Posted on 08/14/2005 12:12:44 AM PDT by Crackingham
Expressing concern that the United Nations' efforts to stem international gun running could impede the rights of U.S. gun owners, Sen. David Vitter, R-La., is proposing legislation to bar financing for the world organization should it infringe on Americans' Second Amendment rights.
Critics of Vitter's bill, including Eric Howard of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, accuse the freshman senator of placating voters who oppose gun control and are cynical about the United Nations. Howard said the bill could torpedo international efforts to stem the flow of arms to brutal militias in Africa and elsewhere that target civilians, particularly children.
Vitter, who calls his bill The Second Amendment Protection Act of 2005, said he's all for reducing the spread of weapons to terrorists, criminals or violent insurgents. "But the UN efforts seem to go well beyond that into an area that threatens the Second Amendment rights of Americans to keep and bear arms," he said.
Among the steps Vitter said have been discussed by UN delegates at a recent meeting are tracking lists of all firearm sales, worldwide record-keeping of all manufactured guns and even the licensing of all gun owners, measures he said are anathema to U.S. gun owners.
Vitter, who introduced his bill just before the start of the August recess, has nine co-sponsors, all Republicans.
Rebecca Peters, director of the London-based International Action Network on Small Arms, said that while the National Rifle Association is trying to portray the UN effort as an attempt to require Americans to register their guns, the consensus of delegates who met at the United Nations last month is quite different.
(Excerpt) Read more at nola.com ...
he says that as if it is a BAD thing... all it means is Vitter is appealing to the practical, intelligent, observant members of his constituency who have at least some remembrance of past facts and trends (such as "unilateral" disarmament leading to totalitarianism, such as "gun-control" has always actually meant "people control", such as Oil for Food, etc...).
Of course, since Graboids like Howard pander to emotional morons who can be swated with doggerel and pat talking-points, I suppose he WOULD consider Vitter's behavior to be beyond the pale.
"There hasn’t been any revolution so far because the potential rebels cannot get guns. No one is willing to arm the dissatisfied majority, and over two thirds of the population lives in poverty. . . . The government seems determined to starve its enemies to death, secure in the knowledge that the victims are unarmed, and the government forces have lots of guns."
As Glenn Reynolds points out, perhaps we need an international right to guns.
Currently on my knees, BEGGING, please U.N.
Come and take it!
Placate me or else!
I think the UN might get 2 blocks away from the UN before the "illegally" armed New Yorkers would have them squiting in their pants.
So let me get this straight. U.S. citizens are sending guns to thugs in Africa so they can kill "particularly children?" I'm sorry. I don't do recreational drugs so I'm not buying that.
Yup, push the children forward as an excuse to grab guns. What a novel idea, that's never been tried before.
Militias trying to kill children would find the job just as easy with knives or baseball bats.
The One Worlders know that they have to disarm the american public, because without that, they will never get rid of that pesky old constitution.
Here's Statements by Member States (in PDF) My acrobat reader is down, if there are any goodies -do post!
Naturally, the U.N. and its sycophants ignore this very salient fact.
No disrespect, but I'll believe it when I see it. So far, the U.N. has done everything it can to make its intentions plain, but even our party heads keep kowtowing to the terrorist- and tyrant-sympathizers holed up in New York.
The proposed UN regulations will not even being to stop the flow of weapons to "brutal militias in Africa and elsewhere that target civilians, particularly children." The "brutal militias" will break any laws they want to break and go right around any UN regulations. All these propsed regulations will do is create more cushy jobs at the UN, which is always the hidden agenda of UN administrators.
The "party heads" is not who the U.N. should fear, it's the general population they need to fear
The Second Amendment has been abrogated to near destruction in several states in this union. No action has been taken over that, either. I find it hard to believe anything will be any different when (not if) the U.N. teams up with the Brady jackwits.
The sunset of the AWB meant nothing to you?
Just proves my point. Nobody got up in arms to throw it out. It had to die from neglect. GWB himself stated that he would sign its continuance if it went to his desk. Fortunately, the RINOs and Democrats in Congress didn't have enough numbers to make that happen.
And what's more, the sunset of the AWB didn't do squat to the anti-Second Amendment laws in California, New York, Illinois or a host of other states. Not one damned thing.
So yeah, it's a hollow victory.
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.