U.S. Throws Down Gauntlet to UN

[Dave P]

http://news.lycos.com/news/story.asp...&pub_tag=REUTG

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The United States threw down the gauntlet on Monday at a U.N. small arms conference, saying it rejected any move to restrict the right of citizens to bear arms , even when these were designed for military use.

John Bolton, the U.S. undersecretary of state for arms control, told the first U.N. conference to curb small arms trafficking that he opposed a mandatory review of what individual countries had done, which he said would only serve only to "institutionalize and bureaucratize this process."

[jimpeel]

This is just one more move on the part of the UN to be the only game in town when it comes to being armed. At the point they have them all, and we have none, they will place their version of "police" on our streets; and you can bet your sweet one that they will have unlimited power to control the populace -- by whatever means "necessary" -- at the discretion of the individual officer.

[KSFreeman]

Didn't you just describe Massachusetts now?

True story from deepest, darkest Boston, `93:

[Copper with accent]: "Hey, buddy, you gotta move yowr kahr."

[Me]: "But isn't it legal to park here, officer?"

[Copper with accent]: "Yeaaahhh, but I wanna paaark there."

[Libertarian]

I noticed something interesting in the article. It states that 1000/day die from gun shot. The gun-grabbers say that 13 "children" die each day due to gun shot. Does this mean that the US has 1.3% of the deaths world wide attributed to guns? That is both amazing and absurd.

I understand that the US government is covering its own interests as one of the largest suppliers in arms in the world, but I do appreciate their refusal to suppress internally what they profit from externally. I am so glad Gore didn't win.

[TheBluesMan]

http://www.abcnews.go.com/wire/US/re...10709_277.html

U.S. Throws Down Gauntlet to UN Small Arms Meeting
By Evelyn Leopold

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The United States threw down the gauntlet on Monday at a U.N. small arms conference, saying it rejected any move to restrict the right of citizens to bear arms, even when these were designed for military use.

John Bolton, the U.S. undersecretary of state for arms control, told the first U.N. conference to curb small arms trafficking that he opposed a mandatory review of what individual countries had done, which he said would only serve only to "institutionalize and bureaucratize this process."

Nor would the administration of President Bush support restrictions on arms trade to rebel groups, which could be defending themselves against a genocidal government, Bolton told the opening day of the conference.

A draft action plan that would end the two-week conference calls on countries to regulate arms brokers and ensure that manufacturers mark all small weapons so their movements can be traced.

The United Nations maintains illegal trade in small arms is a billion-dollar-a-year business and directly or indirectly responsible for more than 1,000 deaths a day.

The document, which had already been watered down in preliminary meetings, is politically rather than legally binding, meaning it cannot be enforced under international law.

But Bolton said too many provisions would impinge on legal sales. "We do not support measures that would constrain legal trade and legal manufacturing of small arms and light weapons.. The vast majority of arms transfers in the world are routine and not problematic."

U.S. WARY OF WEAPONS BANS

As one of the world's largest suppliers of arms, the United States backs all sort of legal trade and Bolton fiercely guarded the rights of citizens to own guns.

"Small arms and light weapons, in our understanding are strictly military arms -- automatic rifles, machine guns, shoulder-fired missiles and rocket systems, light mortars -- that are contributing to continued violence and suffering in regions of conflict around the world," Bolton said.

"We separate these military arms from firearms such as hunting rifles and pistols," he said. "It is the illicit trade in military small arms and light weapons that we are gathered here to address and that should properly concern us."

But he added that Washington also opposed a suggestion in the draft document that national governments "seriously consider" banning unrestricted sales and ownership of small arms "specifically designed for military purposes."

Bolton found a proposal to crack down on government sales to rebel groups and other private organizations "both conceptually and practically flawed." Such sales should be up to individual governments, he said.

"Perhaps most important, this proposal would preclude assistance to an oppressed non-state group defending itself from a genocidal government," he said.

The United Nations defines the meeting's focus as revolvers and self-loading pistols, rifles, sub-machine guns, assault rifles, light machine-guns, heavy machine-guns, mortars, hand grenades, grenade launchers, portable anti-aircraft and anti-tank guns and portable missile launchers.

Human rights groups accuse the Bush administration of being more concerned about its ties to the National Rifle Association than the consequences of arms proliferation. The NRA has warned against any "global gun control" and urged members to demonstrate in New York.

Human rights groups should take an up-close look at the genocidal governments in the former Eastern-Bloc countries and certain African countries. Where guns aren't available for self-defense, thousands of people are being wiped out by bands of men with machetes.

[Jeff White]

I think that the call for controls of small arms is more about keeping tinhorn dictators in power then it is about disarming the American people. If no one can send small arms to insurgent groups, then they will be hard pressed to overthrow oppressive forces.

Perhaps they should rename the conference the Samual Doe, Idi Amin, Jean Baptiste Aristead, Robert Muabe Protection Conference.

