324 replies to this topic

[Karlis]

The Global Gun Control Threat
By Dick Morris on July 19, 2012

On July 27th, the nations of the world are scheduled to meet in New York to sign a global Arms Trade Treaty (ATT). Disguised as a way to prevent the proliferation of small arms throughout the world, it is, in fact, a backdoor way to legislate gun control in the United States and effectively repeal our Second Amendment.
Source

[Hilander]

Sounds like it could if the information is correct.

[Czero 101]

There's already a current and active thread about this topic, although the OP of that topic and some of the posters in it seem as misinformed about / unaware of the UN Treaty as does the author of the article Karlis is linking....





Cz

[and then]

The UN is a feckless, impotent beggar.  It does some good work but nothing that could not be done better and cheaper by a private institution.  It's like a self important little Peacock and on THIS one it'll get it's feathers plucked  
As to exports to other nations - regulate it as harshly as you want.  But not a single additional hurdle to ownership is acceptable here unless there are guarantees that each new reg is independent and cannot be used as precedent for a creeping agenda.

[Karlis]

Czero 101, on 23 July 2012 - 05:06 PM, said:

There's already a current and active thread about this topic, although the OP of that topic and some of the posters in it seem as misinformed about / unaware of the UN Treaty as does the author of the article Karlis is linking....

Cz

Hi Czero and everyone interested,

I started this topic in the Conspiracies Board, because the author of my OP article, observed that the forthcoming conference concerns [in his opinion], "... a backdoor way to legislate gun control in the United States and effectively repeal our Second Amendment."

Please discuss that aspect only, and try to avoid other aspects, if possible. That said, I hope posters will understand why I am making invisible some of the posts I think have been "off-topic".

Thanks, and I hope this thread will generate some insightful thoughts.
Karlis

[Babe Ruth]

That is an interesting theory Karlis, and it could very well be intended as a back door.  Frankly, I have no idea how it could possibly be enforced on a practical level, but it could be a strategy.

And if one accepts that MKUltra was practiced, and might still be practiced, then the shooting in Denver could certainly play into such a strategy.

The so-called Left is certainly crying for "gun control", something never defined in their rants.  I've read that it happened on the first day of Ramadan, and I assume that is accurate.

Too much like the shootings in Norway last summer for me....

If the US delegate votes in favor of the UN proposal, some of the suspicions might be confirmed.

[Czero 101]

Karlis, on 24 July 2012 - 09:18 AM, said:

Hi Czero and everyone interested,

I started this topic in the Conspiracies Board, because the author of my OP article, observed that the forthcoming conference concerns [in his opinion], "... a backdoor way to legislate gun control in the United States and effectively repeal our Second Amendment."

Please discuss that aspect only, and try to avoid other aspects, if possible. That said, I hope posters will understand why I am making invisible some of the posts I think have been "off-topic".

Thanks, and I hope this thread will generate some insightful thoughts.
Karlis

Hi Karlis...

Yeah, I figured that was why you started this thread. The thing is, though, that in the The United Nations Wants Your Guns America thread, much of the discussion is on the same or very similar topic, which is why I reported this thread as well as posting in post #3 that this thread should be merged with the currently active thread on the same topic.






Cz

[Karlis]

Czero 101, on 24 July 2012 - 04:48 PM, said:

Hi Karlis...

Yeah, I figured that was why you started this thread. The thing is, though, that in the The United Nations Wants Your Guns America thread, much of the discussion is on the same or very similar topic, which is why I reported this thread as well as posting in post #3 that this thread should be merged with the currently active thread on the same topic.


Cz

Czero, please feel free to contribute to this thread.

In this thread however, please read my above posts so as to stay on topic.

Thanks,
Karlis

[Corp]

So only focus on the UN ninxing the Second Amendment? Ok, it's not going to happen. The UN can't get the US to stop using landmines and cluster bombs and yet the fear is that somehow the UN will magically get Americans to give up all their handguns and rifles? Nothing more that "they're going to take your guns!" fear mongering.

I swear the gun companies put out these stories to boost sales.

[cormac mac airt]

Quote

...a backdoor way to legislate gun control in the United States and effectively repeal our Second Amendment."

More like an opportunity to make the more extreme of American gun owners, those who think they ought to have an arsenal (semi's and full automatics with large clips), feel even more justified in their paranoia. To the detriment of the rest of us. Someone can and should regulate the above, but they're never going to confiscate all our guns nor should they.

cormac

[Babe Ruth]

Corp, on 24 July 2012 - 05:23 PM, said:

So only focus on the UN ninxing the Second Amendment? Ok, it's not going to happen. The UN can't get the US to stop using landmines and cluster bombs and yet the fear is that somehow the UN will magically get Americans to give up all their handguns and rifles? Nothing more that "they're going to take your guns!" fear mongering.

