U.S. Position Complicates Global Effort to Curb Illicit Arms

UNITED NATIONS — Diplomats from the world’s governments met throughout this week on agreements to cut the global illicit trade in small arms, but their work was curtailed in part by the near-boycott of the meetings by the United States.

The tone of the meetings underscored the political complexities of gaining full support for international small-arms agreements from the United States. The American view has balanced recognition of the dangers of illegal proliferation with the government’s own arms-distribution practices and with the American gun lobby’s resistance to the United Nations’ proposals.

Since 2001, United Nations members have endorsed a broad but loosely defined initiative, called the program of action, for a collective effort against illegal arms circulation. The agreement in part encourages governments to tighten controls on manufacturing, marking, tracing, brokering, exporting and stockpiling small arms and to cooperate to restrict illicit flows, particularly to regions perennially in armed conflict. It addresses hundreds of millions of weapons, ranging from pistols to shoulder-fired rockets, that the United Nations says are in circulation worldwide.

The initiative has spotlighted the dire effects of the flood of small arms and led to expanded research into its often chilling consequences.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/19/world/europe/19guns.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin

Then I hope the US keeps doing exactly what we're doing right now.

Rather than see the UN work towards disarmament, I'd rather see them work towards arming and training the tens of millions of oppressed and fleeing people around the world at the mercy of tyrants.

These people need to organize into militias of the classical definition, and they should be supported in their endeavor.

The outpouring of contempt for the oppressed and exploited people of our world by those who pretend to care about them and pretend to think that dumping more arms into their lives will solve their problems should be starting any minute now.

Oh look ...

are already busy enough scrambling for their lives or fresh water or food for their children. The last thing they need is more stuff to worry about. Hell, they would probably just put their eye out anyhow, leave that sort of things to the government!

at the false outrage some will attempt to display.

Otherwise this is a non-starter for the US.

that your civilian arms are not magically morphing into the Chinese made AKs that people are using to commit crimes against humanity?

That doesn't add up, do the math, 1+1= 3, everybody knows that. Any gun any place is the fault of the NRA.

:nuke:

So it's a no-go anyway.

Never mind the fact that Kalashnakov freed a lot more people than Bolivar ever did...

With people like IANSA/Rebecca Peters at the helm of those UN anti-gun efforts, I'm glad the US took that stand.

Most of the time I consider myself pro-UN, but IANSA is not to be trusted--They want complete disarmament make no mistake about that.

Xela

You never have before, but what the hell.

IANSA is not to be trusted--They want complete disarmament make no mistake about that.

Substantiate. Or not. Whatever.

IANSA only wants to disarm citizens, not governments. If you watch the videos she sill tell you her self,in her own annoying Aussie accent,that her goal is to remove as many weapons from the hands of civilians as possible. She says that semi-autos and handguns have no legit role in civilian hands. I am sure you knew that already. So she might not want full disarmament but she wants to get way closer to it than we in the US are going to allow.

http://therealgunguys.blogspot.com/2007/02/what-rebecca-peters-and-iansa-really.html

and here is the link to a transcript from IANSA's website http://www.iansa.org/action/nra_debate.htm although it features some editing as compared to the video.

what Peters said, why you go right ahead.

You'll be in fine company. That's about all Wayne LaPierre managed to do.

"... a UN treaty basically banning civilian ownership of firearms ..."

I don't actually think LaPierre didn't understand anything. I think he was exercising that first amendment right to tell any lies he wanted.

Only semi-auto rifles and handguns that shoot further than 100 yards. That leaves single-shot shotguns - so clearly this isn't a call for an outright ban.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WwLz9hBZfM&feature=related

John Stossel?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyoLuTjguJA&feature=related

don't insult my intelligence or pretend that you do not understand what that woman said. I watched the video and then went to her own website and read their doctored transcript. She wants to disarm people full stop. So as to appear reasonable she says that she is ok with hunters who are government approved owning single shot rifles or shotguns. She doesn't approve of pump actions and is openly against the idea of firearms for self defense or recreational shooting.



