The UN small arms conference failed miserably.... [Archive]

DesignatedMarksman

09-07-2006, 17:31

Notably thanks to the US, India, Pakistan, Cuba, and Iran.

Of course, the lame website and retarded "UN MAN" couldn't have helped either.

http://www.globalsolutions.org/programs/intl_instit/UN_ref/UN21century.html

Before I go any further...[nelson] HAHA! [Nelson]

U.N. conference on arms ends in failure
NICK WADHAMS
July 7, 2006
Associated Press
UNITED NATIONS - A two-week U.N. conference reviewing efforts to fight the illegal weapons trade ended in failure Friday, with nations too divided on too many contentious issues to agree on the best way to combat a scourge that fuels conflict worldwide.

After days of negotiations, delegates gave up their bid to agree on an "outcome document" meant to reflect their consensus on the most serious threats and the best way to fight the illegal trade in small arms, worth about $1 billion a year.

"It's a squandered opportunity," said Anthea Lawson, spokeswoman with the International Action Network on Small Arms. "It's preposterous especially when there was so much will from so many countries to do something."

The conference was reviewing progress made toward achieving a 2001 program of action to curb the illicit sale of pistols, assault rifles, machine guns and other light weapons.

The global trade in small arms is worth about $4 billion a year, of which a fourth is considered illegal, according to the annual Small Arms Survey, an authoritative report on such weapons. The arms cause 60 percent to 90 percent of all deaths in conflicts every year.

The event was largely done in by the need for all nations to agree on every element of the final document, rather than to approve proposals by an up-or-down vote.

The collapse reflected just how contentious the discussion of the small arms trade has become. Many nations refuse to disclose the extent of their small-arms trade, and are unwilling to discuss restrictions on ammunition and national gun ownership, selling weapons to non-state actors and tracing weapons back to their original seller.

Cuba, India, Iran, and Pakistan were among the nations that spoke out against an NGO proposal for governments to agree to a set of global principles on the arms trade. At its heart is a promise to make sure they don't sell weapons to buyers who could then pass them on illegally.

And there was widespread support for a call to hold a similar conference five years from now. The United States, however, opposed.

"You had a few governments that were holding out and not compromising, said Nicholas Marsh, with the International Peace Research Institute in Oslo, and an adviser to the Norwegian delegation.

Despite the failure, delegates planned to raise many of the same issues in the U.N. disarmament committee - where consensus is not needed for agreement - to begin preparing a treaty that would make law out of many of the global principles supported by non-governmental groups.

Some delegates said the meeting was doomed from the start. It took six days to get through speeches by nations, then the conference suspended work for the July 4 holiday. Negotiations on the final text only began Wednesday.

"Whether we would have been able to agree on the document - I don't think so," said Prasad Kariyawasam, Sri Lanka's U.N. ambassador and president of the conference. "I think at this point it was that views among parties with regard to how to follow up did not converge."

Machtfrei

09-07-2006, 18:02

The US should always oppose such measures. A significant number of law abiding American citizens, myself included, will not give up our guns because of criminals abusing them.

Anarchic Christians

09-07-2006, 18:03

The US should always oppose such measures. A significant number of law abiding American citizens, myself included, will not give up our guns because of criminals abusing them.

What part of 'illegal weapons trade' impinges on your right to bear arms?

Adriatica III

09-07-2006, 18:04

The US should always oppose such measures. A significant number of law abiding American citizens, myself included, will not give up our guns because of criminals abusing them.

If you do give up guns, it will become far harder for the criminals to get hold of them to abuse them. The US should always support such mesures.

Tactical Grace

09-07-2006, 18:05

[NS]FullMetalJacket

09-07-2006, 18:07

The right for us to take our black market UZI's out to the range and blow through 500 rounds in a few minutes:mp5: ;)

Scarlet States

09-07-2006, 18:08

[NS]FullMetalJacket

09-07-2006, 18:10

http://www.stopungunban.org/

Scarlet States

09-07-2006, 18:14

[NS]FullMetalJacket

09-07-2006, 18:19

I just remember stumbling onto that one night and figured it held some weight in this topic, I dunno about NRA members making money off illegal arms sales however. THat stuff is usually left up to the big boys...well at least in Lord Of War:p

DesignatedMarksman

09-07-2006, 18:20

The US should always oppose such measures. A significant number of law abiding American citizens, myself included, will not give up our guns because of criminals abusing them.