Just think who this conference benfits. If this treaty had been in place then, Daniel Ortega and the Sandanistas would still be comfortably in power in Nicaragua today. Then again this works both ways. I wonder what the position of the Marxist government in the former Rhodesia is on this issue? After all with out Chinese and Soviet arms, Dr. Mugabe might still be in the bush, moving his camp daily.

This is all about keeping those who are in power now franchised. I wonder how many nations pushing this are one man, one vote democracies with a decent standard of living, and how many are third world thugs who have insurgencies of one type or another brewing in their home nations?

Jeff

[Libertarian]

Let us not forget Kofi Anan's benifactor Daniel Toroitich arap Moi. He has been the owner of Kenya since siexing power in 1978. I am sure that he approves of this move by the part-time lapdog of the Third World dictators - the UN. (Part-time because every now and then the UN allows the US to bribe it into doing something we want it to.)

[C.R.Sam]

And in the late 40s those of us who said the U.N. was evil were branded as paranoids.

Just maby they have gone far enough that even the sheep will be concerned.............naaah.

[4V50 Gary]

For those disgruntled with Bush, this would not happened if Gore was elected.

[paratrooper]

I think he was very mean to the poor UN guy . I wouldn't blame the UN one little bit if they just up and left the US for a place in Europe . It would serve us right if they didn't even care enough about us to include us in any of their future plans . They might even go as far as to refuse our money no matter how hard we beg them to take it . What would we do without them ?????
PARRRRRRRRTEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!

Timothy got the wrong building .

[Jeff Thomas]

Gary, my sentiments exactly.

We're in an idealogical war with these people, and we'd better remember it, every day.

Regards from AZ

[Waitone]

The United Nations defines the meeting's focus as revolvers and self-loading pistols, rifles, sub-machine guns, assault rifles, light machine-guns, heavy machine-guns, mortars, hand grenades, grenade launchers, portable anti-aircraft and anti-tank guns and portable missile launchers.

What is a self-loading pistol? Since the term is juxaposed withv "revolver" am I to assume it is "other loading?" Maybe a self-loeading pistol is topped off with "other loading" magazines. The listing of weaponry seems to ascend in potency. Sub-machine guns are lower on the list than evil assault rifles. Does that mean everything above assault rifle is evil also? Does it mean sub-machine guns are not evil and therefore PC?

Those guys are way ahead of me in firearms technology!

[Calamity Jane]

(sent to the U.N. via email - I guess we got our names on a list now, oh I'm sooooo scared - perhaps they'll try all of us on their "list" in the "World Court". Hey, snake and I will just go the range that day ) -

This is to inform you that we wholeheartedly support the United States' position in opposing any attempt to impose broad worldwide controls on the sale of legal firearms. The people of the United States are citizens under a Constitutional Republic. We are not subjects.

The United States of America has been a beacon of freedom to the rest of the world for more than 200 years. Its soldiers have fought the world over against tyranny and oppression. It is the strength of our Constitution and its Bill of Rights, including our right to keep and bear arms, that has led to the defeat of many tyrants and served to save nations that have imposed disarmament upon their citizens, leaving them unprepared, unwilling, and untrained to defend themselves.

We will maintain that tradition and our Constitution.

[AR-10]

I must say, that article gave me a thrill BOTH times I read it.

Three cheers for Udersecretary Bolton! And President Bush! I did not expect any politician to speak to the U.N. bozos so bluntly.

Very refreshing.

[bookkie]

The United Nations defines the meeting's focus as revolvers and self-loading pistols, rifles, sub-machine guns, assault rifles, light machine-guns, heavy machine-guns, mortars, hand grenades, grenade launchers, portable anti-aircraft and anti-tank guns and portable missile launchers.

Is this list not just exactly what a good militia member would have? Seems to me we are being short changed by our own government. Heck if I can't own a portable anti-aircraft gun, how am I supposed to know how to use one to defend our country if the need should ever arise? Knowing how to use our arms was one of the main purposes of the 2nd.

[Bob Locke]

The United States threw down the gauntlet on Monday at a U.N. small arms conference, saying it rejected any move to restrict the right of citizens to bear arms, even when these were designed for military use.

As one of the world's largest suppliers of arms, the United States backs all sort of legal trade and Bolton fiercely guarded the rights of citizens to own guns.

And then...

"Small arms and light weapons, in our understanding are strictly military arms -- automatic rifles, machine guns, shoulder-fired missiles and rocket systems, light mortars -- that are contributing to continued violence and suffering in regions of conflict around the world," Bolton said.

"We separate these military arms from firearms such as hunting rifles and pistols," he said. "It is the illicit trade in military small arms and light weapons that we are gathered here to address and that should properly concern us."

Is it just me, or are these statements a little contradictory?

It seems that the Bush administration thinks it's okay for the citizens of OTHER countries to have access to AK-47's, FN FAL's, and M16's, but not those of us who reside in the United States.