Saying she isn't a banner is like saying the idiots who talk about partial-birth abortion, set waiting periods, require a woman to read a pamphlet and have an ultrasound and so on and so forth before she can have an abortion are not anti abortion. Get real.

I watched the whole debate. The IANSA website will only show you the edited version for their own purposes of course.

I am no fan of LaPierre (his nationalist rhetoric is disturbing, eetk), but Peters gave me creeps with the logic and the smirks and the contempt she demonstrated during the whole debate.

Xela

that IANSA put out shows that she said she wants to get rid of guns for Self Defense and wants to force the citizen to prove they are actually hunters. She thinks target shooters need to get a new hobby and on and on. Anybody who doesn't admit that, that is what she said is simply a liar.Peters is honest enough to admit her true beliefs on video, so it is a bit silly to defend her when she doesn't seem to think she need defending.

To paraphrase Malcolm I respect the gun grabber who says what she means, because at least I know what she really wants. Peters is a gun banner through and through. She puts on only the thinnest veneer of tolerance, and could hardly contain the sneer while she did it.

I agree that Wayne LaPierre is more than a bit creepy for someone with my political views, but Peters made him look good by comparison. Her whole superior one world attitude rubs me the wrong way. In this country we don't even like NATIONAL laws, and she wants us to conform to INTERNATIONAL ideas... I am sure she isn't holding her breath.

Where can I see the entire debate? You-tube has a bunch of chopped up pieces.

The original debate was 90 minutes long. Some searching states it was on pay-per-view at the time (2004). And was available from the NRA on DVD for donation, but I can't find it on the NRA website.

One of my local video rental stores had it (Premiere Video, Dallas, TX).

But I just found this in Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Great-UN-Gun-Debate/dp/B000STFEHC/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1216770721&sr=8-9

Last I checked they had 13 used copies:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B000STFEHC/ref=dp_olp_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1216770721&sr=8-9

Hope that helps,

Xela

"Take up a sport that does not require a weapon invented for the soul and specific purpose of killing another human being" - Peters


Perhaps she has never heard of fencing. Or maybe she thinks a swords were invented to carve a large "Z" in trees from horseback, as one rides by... :eyes:


:rofl:

Once she has gotten rid of guns I am sure that knives and swords and bows and arrows will be next. Perhaps these will be heard one day

"We believe that people can have a large knife for a agricultural use, if they can prove they work on a farm."

" I have talked to real macho hunters and they tell me nobody needs compound bows or crossbows for any legitimate form of hunting"

" Steak knives have no place in domestic kitchens."

The UN might want to think about getting a different sculpture in front of its building.







Perhaps someone...maybe our friend to the north...can explain the meaning of this sculpture. Doesn't look like a military arm to me...

My guess was that it symbolized non-violence and had nothing to do with firearms trafficking.

Hey. I was right.

http://www.blueofthesky.com/publicart/works/nonviolence.htm

Non-Violence, 1988

Artist
Carl Fredrik Reutersward

Location
Grounds of the United Nations, just past the visitors entrance on the east side of First Ave., between 45th and 46th streets.

Description
The grounds of the United Nations are decorated with numerous sculptures that have been given to the organization by the governments of member countries as well as by individuals and other organizations <1>.

Immediately upon entering the grounds of the UN, visitors are confronted with two sculptures, Sphere within a Sphere, which is abstract, and Non-Violence, which is blatantly representational. Non-Violence is a giant revolver, solid and black, and on a pedestal placing it at eye level. The barrel of the gun is twisted into a knot, causing the tip to point straight up into the sky rather than in the direction in which it is aimed. The gun is cocked, but the knot makes it clear that it will not shoot. Perhaps violence has been narrowly averted.

Non-Violence is a gift to the UN from Luxembourg.

Unfortunately, google does not necessarily offer up something making sense in a strait forward way, when something does not.

Far more people have died to swords, and weapons of war, than smith and wesson or possibly colt handguns, which the statue is a representation of. Far more violence has been committed with those things than simple handguns.