Exactly. This is from the awesome website www.armedamerica.org

Ochressandro: I find mechanical things beautiful and I simply like shooting. But it's more complex than that -- I hunt to remind myself where dinner comes from and that place isn't "the grocery store". And other reasons apart from that -- as the Founding Fathers said, sometimes the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots. If that day comes, I will be ready, to defend my country against all threats, both domestic and foreign. And lastly, I have sworn eternal enmity to the forces of socialism and control. In short, I own firearms, and have drilled myself to proficiency with their use because I have read "Gulag Archipelago", and I will not let it happen here without a fight.

Advocates of gun control think that they will someday take my arms from me. But they are wrong. I'll own guns all my life.

What part of 'illegal weapons trade' impinges on your right to bear arms?

The UN and many of it's members consider ALL non-gov't ownership of arms "illegal".

This small arms conference had nothing to do with doing away with American rights to bear arms.

It was to discuss "illegal arms trade" such as those between American arms producers and African rebels etc.

They wanted the Gov'ts to commit to establishing more restrictions on civilian arms ownership and establist what appears to be something similar to an internation brady bill (sort of)

DesignatedMarksman

09-07-2006, 18:22

Tactical Grace

09-07-2006, 18:22

The UN and many of it's members consider ALL non-gov't ownership of arms "illegal".
The UN as an organisation does not. The suggestion is absurd.

Free Soviets

09-07-2006, 18:23

Erm, illegal arms trade is, uh, illegal? As in, carried out by organised criminals, shady government elements and terrorists? So dealing with that is a bad thing, because law-abiding Americans source their guns from those people? :rolleyes:

didn't you see the thing from the nra? they went off the conspiracy theory deep end on this one. the un was going to steal everyone's gun on the 4th of july

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11238159&postcount=41

[NS]FullMetalJacket

09-07-2006, 18:23

If you do give up guns, it will become far harder for the criminals to get hold of them to abuse them. The US should always support such mesures.

One, we WILL NOT give up our arms, ever. Two, if we make it MORE illegal for criminals to get firearms in the United States (as an example) then criminials will continue to purchase weapons the same way the have been doing, BY BREAKING THE LAW...There's a real interesting episode of Penn&Teller on this subject...

Dobbsworld

09-07-2006, 18:32

Scarlet States

09-07-2006, 18:34

Cuba, India, Iran, Pakistan and the United States.With this latest, you've all dropped a notch or two lower in my estimation.

Cuba: I won't be vacationing on your soil for a while.

India: I'll find another source of 10-kilo sacks of Basmati rice.

Iran: I can't think of any way you impact on my day-to-day, but I'll make damn sure that remains the case.

Pakistan: ditto.

United States: it's hard to think of how much lower you can go. You've failed to show up on my radar of respectability for the last five years. Though I find the company you're keeping on these international issues is quite revealing indeed.

Well said. Well said indeed.

[NS]FullMetalJacket

09-07-2006, 18:41

Iztatepopotla

09-07-2006, 18:44

FullMetalJacket']One, we WILL NOT give up our arms, ever. Two, if we make it MORE illegal for criminals to get firearms in the United States (as an example) then criminials will continue to purchase weapons the same way the have been doing, BY BREAKING THE LAW...There's a real interesting episode of Penn&Teller on this subject...
This is not about controlling the common criminals getting weapons inside a country. This is about the international trade of illegal firearms. Say, a Russian arms dealer getting a truckload of weapons in Chicago and sending them to drug cartels in Colombia via Venezuela. I'm sure you have no problems with that, but, hey, just making clear what this is all about.

Tactical Grace

09-07-2006, 18:45

FullMetalJacket']I don't mean to sound like an uninformed tard or anything, I guess i've just been too busy watching my country oust a dictator (which it installed), take down a ruling milita faction (which it had funded), and try to prevent a nuclear war (the reasons for which it scripted)...But how has the US sunken so low in the past 5 years?
You are correct. I'll say 60 years.

