

They lumber along, now only 25 meters from their deaths. It's getting difficult to keep my laughter from breaking into the open - like telling a really good joke as a pallbearer. I stay still - set the rifle to my FPL and flip the safety to "Auto". It's showtime. One of the troops lights a smoke. Dumbass. Too bad he won't enjoy it.

I reach down, and initiate the five Claymores. Damn. Two left standing, but two short bursts later they are down as well. Time for double tapping. Slowly I move to their position, and thankfully only four of the twelve are still barely alive. No point in wasting the ammo, so the bayonnet will finish the Frogs. All in all, a good haul for the night. They all had full combat load of ammo - at least that will keep my .223 in use. Their weapons will be distributed. Biggest score is their radio - with attached cypher. Time to get to the house and notify the rest of the area, plus get the tractor out to bury this trash. Another night in the US Militia.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

It was a dark and stormy night...

John Ross would be proud.