I swear the gun companies put out these stories to boost sales.

Very little happens instantly in the political realm.

IF the UN vote passes, THEN there will be some sort quasi-legislative precedent set.  There will then be some sort of pressure for congress to legislate in accordance with the UN vote.  Considering the weeping & gnashing of teeth that is here because of Denver, the pressure could be considerable.  The process begun could be incremental, which is how government works.

Consider the mechanism by which the drug prohibition was begun in this country.  In 1914 congress passed the Harrison Narcotic Act, which essentially began the national prohibition in this country.

Harrison was passed to conform with the Hague Convention of 1912 regarding opium.

So, the actions of foreign bodies HAS stimulated the congress into passing unconstitutional laws.  It's not unheard of.

[Czero 101]

Karlis, on 24 July 2012 - 05:16 PM, said:

Czero, please feel free to contribute to this thread.

In this thread however, please read my above posts so as to stay on topic.

Thanks,
Karlis

Ok, I guess there's a new policy in place about having multiple threads on identical topics running concurrently.

Since this thread is about the SAME TOPIC as the other thread, perhaps its best if I just quote one of my posts from that thread:

Czero 101, on 22 July 2012 - 07:41 AM, said:

You know, the funny thing here is that this topic is really not about "banning guns".

Its interesting that the "pro-gun" crowd here seem to take the stance that "gun control" = "taking away my guns", when in reality, the treaty that this thread is about is concerned with regulating and safeguarding the international arms trade to prevent weapons of all kinds from illegally falling into the "wrong hands".

Has any one of the "pro gun" side who is here screaming (virtually, of course) "only from my cold dead hands!!!11!!" even bothered to look at the website that was linked in the first post?

http://www.un.org/di...varms/ArmsTrade

Oh wait... let me guess... some did go look at the site and saw where it occasionally refers to the "States" and, instead of understanding that this refers to "Member States" that are part of the United Nations (in other simpler words "other countries in the UN"), assumed that it was referring only to the "United States"....?



The section that is probably most relevant to this whole topic is the section on Small Arms and Light Weapons...

http://www.un.org/di.../convarms/SALW/

Quote

Small Arms

Insurgents, armed gang members, pirates, terrorists - they can all multiply their force through the use of unlawfully acquired firepower. The illicit circulation of small arms, light weapons and their ammunition destabilizes communities, and impacts security and development in all regions of the world.

A worldwide scourge
The illicit trade in small arms, light weapons and ammunition wreaks havoc everywhere. Mobs terrorizing a neighbourhood. Rebels attacking civilians or peacekeepers. Drug lords randomly killing law enforcers or anyone else interfering with their illegal businesses. Bandits hijacking humanitarian aid convoys. In all continents, uncontrolled small arms form a persisting problem.

Weapons of choice
Small arms are cheap, light, and easy to handle, transport and conceal. A build-up of small arms alone may not create the conflicts in which they are used, but their excessive accumulation and wide availability aggravates the tension. The violence becomes more lethal and lasts longer, and a sense of insecurity grows, which in turn lead to a greater demand for weapons.
Most present-day conflicts are fought mainly with small arms, which are broadly used in inter-State conflict. They are the weapons of choice in civil wars and for terrorism, organized crime and gang warfare.

Taking their toll, violating rights
The majority of conflict deaths are caused by the use of small arms, and civilian populations bear the brunt of armed conflict more than ever. Also, small arms are the dominant tools of criminal violence. The rate of firearms-related homicides in post-conflict societies often outnumbers battlefield deaths. These weapons are also linked to the increasing number of killings of UN employees and peacekeepers, as well as workers from humanitarian and non-governmental organizations.

Small arms facilitate a vast spectrum of human rights violations, including killing, maiming, rape and other forms of sexual violence, enforced disappearance, torture, and forced recruitment of children by armed groups. More human rights abuses are committed with small arms than with any other weapon. Furthermore, where the use of armed violence becomes a means for resolving grievances and conflicts, legal and peaceful dispute resolution suffers and the rule of law cannot be upheld.

Development denied
Contemporary armed conflict is the main cause of people fleeing their homes, and is now the most common cause of food insecurity. Armed violence can aggravate poverty, inhibit access to social services and divert energy and resources away from efforts to improve human development. Countries plagued by armed violence are behind in attaining the Millennium Development Goals. High levels of armed violence impede economic growth. According to the World Bank, nothing undermines investment climates as much as armed insecurity.