Thriceaddict

09-07-2006, 18:45

The Lone Alliance

09-07-2006, 18:46

The US should always oppose such measures. A significant number of law abiding American citizens, myself included, will not give up our guns because of criminals abusing them.
How True.

I guess people don't understand that people will still kill others WITH OR WITHOUT guns.

Heck even in 1000BC they had murders. Can't blame guns there can you?

Eutrusca

09-07-2006, 18:48

The UN small arms conference failed miserably....
Yayyy! Free beer for everyone! :D

Eutrusca

09-07-2006, 18:51

I'd treat that source with great suspicion considering there are probably quite a few prominent members of the NRA who are probably great beneficiaries of illegal international arms trades.

Not meaning to sound cynical at all...
That's one of the dumbest things I've ever seen on here, and believe me ... I've seen a LOT on here! Sigh. :(

Eutrusca

09-07-2006, 18:55

RRSHP

09-07-2006, 18:56

From what I understand, the US's argument isn't about people in the US, but rather the oppressed in other counrties. The government says that if we try and stop illegal arms dealing then only the criminals will get guns, and the people who try and get guns to fight oppression won't.

I don't know to what extent that is true, and if at all these oppressed people can even get any guns. I am against tightening gun regulations in the US however. As for internationally, I guess it would be better to tighten the regulations, but I really don't know much about the subject.

Eutrusca

09-07-2006, 18:58

[NS]FullMetalJacket

09-07-2006, 18:58

This is not about controlling the common criminals getting weapons inside a country. This is about the international trade of illegal firearms. Say, a Russian arms dealer getting a truckload of weapons in Chicago and sending them to drug cartels in Colombia via Venezuela. I'm sure you have no problems with that, but, hey, just making clear what this is all about.

Iztatepopotla read the quote I was responding to and it might make a little more sense.

I'm glad to see we have the "hate America" coalition out in arms today, lovely...lets see how I can respond to this though I doubt it'll matter much anyway.

The country we destroyed? Yes when you go to war with a country generally damage is done...hence war. But of course the United States is the only country whose ever done damage to a countries infestructure during war...right?

The last time I checked Afghanistan is not run by warlords, but if you were thinking of somalia that's a little out of the scope of this argument.

When I was refering to trying to prevent a nuclear war, I meant North Korea...how did we script that again?

Yes the CIA was in large part responsible for Saddam's rise to power, and we fixed the problem. You can blame us for starting it all you want, but how can you blame us for stopping it?

Tactical Grace

09-07-2006, 18:59

Welcome to the wonderful world of NS General, where black is white, up is down, and only socialists and other leftists have a handle on what the world is "really like" or SHOULD be. :rolleyes:
As someone remarked earlier in the day, reality has a well-known liberal bias. :D

Free Soviets

09-07-2006, 18:59

FullMetalJacket']One, we WILL NOT give up our arms, ever.

The Paranoid Style in American Politics (http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/conspiracy_theory/the_paranoid_mentality/the_paranoid_style.html)

read it

[NS]FullMetalJacket

09-07-2006, 19:00

Eutrusca

09-07-2006, 19:00

As someone remarked earlier in the day, reality has a well-known liberal bias. :D
At least in The Gospel According to Liberals. :D

Free Soviets

09-07-2006, 19:01

As someone remarked earlier in the day, reality has a well-known liberal bias. :D

at some point we should really track down who first started saying that. i'd like to claim credit myself (i was using it at least several years ago), but i suspect i heard it elsewhere

Eutrusca

09-07-2006, 19:02

The Paranoid Style in American Politics (http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/conspiracy_theory/the_paranoid_mentality/the_paranoid_style.html)

read it
YOU recommend it? Then I shall avoid it like the plague! :D

[NS]FullMetalJacket

09-07-2006, 19:05

The Paranoid Style in American Politics (http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/conspiracy_theory/the_paranoid_mentality/the_paranoid_style.html)

read it

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmentii

Yes, I can do it too:D

Ultraextreme Sanity

09-07-2006, 19:06

The UN hasnt closed up shop yet ? What a waste of money and time .

