Posted on 07/09/2006 3:16:53 PM PDT by lrb111
As a major UN conference to tighten rules for combating the illicit gun trade ended yesterday in disarray, Canada tried to build momentum for a new gathering that would speed up international control of the weapons.
"This was total meltdown," said Anthea Lawson, spokesperson for the International Action Network on Small Arms. "Seldom have diplomats worked so hard for so few results. They've squandered an opportunity to save thousands of lives."
The conference, a five-year review of the UN's 2001 program of action to eradicate the illegal arms trade, was attended by envoys from dozens of countries. But after two weeks of talks, the devil remained in the details.
The conference was held behind closed doors, and diplomats refused to speak to the media. But a leaked copy of Canada's proposal — supported by a number of states — called for a one-week meeting to be held in Geneva in 2007.
It would focus on a set of global principles to govern the transfer of all small arms and light weapons, and develop a strategy to mobilize enough resources to put the 2001 plan of action into effect in countries that lack the money and trained personnel to do so. As well, it would look for ways to reduce the demand for guns used by criminals and militias that routinely violate human rights.
Those are some of the topics gun control advocates hoped would be endorsed at the UN meeting.
But a glance at the documents delegates laboured over for days shows that countries crossed out so many suggestions that the results appear to be weaker than in 2001.
After the meeting, exhausted delegates, many of them looking dejected, strolled through the corridors puzzling over why the meeting went so wrong.
While some muttered that the United States' hard line on gun ownership and international regulation of ammunition was largely to blame, others said that many countries objected to clauses that would restrict their ability to buy or sell small arms.
But Sri Lankan Ambassador Prasad Kariyawasam, president of the conference, said he didn't consider the meeting a failure. "It ended without a final document, but a lot of work was done and there was a sense of collective will that we will see the program of action implemented," he said.
It would have been worse, he said, if the conference produced a document that rolled back some of the program, as it appeared to be doing earlier in the week.
The UN program, while voluntary, has sparked tighter laws in many countries.
"The program of action is still in effect and it will continue," Kariyawasam said. "It's unfortunate that there were differences about how to handle the issues."
The U.S. opposed a further UN review meeting. And it is unlikely to support Canada's proposal for a parallel conference in Geneva. The National Rifle Association, which attacked the conference as an infringement on American constitutional rights, also condemned efforts to continue the talks.
Canada, which helped push through a land-mine treaty at a 1999 Ottawa meeting, said in its statement that the international community "must do everything in its power to stop the carnage wrought by the proliferation and misuse of small arms and light weapons, while respecting the legitimate interests of lawful firearms producers, exporters, retailers and users."
But, it said, the Geneva meeting would be funded on a "voluntary basis" and take place only if countries anted up. The plan was hailed by European delegates.
Woe to he who would knowingly disarm his brother to lead him to death.
"If an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void, does it, notwithstanding its invalidity, bind the courts, and oblige them to give it effect? Or, in other words, though it be not law, does it constitute a rule as operative as if it was a law? This would be to overthrow in fact what was established in theory; and would seem, at first view, an absurdity too gross to be insisted on." -- Chief Justice Marshall.
Thanks for the link. Bookmarked.
Two great minds think alike. :-)
That's OK, but word is to avoid the Universal M-1s. While a fine gun, I am sure, the parts are not interchangable with a GI M-1 carbine.
Gosh, I miss the $77 cases of Golden Tiger. I picked up 2 cases last year, and also acouple of spam cans of Wolf when you could get the at portsman's Guide for less than 10c a round. I wish I'd bought 10 cases. Still have some left, but I hate "spending" it.
To get the full flavor and effect of the AK, you should try "bump-firing".
http://www.powercustom.com/AKPages/BumpFiring.htm
I wouldn't dare do that with my prized AR-15, but the chrome barrel of the Romanian AK seems to handle it just fine.
Oh yeah, high rate of fire (aimed).
Thanks for the link...let it rip taterchip.
re: "anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."
That last part is a the most troubling. You know that future Leftists will use this to say that International Law binds US law, no matter what the Constitution says.
That is their plan, although it relies upon a deliberate lie and intentional misreading of what the US Constitution actually says. It's been a while since I studied this, but I believe we have Allen Dulles, brother of John Foster Dulles to thank for this nasty and dangerous bit of sophistry.
The entire phrase "anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." refers only to the laws and Constitutions of the various states. In other words, (x + y)*Z = xz + yz. (Constitution or laws)*any State = State Constitution and/or State laws.
In cases where the Framers were referring to the federal Constitution of the United States, they specified so explicitly or used the phrase "this Constitution" to differentiate it from other Constitutions. Hence the preceding phrase Article VI, Sec 2: "This Constitution...". It they had been referring to the federal Constitution and had intended that treaties could trump the US Constitution itself, then that last phrase would have read thusly: "...anything in this Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."
Again, I agree with you, the Left is going to make this argument - we just need to remember that it is both logically invalid according to the actual text of the US Constitution, and it is a lie.
For 9mm the white box at Wal-Mart is a very good deal. Brass case, and no shipping charges.
I'm sure they ate and drank well.
Interesting change of tone from the original conference back a few years ago.
The NRA's participation as an NGO definitely helped.
I stand by the highway exit ramp at I-85 with a sign that says "Will **** For Food".
I'll check it out. The Sig 225 cycles best with a 124 gr bullet. Her Sig and PC9 are the only 9mm in the house. We both prefer revolvers. No brass to chase and straight walled cases are dirt simple to reload.
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.