Less information on small arms than on nuclear weapons
Reliable data sets on small arms can only be built if countries provide information on production, holdings, trade, legislation and use. But of all transparency measures on weapons systems, those on small arms are the least developed. According to the Small Arms Survey, "more is known about the number of nuclear warheads, stocks of chemical weapons and transfers of major conventional weapons than about small arms".
There are no accurate figures for the number of small arms and light weapons currently in circulation globally. Sources estimate the total to be at least 875 million. The majority of small arms - generally the only category of weapons not falling under Government monopoly of possession and use - are in private hands.

How do small arms become illicit?
Sources of small arms supplies to areas of crisis and conflict are varied. Domestically, small arms can enter illicit circulation through distribution, theft, leakage, divergence, pilferage or resale. Shipments of small arms to conflict zones from abroad are most often small-scale consignments - a steady trickle of weapons across porous borders. The cumulative destabilizing force of such small-scale trade is not to be underestimated, particularly in unstable regions where small arms are traded from one conflict to another.

Small arms and the UN
Governments have a responsibility to ensure public safety and they have an interest in providing human security and development to their citizens. So they should ensure that small arms from Government stocks or from private ownership are not misused and do not enter illicit circuits, where their use may contribute to instability and to exacerbating poverty.
To attain those goals, within the UN, countries have agreed on several commitments on small arms control: the Firearms Protocol, the Programme of Action on small arms - including an Instrument on marking and tracing - and the Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials.
The topic of small arms comes up in other discussions as well. Countries are giving separate attention to closely related issues, such as armed violence, child soldiers, the protection of civilians in armed conflict, ammunition, the arms trade treaty and the UN register of conventional arms.

Please... someone else go through that site and tell me where it says that the UN intends to take legally obtained guns away from the US populace. I've looked... I can't find it... of course, its possible I missed it, though.

Cz

Edited by Czero 101, 24 July 2012 - 07:08 PM.

[Babe Ruth]

Well that's quite a bit of fear-mongering Cz, but was there one word said about law-abiding citizens having firearms to defend their homes and families?  Maybe I missed it.

Are we suggesting that the government can protect the citizen from bad guys?

[Corp]

Babe Ruth, on 24 July 2012 - 06:48 PM, said:

Very little happens instantly in the political realm.

IF the UN vote passes, THEN there will be some sort quasi-legislative precedent set.  There will then be some sort of pressure for congress to legislate in accordance with the UN vote.  Considering the weeping & gnashing of teeth that is here because of Denver, the pressure could be considerable.  The process begun could be incremental, which is how government works.

Consider the mechanism by which the drug prohibition was begun in this country.  In 1914 congress passed the Harrison Narcotic Act, which essentially began the national prohibition in this country.

Harrison was passed to conform with the Hague Convention of 1912 regarding opium.

So, the actions of foreign bodies HAS stimulated the congress into passing unconstitutional laws.  It's not unheard of.

No it's not unheard of but these are expections, not the rule. And prohibition was a rather horrible failure if I recall and wasn't applied everywhere. If the US wasn't able to ban all booze in the country what makes you think they're going to come even close to banning all guns? After all I don't think booze was mentioned in the Constitution yet having weapons is so just from a legal standpoint it would be next to impossible to do.

This is nothing more than fear mongering to freak out Americans, painting the false picture that the UN is far more effective than it actually is and is focused on screwing with the US. Dispite Mr Morris paranoid claims it sounds like the focus of this treaty is on Africa, Latin America, and the Middle East. I don't think the US uses child soldiers or shoot up UN aid workers.

Edited by Corp, 24 July 2012 - 07:50 PM.

[Czero 101]

Babe Ruth, on 24 July 2012 - 07:12 PM, said:

Well that's quite a bit of fear-mongering Cz, but was there one word said about law-abiding citizens having firearms to defend their homes and families?  Maybe I missed it.

Are we suggesting that the government can protect the citizen from bad guys?

No, BR... Since you intentionally obviously missed the point (quelle suprise... ), let me explain...

My point is that the UN Treaty under discussion has NOTHING TO DO WITH DISARMING US CITIZENS despite the fact that the "pro gun" side is making it out to be potentially just that.

There's nothing in the UN Treaty that is specific to JUST the United States, yet a good portion of our gun totin' American brethren have somehow managed to interpret a treaty that deals with creating ways of securing and safeguarding international arms deals / shipments and providing for modern ways and means of keeping better track of legally owned weapons in the hopes of limiting or maybe even eventually eliminating the illegal trade in weapons of all types to mean that the "UN is a-comin' to git our guns"....

THAT is where the real fear mongering is.





Cz

Edited by Czero 101, 24 July 2012 - 07:53 PM.