Scarlet States

09-07-2006, 19:06

FullMetalJacket']I don't mean to sound like an uninformed tard or anything, I guess i've just been too busy watching my country oust a dictator, take down a ruling milita faction, and try to prevent a nuclear war (not exactly in that order)...But how has the US sunken so low in the past 5 years?

Let me tell you, America has a lot to answer for lately including:

1. Destroying the State of Iraq, whilst similtaneously bringing it to the brink of ciil war.
2. Invading the State of Afghanistan, largely for show deploying a minimum of troops, making a half-hearted attempt to destroy the Taliban, resulting in most of them getting away (Bin-Ladin included), allowing them to return later.
3. Undermining the International Criminal Court by refusing to ratify the treaty. Interestingly, this means American War criminals such as Henry Kissinger will never be brought to justice.
4. Undermining the Kyoto Agreement by withdrawing from it, which significantly hurts the effort to try to lessen the effects of global warming and other environmental problems.
5. Undermining Land Mine and Nuclear Disarmament treaties by withdrawing from them, which doesn't do much for your statement that your country is doing much to prevent Nuclear war.

And many more!

Sane Outcasts

09-07-2006, 19:09

FullMetalJacket']http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmentii

Yes, I can do it too:D

Someone's going to have to point out where this UN proposal threatened our 2nd amendment rights, because I don't see how action taken against illegal arms sales threatens them.

Isiseye

09-07-2006, 19:09

It never surprises me how these conferences fail. Despite the fact that for the past 6 years I have been willing the UN to work successfully by transforming itself into a non corrupt body that actualy gets work done instead of bickering over the positioning of the words 'and or or' in resolutions, it has failed to do so yet. Small arms are a huge business in some countries, such countries have a knack at corruption and weighing down arguements.

Free Soviets

09-07-2006, 19:10

FullMetalJacket']http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmentii

Yes, I can do it too:D

only your post is stupid because it's got fuck all to do with anything

Dobbsworld

09-07-2006, 19:13

The UN hasnt closed up shop yet ? What a waste of money and time .
Unlike your post, which is a waste of keystrokes and time.

Isiseye

09-07-2006, 19:13

Let me tell you, America has a lot to answer for lately including:

1. Destroying the State of Iraq, whilst similtaneously bringing it to the brink of ciil war.
2. Invading the State of Afghanistan, largely for show deploying a minimum of troops, making a half-hearted attempt to destroy the Taliban, resulting in most of them getting away (Bin-Ladin included), allowing them to return later.
3. Undermining the International Criminal Court by refusing to ratify the treaty. Interestingly, this means American War criminals such as Henry Kissinger will never be brought to justice.
4. Undermining the Kyoto Agreement by withdrawing from it, which significantly hurts the effort to try to lessen the effects of global warming and other environmental problems.
5. Undermining Land Mine and Nuclear Disarmament treaties by withdrawing from them, which doesn't do much for your statement that your country is doing much to prevent Nuclear war.

And many more!

In reference to number 4. While yes the US did this and it pains me to defend the policies of Bush. No countries under Kyoto actualy met the requirements.

Tactical Grace

09-07-2006, 19:18

The UN hasnt closed up shop yet ? What a waste of money and time .
American money and time. Suckers. :D

Scarlet States

09-07-2006, 19:19

I'd treat that source with great suspicion considering there are probably quite a few prominent members of the NRA who are probably great beneficiaries of illegal international arms trades.

Not meaning to sound cynical at all...

Okay. Maybe what I said there was a little over the top. But you can't rule out the possibility that some prominent members of the NRA wouldn't have any monetary gain from the collapse of this conference.

[NS]FullMetalJacket

09-07-2006, 19:20

only your post is stupid because it's got fuck all to do with anything

I'm glad to see we agree with each other:) Calm yourself, crouching tiger.

Scarlet States

09-07-2006, 19:20

In reference to number 4. While yes the US did this and it pains me to defend the policies of Bush. No countries under Kyoto actualy met the requirements.