And, interestingly, the gun is NOT cocked, or the hammer would be sitting in the rearmost "ready to fire" position.

After investigating a little deeper, it seems that the creator of said artwork created it for his own reasons:


When the artist learned that his friend, John Lennon, had been murdered, he became so upset and angry over this senseless death and the many other outbursts of unnecessary violence that he went to his studio and started working on the “non-violence” project. “My first sketches in three dimensions were rather rough and simple, but the important thing was that the idea of the knotted barrel was with me from the very start,” he said.

Other replicas can be found

in Luxembourg/Luxembourg, on Kirchberg in front of the Jean Monnet Building. It is the third of the original three sculptures, the other two being in Malmo and New York. Pictures on this site.
in Berlin/Germany at the parc of the federal chancellery. It was unveiled in 2005 by chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, who received it from Reuterswärd in recognition of his Iraq policy (english articles about the unveiling here and here, german background article here, picture here)
in Caen/France at the Mémorial de Caen, a world war II museum close to the disembarkments in Normandy. Unveiled in 2005. (pictures of the “canon noué” can be seen here and here, article here)
in Cape Town/South Africa at the entrance to the Victoria and Alfred waterfront. It was unveiled in 1999 when the government announced its stringent new gun conrol legislation. (pictures here and here)
in Liverpool/UK, in Cavern Walks shopping centre, next door to the original site of the famous Cavern Club in Mathew Street where the Beatles played in their early days together. It was unveiled in 2000 by Dr Michael Nobel, then head of the Nobel family society and chairman of the Non-Violence Foundation.
in Lausanne/Switzerland at the Olympic Museum (picture here)
in Stockholm/Sweden (picture here)
in Miami/USA (no pictures found)
in Göteborg/Sweden (picture here)

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=&imgrefurl=http://assistedthinking.wordpress.com/2008/02/25/non-violence-and-the-knotted-gun-worldwide/&h=300&w=400&sz=33&hl=en&start=23&tbnid=ZdtSeBqhcgpeCM:&tbnh=93&tbnw=124&prev=/images%3Fq%3DNon-Violence%26start%3D21%26gbv%3D2%26ndsp%3D21%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN


In any case, the UN agenda regarding firearms and that of the dubious ms peters, are hardly as innocent or magnanimous as some people in this thread would have everyone believe.

I do vaguely remember the John Lennon connection, which is probably why "non-violence" was what popped into my head in the first place. Not intuition, just bad memory. ;)

Then melt it down and make precision long range rifles with.

Rebecca Peters is the person responsible for the gun ban in Australia. She has since advocated for bans on all offensive and defensive weapons including aboriginal (forgive the spelling) weapons.

The woman is definitely a few fries short of a happy meal in my opinion. LaPierre mopped the floor with her at the debate and had documentation to back him up. I hate LaPierre for several reasons but between him and Peters, he is definitely the lesser of two evils.

http://opiniojuris.org/2008/07/19/international-gun-control-efforts/ the author speaks of his first had experience with the people at the UN and how they have made it clear that they want to remove guns from the hands of the people.

This is not some Tin Hat theory, they say it out loud, they don't think this is a problem.

when it comes to ammo.


Funny how 27 pallets of 7.62x51, what was it, 17 MILLION rounds of Privi just travels to the US in broad daylight to Florida from Europe.....apparently with SOMEBODY's blessing.

Oh, and who can forget the South African battle packs. UN talked SA into stopping exports of them, did it happen? Well, kind of. Sure, a few military officials got their hands slapped but last time I looked........

:rofl:

a statement not unlike PA (1776), copied by VT (1777), which declared:

A DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS OF THE INHABITANTS OF THE COMMONWEALTH OR STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA 28 Sept. 1776
"That all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and inalienable rights, amongst which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety."
And
"That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

If governments cannot protect law-abiding citizens as in Darfur, Chechnya, D.R. Congo, and South/Nuba Mountains, then each citizen is the last line of defense.

ntxt