[rock_jock]

Some other comments:

"I was amazed by the U.S. representative's remarks. It sounded like he wanted the conference to collapse,'' said Brazilian (news - web sites) Rubem Cesar Fernandes of the International Network on Small Arms, an umbrella disarmament group.

"They are defying the world. It was very arrogant,'' said Ilhan Berkol of the Brussels-based Group for Research and Information on Peace and Security.

Folks, this latter statement sums up the attitude of the globalists/statists/socialists/New World Order-types. The idea that we as a sovereign nation are arrogant in upholding a Bill of Rights for our own people is beyonf ludicrous. It in itself is shear arrogance. I have to say that at some point, the US and the UN are going to come to a serious disagreement. I just hope that means we leave and the UN unravels.

[ArmySon]

``In some places an AK-47 assault rifle can be bought for as little as $15, or even a bag of grain.''

Those weapons often find their way into countries awash in violence.

No doh! People at war will use the best means possible to fight. Take away the guns and do you think they'll stop killing each other? Hardly.

[dZ]

check out this article:
Free Fire at the United Nations



Tuesday, July 10, 2001; Page A20

THE UNITED NATIONS yesterday convened a conference that is meant to address a major global problem -- the trafficking in small arms -- but
that instead very likely will devolve into another demonstration of the difficulty of forging credible international agreements in this fractious
post-Cold War era. U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, human rights groups and some European governments hoped the meeting might
produce serious and binding restrictions on the international sale of assault rifles, grenades, rocket launchers and other such weapons, which by
the United Nations' reckoning have fueled 46 of the world's 49 largest conflicts since 1990, mostly in the developing world. But arms producers --
led by the United States, China and Russia -- don't want restrictions, and neither do many of the African, Asian and Latin American governments
that have been their customers.

Probably the conference was doomed from the start. But the Bush administration seems determined to add insult to the United Nations' latest
injury. Its envoy to the conference, State Department Undersecretary John R. Bolton, delivered an opening address that appeared designed to
cater to the most extreme domestic opponents of gun control, for whom the U.N. conference has conjured up the usual paranoid fantasies
about international shock troops in black helicopters confiscating handguns and hunting rifles. "The United States will not join consensus on a
final document that contains measures contrary to our constitutional right to keep and bear arms," Mr. Bolton declared.

No such measures appear in the draft documents before the conference. Instead, organizers hoped to promote controls on the international
sale of military-style assault rifles and other powerful weapons. Such arms are killing an estimated 200,000 people a year in armed conflicts,
according to Amnesty International, with much of the carnage in nations that can least afford it, ranging from Sierra Leone, Congo and Angola to
Indonesia and Colombia. U.S. law has contained fairly strong controls on arms dealers and foreign arms sales since 1996, though enforcement of
them has been weak. The Bush administration says it supports the adoption of such measures by other countries -- but is unwilling to support
any international agreement that would limit trade. Mr. Bolton also denounced language that urges governments merely to "seriously
consider" curtailing "unrestricted sales and ownership" of arms "specifically designed for military purposes." And in a coup de grace, he said the
administration would oppose any mandatory future conference to review progress on any accord that is adopted.

The draft U.N. plan, which would be non-binding, doesn't come close to infringing on the Second Amendment. With U.S. support, it might have
made some small headway toward cutting down on the weapons trafficking that is devastating dozens of poor nations. Instead, the Bush
administration seems to have chosen to use the U.N. conference as a way to pander to the National Rifle Association, anti-U.N. zealots and
far-right conspiracy theorists. Perhaps it makes good domestic politics. But it won't help much with the administration's already tarnished
image abroad -- and it won't save any lives.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2001Jul9.html
© 2001 The Washington Post Company

[Dave R]

Someone convince me that Gore would not have embraced this UN conference with both arms and tried to look like the US was leading the charge.

Thank Heaven Bush won.

This is a rare moment when I feel the Government is representing me.

[OF]

I see a very basic disconnect here. These people think that it is the guns that are CAUSING the conflict. They seem to honestly believe that the weapons are the cause. I can't even begin to imagine the stupidity it would take to believe that.

Look at the rhetoric. It's obvious, they really think that the weapons are the reason people are in conflict on the planet.

It's truly frightening ignorance.

- Gabe

[paratrooper]

ArmySon : If you see the guy selling AK 47's for $15 you send him my way . I'll take all that SOB can bring me . <G>

[Coronach]

Lets allow capitalism to clean up this arms trade nightmare. Think about it. If I can buy an AK-47 for $15 in Lower Slobbobia and sell it for $500 here in the USA...well, shoot. I dunno how many AK-47s I can fit in a freighter, but I'm sure as heck gonna find out!

Mike

[DC]

No doh! People at war will use the best means possible to fight. Take away the guns
and do you think they'll stop killing each other? Hardly.

Think machetes....more popular in the African continent than AK's

Damn, if I cornered the market on used leaf springs, would I be considered an arms dealer?

[rock_jock]

Coronach, LOL on that one. Sign me up for 100 AK's. I'm sure you'll give me a step discount as a TFL member.