Of course they didn't. Nobody's perfect. But almost meeting the targets is better than nothing.

[NS]FullMetalJacket

09-07-2006, 19:24

Let me tell you, America has a lot to answer for lately including:

1. Destroying the State of Iraq, whilst similtaneously bringing it to the brink of ciil war.
2. Invading the State of Afghanistan, largely for show deploying a minimum of troops, making a half-hearted attempt to destroy the Taliban, resulting in most of them getting away (Bin-Ladin included), allowing them to return later.
3. Undermining the International Criminal Court by refusing to ratify the treaty. Interestingly, this means American War criminals such as Henry Kissinger will never be brought to justice.
4. Undermining the Kyoto Agreement by withdrawing from it, which significantly hurts the effort to try to lessen the effects of global warming and other environmental problems.
5. Undermining Land Mine and Nuclear Disarmament treaties by withdrawing from them, which doesn't do much for your statement that your country is doing much to prevent Nuclear war.

And many more!

Iraq brought itself to civil war the same way we did in the American Civil War, The Taliban is no longer a self sustaining entity in Afghanistan. Can't speak for lapses in the justice system cause I havn't really looked into it, but I'll take your word for it. Number 4's already been covered and yes we do love our nukes in the US. And we're doing our best to prevent nuclear war by showing restraint and not nuking N. Korea till it glows:)

Isiseye

09-07-2006, 19:24

Of course they didn't. Nobody's perfect. But almost meeting the targets is better than nothing.

Very true. Though most European countries in fairness didn't even tr to meet those targets.

Dobbsworld

09-07-2006, 19:27

FullMetalJacket']And we're doing our best to prevent nuclear war by showing restraint and not nuking N. Korea till it glows:)
That's mighty white of you.

Isiseye

09-07-2006, 19:31

FullMetalJacket']Iraq brought itself to civil war the same way we did in the American Civil War, The Taliban is no longer a self sustaining entity in Afghanistan. Can't speak for lapses in the justice system cause I havn't really looked into it, but I'll take your word for it. Number 4's already been covered and yes we do love our nukes in the US. And we're doing our best to prevent nuclear war by showing restraint and not nuking N. Korea till it glows:)

Yeah but the US wasn't under a tyrant before the Civil War. It didn't have a nice and attractive oil supply and it wasn't in an unstable region as the Middle East. The US government should have know that civil war would insue. The rest of the world did. YOu can't say Iraq brought itself into civil war because the whole country didn't just up and say right o lads guns at the ready we've some stuff to blow up. Last count there were 72 factions in Iraq, and that was in March. American(government) failure in planning led to civil war in Iraq. And thanks to their gross incompetance and the presidents inability to listen to other politicans who hav experience in such matters Iraq is a more unstable version of Northern Ireland in the 70's.

[NS]FullMetalJacket

09-07-2006, 19:40

Yes the US invasion of Iraq led the Iraqi people to make a choice, and they did. Now they have a civil war on their hands. I agree with you that the military situation in Iraq was (and still is in most cases) being handled horribly. The US military was never meant to be a policing force and I say we withdraw our troops as soon as they Iraqi goverment can provide it's own effective policing force. While many Iraqi's denounce the presence of American and Coaliton forces, many appreciate them being there. Our troops have done their job to the best of their abilities and the triumphs "over there" are easily overshadowed by the constant negative press.

Epsilon Squadron

09-07-2006, 19:45

This small arms conference had nothing to do with doing away with American rights to bear arms.

It was to discuss "illegal arms trade" such as those between American arms producers and African rebels etc.
Nothing to do with it huh? Granted this is just an opinion piece, so take it with a grain of salt.
Yesterday the United Nation's Review Converence on Small Arms ended, barely noticed by the media. That's too bad, because this meeting, and the initiative of which it is a part, deserves much more public attention - and censure - than it gets.

To be sure, the converence did attract the hostile attention of the National Rifle Association, thanks to which some 100,000 letters and postcards flooded into the U.N. In response, the conference chair, Prasad Kariyawasam of Sri Lanka, stoutly insisted that the conference "does not in any way address legal possession," while Secretary General Kofi Annan promised that "we do not wish to deny law-abiding citizens their right to bear arms in accordance with national laws." Both statements are disingenuous.

