Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6
Karlis

The Global Gun Control Threat

326 posts in this topic

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

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like it could if the information is correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 :w00t:

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.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. :P

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. :P

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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:

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"....?

:rolleyes:

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/

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
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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... :rolleyes: ), 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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, BR... Since you intentionally obviously missed the point (quelle suprise... :rolleyes: ), 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

Excuse you, the layout of both of these threads has done that, just going by their titles and OP alone. And one of the posters is a Moderator from Australia who seems to not mind fanning the flames of extremist paranoia. Which just makes things worse for the rest of us. Most of us Americans don't have a problem with regulating firearms. After all, who really needs a semi-automatic or full automatic to go deer hunting? I've never yet seen a deer or bear come out of the woods with an AK-47, to hunt humans. :w00t: So save your "a good portion of our gun totin' American brethren" junk, since the NRA and extremists don't speak for all of us.

cormac

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A number of people talk about the Second Amendment to the US Constitution.

But does it really say you can have high powered rifles, AP rounds, semi-autos? Does it say you can really have firearms at all?

It says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It has been argued that this meant the military. The US has a well regulated military; why should I, Joe Bloggs, be allowed to own a semi-automatic rifile or a machine gun? Why should I not be allowed to have a short-range tactical missile?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know that Australian English is a bit different than Regular English. I've learned that watching Foster ads, and positively LOVE everything from Down Under, especially the Sheilas :yes:

But really, is it that different? Military and Militia are not really synonyms, neither in denotation or connotation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm kind of curious.. Why is it only U.S. folk are squawking about this? I know the U.S. isn't the only country to allow guns, why don't other countries that allow guns seem concerned about this? I don't see folks from Finland or Switzerland worrying about the UN trying to take away their guns. Or if they are, I haven't heard anything about it, searches are flooded with U.S. only.

So could that possibly mean the UN isn't intent on messing with states rights for dealing with citizens within their own borders? And by states I mean it they way the UN means it as in countries, not as in the U.S. states. Or maybe that's part of the problem, some people don't realize when the UN says states they mean countries, but some people assume it means states as in U.S. states?

Personally, I'm not too concerned with the arms talks. I'm left with the impression it's more about trade rather than trying to have a say on what goes on within states borders. I don't think all of this will affect my ability to go to the gun shop and pick up a firearm if I choose to do so. I'm pretty sure it would affect the amount of variety of weapons, but that isn't the same thing as being denied arms entirely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the deep seeded fear of losing guns is more of an American issue. As you said there's plenty of countries with tons of guns in them and yet the theory seems to be that this UN treaty would only affect Americans. One of my best friends is a gun nut and he doesn't seem to care about what the UN is doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I really think that everyone needs to read the entire article, it's not very long and doesn't use Big words

"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.

The ATT will set up a global body which will require all nations to regulate firearms so that they can prevent their exportation to other countries. Inevitably, this will require countries to inventory the guns in private hands and to register them. A gun ban is not far away.

The ATT, under the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution, would have the power of a constitutional amendment and would, effectively, repeal the Second Amendment guaranteeing us the right to bear arms. We must fight to stop the US from signing the treaty and, if we fail, block Senate ratification."

Talk about being paranoid :w00t:

It's almost as hilarious as a Constitution that says "all men are created equal" signed by Slave owners and mysoginists (obviously only some men are created equal, and women not at all)

Edited by keithisco
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heres my point ! "The Right to Keep and Bear Arms"

Now If they took away the arms just how in the Hell would anyone be at danger of owning a Firearm?

Must be the simantics ? or sumptin !

Anywho we do need as a logical country ,to start the removal of automatic and giant round mags for public consumption !

Afterall The Colorado guy would of really killed about a hundred people if his weapon didnt jam !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anywho we do need as a logical country ,to start the removal of automatic and giant round mags for public consumption !

Afterall The Colorado guy would of really killed about a hundred people if his weapon didnt jam !

I don't know if you've seen this before. This is Suzzanna Hupp. I feel she brings the "real" debate to the table.

[vid][media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLRr02YrW6o&feature=related[/media][/vid]

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://nagr.org/UN_Draft_Treaty.pdf

Here is the arms trade treaty. Disguised in it is the registration of all weapons. That means that when they want to collect the weapons, they'll be easy to find. Americans should be very afraid of this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

http://nagr.org/UN_Draft_Treaty.pdf

Here is the arms trade treaty. Disguised in it is the registration of all weapons. That means that when they want to collect the weapons, they'll be easy to find. Americans should be very afraid of this.

As mentioned in the other, almost identical, but apparently different enough thread about this same topic,

Despite all the assumptions made by whomever marked up / highlighted / commented on that document, there is still nothing in that Treaty that is specifically designed to repeal the 2nd Amendment or prevent the lawful purchase of guns by Americans.

As to the "registry" did you notice where it says that "Such records MAY CONTAIN..." not "SHALL contain", not "MUST contain"... "MAY contain" which means that the amount of information kept is OPTIONAL and up to the individual countries to determine.

Perhaps bug "Registration!!" fear-mongering notation distracted you from reading what is actually there...? :rolleyes:

Cz

Edited by Czero 101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.