U.S. gun rights at issue in UN effort

New Orleans Times-Picayune ^ | August 13, 2005 | Bruce Alpert

[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.

[standing united]

"but I'm happy to assure him that there is no danger of the United Nations coming in and confiscating guns of his constituents,"

This is always how it starts. I cannot think of a single act by the UN that would completely destroy that World body, and cause the death of so many blue helmets, than to attempt to even deny a 1 American his/her right to possess arms. For years I have warned Americans about the dangers of the UN, and their anti-American agenda, and now all can see it here on display.

The UN assigns dictators to civil rights commissions, and allows thugs to murder 10000's of civilians, and then take bribes to look the other way. Now they want to regulate Americans their Right to keep and bear arms, and notice just how fast the wacko liberal socialist left jumped on board in defense of the UN!

I cannot think of a any other single event by the UN that would lead to the death of so many blue helmets, than to come to America and make an attempt at confiscation of private weapons!

I hope that Americans are not still telling themselves: "this cannot happen here." The UN's plans won't be going away none too soon.

Where are the Bills that GETS US THE HELL OUT OF THE UN? Why are we even associating with this corrupt organization that displays its hatred of Americans, and America each and everyday!

[Lauretij2]

Go VITTER!

[MJY1288]

Neglect is the only way it would die, attention would have made it worse. I don't see it as a hollow victory, I see it as a silent victory. But I guess it's about how one perceives things

[Prime Choice]

Neglect is the only way it would die, attention would have made it worse.

I see. Then will attention to the U.N.'s gun grabbing only "make it worse" as well?

I guess I don't see how you can reconcile your sentiment at the top of this particular message with your earlier message that people will somehow magically rise up when every indication is they'll sit on their thumbs like they always have.

[MJY1288]

Considering the level of trust right now for the U.N. I will bet that the U.N. has very little support in the United States, not too mention that Dubya has cut them off at the knees since day one. But you carry on with your fear of the United Nations, it's not a bad thing, I simply think they are a toothless Tiger that nobody takes seriously. Saddam Hussein is a living example... 12 years and 17 Resolutions later and the U.N. still couldn't find a way to nicely say to Saddam that the bullshit was over and we will no longer sit by while you murder off your Countryman

[King Prout]

and whose statements do you want me to inspect?

[endthematrix]

Not just for you, but for all. Don't worry about it. I just know there are some radical anti-gun proposals that refute the IANSA claim. I PO'd that I can't read any cuz my Acrobat reader is down.

[mewzilla]

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.

The UN can try...

Note to the UN: Try it and draw back a nub.

[metesky]

Not to mention payoffs and under the table deals like FFO.

[Caipirabob]

The UN come after guns? Well, why not? After all, it worked so well for the Dimocrats!

[muir_redwoods]

"international efforts to stem the flow of arms to brutal militias in Africa and elsewhere that target civilians, particularly children.

It is for the children , after all

"Wendy Cukier, president of Canada's Coalition to End Gun Violence,

You can't make this stuff up

[E. Pluribus Unum]

To download poster in PDF format,
right-click on image and choose "Save Link As"

[metalurgist]

At its July meeting on gun running, the United Nations released a report estimating that 500,000 people have died over the past decade from injuries caused by small weapons or guns used in crimes or military attacks. Children are frequent victims, the UN report said.

Only 500,000 thousand people in ten years? Hell, machete wielding maniacs killed more than that in one year in Rwanda. It seems to me the UN needs to tackle the problem of illegal machete use first.

The name of the canadian gun Nazi cracks me up. Cukier. Kookier than a weasel full of booze. She couldn't have been tagged with a more apt name. Must be destiny.

[HKaddict]

Just proves my point. Nobody got up in arms to throw it out.

The ballot box comes before the cartridge box. About 2 years after the AWB was passed the House passed a bill that would have repealed the Klinton gun ban but the sexual-predator-in-chief said he would veto it so it did not pass the Senate.

[vrwc0915]

[dljordan]

"just try and come get em UN...pleaaaaaaaaassssssssssssssssseeeeeeeeeeeee.... "

They'll get your local police to pick them up one house at a time. The local SWAT team will be more than happy to shoot any recalcitrant gun owners. It's their duty to the "Homeland".

[longtermmemmory]

financial suicide.

There are days where I seriously wonder how much of kerry's vote was a result of fraud. Sometimes I think it is not unreasonable to think 1/2 of all votes for democrats are fraud when stuff like this is pursued.

[R. Scott]

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.

OH NO! It’s FOR THE CHILDREN!!!

[longtermmemmory]

remember, according to the international "law" experts of the UN. Treaties superceed the US consititution.

They believe a federal government CAN negotiate terms in contrary to consitutions. Even Ruth ginsber agrees.

[Tench_Coxe]

"They'll get your local police to pick them up one house at a time. The local SWAT team will be more than happy to shoot any recalcitrant gun owners. It's their duty to the "Homeland"."

That's exactly how it would happen. No blue helmets, no foreign troops ( at least initially ). It will be 'internal security forces'. It will probably begin in cities already 'favorable' to gun control, and advertised in the media as a crackdown on criminals.

Then, if resistance rises, you will see the bringing in of the military or national guard, but only to the point it doesn't jeapordize interests overseas. At that point, one 'might' see foreign troops on American soil, with the stated reason being 'such and such are much better trained for police actions'.

One sees some puzzle pieces floating around out there, such as relaxing Posse Comitatus, the use of 'non-lethal' crowd control devices, militarization of police forces.
Combine high debt, low savings rate, a growing realization of the true meaning of 'outsourcing', an almost intentional failure to secure the borders, and I'm sure there are certain elements in the US government that are peeing their pants ( justified or not ) considering what would happen if all these things come together in a 'Perfect Storm'.
What I'm wondering is if the next terror act on American soil will not result in actions against those responsible, but as the vehicle to all but enforce some sort of martial law.

Anyone wants to accuse me of wearing a tin foil hat, be my guest. But remember, during the 8 years of the Clinton occupation of the White House, it was certain segments of American citizens that were considered 'The Enemy', not true terrorists like Atta.