The U.N. has long urged that firearms must never be transferred to "non-state actors" - that is, entities which are neither governments nor government approved. Only John Bolton's intransigence prevented the "non-state actors" rule from being inserted into the Program of Action at the previous U.N. small arms conference in 2001. But the U.N. continues to insist on the "non-state actors" rule - which would, if adopted, make it a violation of international law to sell arms to Taiwan (according to the U.N., not a state). It would also make illegal arms sales to any and every current group resisting tyranny or genocide.

Last year Unesco and Unicef funded the supportes of a Brazillian referendum to outlaw citizen firearms possession. It was rejected by a resounding 64% of the voters. A few months ago, in a warm-up meeting for this year's small arms conference, Rubem Fernandes, head of Viva Rio (the U.N.-funded prohibition group) explained what he had learned from the experience: "First lesson is, don't trust direct democracy."

The spearhead of the U.N. gun prohibition campaign is an NGO by the name of Iansa (International Action Network on Small Arms), This London-based consortium of gun prohibition groups, including American lobbies such as the Million Mom March and the Brady compaign, sent a large staff to the small arms conference, some of them serving as national delegates. Iansa's head, Rebecca Peters, does not mince words: "We want to see a drastic reduction in gun ownership across the world."

Iansa members Barbara Frey has been appointed by the U.N. as "Special Rapporteur on the Prevention of Human Rights Violations Committed with Small Arms and Light Weapons." Ms. Frey, a law professor at the University of Minnesota, believes it is a human rights violation if a government does not require gun owners to have a restrictive license, under which "Possession of small arms shall be authorized for specific purposes only; small arms shall be used strictly for the purpose for which they are authorized." Were this doctrine accepted, it would instantly turn the U.S. government and every American state into international law-breakers.

Nevertheless, the U.N. does not talk about the extreme human rights violations being perpetrated on behalf of U.N. gun control. In the borderlands of Kenya and Uganda, joint military operations are burning villages, confiscating cattle from the pastoral tribes, torturing, murdering, pillaging and turning over 100,000 people into refugees, many of them starving. These atrocities and being perpetrated pursuant to the Nairobi Protocol, a U.N.-led regional treaty which obligates the signatory governments to eradicate unlicensed gun possession.

In practice, the Nairobi Protocol has been a justification for ethnic cleansing. On June 26, after five years of such atrocities, the United Nations Development Program itself finally cut off funding for Ugandan disarmament (the U.N. was funding voluntary gun surrender, not the military campaign). So far no steps have been taken regarding disarmament abuses in Kenya.

Similarly, the Economic Community of West African States (Ecowas) has under U.N. leadership banned the import of all firearms, except those for government use. Although human rights groups have warned that two Ecowas countries - Ivory Coast and Guinea - are on the brink of genocide, the U.N. seems determined to keep the potential genocide victims as helpless and defenseless as the genocide victims in Darfur.

The U.N. bureaucracy and the gun prohibition lobbies knew that they would not be able to get everything they wanted from the 2006 conference. Accordingly, they aim to keep the "small arms" process going, with more conferences in upcomming years - when a new U.S. administration might welcome rather than resist international efforts to end-run the Second Amendment. There is a precedent for this: During the 1990's, as the U.N. campaign against small arms was building, the Clinton Administration was an enthusiastic supporter - refusing even to join with the Latin American delegations which stated that some countries had traditions of legitimate sporting gun ownership.

Moreover - and this is a subtlety that Americans are only beginning to understand - no "Program of Action" from this or any future small arms conference needs to be legally binding in order to make it legally binding. The gun prohibition lobbies are already working to claim that there is an international "norm" against citizen gun possession. (An international "norm" is similar to common law - as opposed to international law created by formal treaties.)

Evidence of the norm, of course, comes from the gradual accumulation of international pronouncements, confiscations and national restrictions that the gun prohibition lobbies and their government allies labor so assiduously to insinuate. The U.S. Supreme Court has, meanwhile, recently cited unratified treaties as evidence of interanational norms which should guide the interpretation of our Constitution.

The U.N. gun control program, of which this week's small arms conference is a part, has already caused massive suffering and the loss of civil liberties in many nations around the world. Americans would be foolish to imagine that they will be immune.

- David B. Kopel, Research Director of the Independence Institute.

Iztatepopotla

09-07-2006, 19:46

FullMetalJacket']Iztatepopotla read the quote I was responding to and it might make a little more sense.
Yes, my post would go to both you and Adriatica, or anyone else who thinks that the UN attempts to control individual legal ownership of guns, or how countries deal with common criminals inside their territory.

EDIT: Or who think that controlling individual, law abiding ownership or guns will lead to a decrease in illegal international trade.

Isiseye

09-07-2006, 19:55

FullMetalJacket'] The US military was never meant to be a policing force and I say we withdraw our troops as soon as they Iraqi goverment can provide it's own effective policing force. .

I agree the US military were never meant to be a policing force but I think its high time they learnt to be. As for the iraqi gove providing its own effective police force.........that will hard as they keep getting murdered.

[NS]FullMetalJacket

09-07-2006, 19:55

Yes, my post would go to both you and Adriatica, or anyone else who thinks that the UN attempts to control individual legal ownership of guns, or how countries deal with common criminals inside their territory.

EDIT: Or who think that controlling individual, law abiding ownership or guns will lead to a decrease in illegal international trade.

Alright just checking, my post to adriatica was simply adressing the issue on a "local" scale.

DesignatedMarksman

09-07-2006, 21:15

The UN as an organisation does not. The suggestion is absurd.

It is not.

The UN has no problem disarming Africans, and if there wasn't a strong military here I have no doubt they'd come here too.

Epsilon posted it above. EXACTLY the same article I was looking for.

Tactical Grace

09-07-2006, 21:17

The UN has no problem disarming Africans, and if there wasn't a strong military here I have no doubt they'd come here too.
:rolleyes:

You have no idea what you are talking about. There has never been a single successful example of the UN disarming any functioning state of its small arms. You have bought into opinion piece propaganda without checking it.

DesignatedMarksman

09-07-2006, 21:19

:rolleyes:

You have no idea what you are talking about. There has never been a single successful example of the UN disarming any functioning state of its small arms. You have bought into opinion piece propaganda without checking it.

Not the state. It's the people.

OH, and apparently machetes count as "Small arms" too. Whoda thunk that. Perhaps baseball bats and knives are next?

Hokan

09-07-2006, 21:21

Guns are for paranoid freaks.

Barbaric Tribes

09-07-2006, 21:22

Even if this resolution is passed, THE UN WOULD NOT DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT! they are so unwilling and incompotent. If they dont care or dont do anything about NUKES for fucks sake, they're not gonna do shit about guns.:headbang:

LiberationFrequency

09-07-2006, 21:23

Not the state. It's the people.

OH, and apparently machetes count as "Small arms" too. Whoda thunk that. Perhaps baseball bats and knives are next?

I guess machetes just don't really have a point other than a weapon. Its not like most people in Europe are going to be fighting there way through jungle foilage anytime soon.

Kecibukia

09-07-2006, 21:28

I guess machetes just don't really have a point other than a weapon. Its not like most people in Europe are going to be fighting there way through jungle foilage anytime soon.

That whole 'clearing brush' thing aside.

DesignatedMarksman

09-07-2006, 21:29

I guess machetes just don't really have a point other than a weapon. Its not like most people in Europe are going to be fighting there way through jungle foilage anytime soon.

[sheep] pointy things are baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad! [sheep]

So grass and brush don't grow in europe?

Tactical Grace

09-07-2006, 21:31

Not the state. It's the people.

OH, and apparently machetes count as "Small arms" too. Whoda thunk that. Perhaps baseball bats and knives are next?
That has never happened either. Yeah, the French and Belgians did a great job of disarming the militias in Rwanda. Yeah, there's a great job being done in the Sudan. Oh, it totally worked in Bosnia. And so on.

WMD aside, the UN hasn't disarmed shit. And disarming civilian populations in functioning states, is not even part of its agenda.

Gandae

09-07-2006, 21:32

The US should always oppose such measures. A significant number of law abiding American citizens, myself included, will not give up our guns because of criminals abusing them.

"Let me note that this Review Conference is not negoiating a global gun ban, nor do we wish to deny any law abiding citizen their right to bear arms in accordance with their national laws. ....
Our targets remain unscrupulous arms brokers, corrupt officials, drug-trafficing sydactes, and others who bring death and mayhem to our communities..."
Kofy A. Annan
United Nations Secratary General
to the opening meeting of the review conference
26 June 2006
Were in that do you find the bringing of a citizens right to bear arms.
dumass

Kecibukia

09-07-2006, 21:38

That has never happened either. Yeah, the French and Belgians did a great job of disarming the militias in Rwanda. Yeah, there's a great job being done in the Sudan. Oh, it totally worked in Bosnia. And so on.

WMD aside, the UN hasn't disarmed shit. And disarming civilian populations in functioning states, is not even part of its agenda.

But it is part of the agenda of most of the sponsoring organizations and countries of the conference.

DesignatedMarksman

09-07-2006, 21:40

"Let me note that this Review Conference is not negoiating a global gun ban, nor do we wish to deny any law abiding citizen their right to bear arms in accordance with their national laws. ....
Our targets remain unscrupulous arms brokers, corrupt officials, drug-trafficing sydactes, and others who bring death and mayhem to our communities..."
Kofy A. Annan
United Nations Secratary General
to the opening meeting of the review conference
26 June 2006
Were in that do you find the bringing of a citizens right to bear arms.
dumass

Man Kofi really isn't in control of his organization. But then again, he is the head of a pointless and useless organization. Apparently he says one thing but his funds say another.

Last year Unesco and Unicef funded the supportes of a Brazillian referendum to outlaw citizen firearms possession. It was rejected by a resounding 64% of the voters. A few months ago, in a warm-up meeting for this year's small arms conference, Rubem Fernandes, head of Viva Rio (the U.N.-funded prohibition group) explained what he had learned from the experience: "First lesson is, don't trust direct democracy."

So now the UN is using it's cronies to step directly into nation's politics? How white of them!

Yeah! There you go!

Iansa members Barbara Frey has been appointed by the U.N. as "Special Rapporteur on the Prevention of Human Rights Violations Committed with Small Arms and Light Weapons." Ms. Frey, a law professor at the University of Minnesota, believes it is a human rights violation if a government does not require gun owners to have a restrictive license, under which "Possession of small arms shall be authorized for specific purposes only; small arms shall be used strictly for the purpose for which they are authorized." Were this doctrine accepted, it would instantly turn the U.S. government and every American state into international law-breakers.

Nevertheless, the U.N. does not talk about the extreme human rights violations being perpetrated on behalf of U.N. gun control. In the borderlands of Kenya and Uganda, joint military operations are burning villages, confiscating cattle from the pastoral tribes, torturing, murdering, pillaging and turning over 100,000 people into refugees, many of them starving. These atrocities and being perpetrated pursuant to the Nairobi Protocol, a U.N.-led regional treaty which obligates the signatory governments to eradicate unlicensed gun possession.

Of course, they are also forgetting Mugabe's thugs who are murdering the white farmers and causing a famine in that country. They're all disarmed, except for Mugabe's thugs. How convenient.

Tactical Grace

09-07-2006, 21:50

But it is part of the agenda of most of the sponsoring organizations and countries of the conference.
Countries, no.

NGOs, some, yes. But we're talking about humanitarian organisations and charities. The anti-landmine people, etc. I don't think you can really express outrage at their opinions. It is to be expected from them.

Sane Outcasts

09-07-2006, 21:53

Iansa members Barbara Frey has been appointed by the U.N. as "Special Rapporteur on the Prevention of Human Rights Violations Committed with Small Arms and Light Weapons." Ms. Frey, a law professor at the University of Minnesota, believes it is a human rights violation if a government does not require gun owners to have a restrictive license, under which "Possession of small arms shall be authorized for specific purposes only; small arms shall be used strictly for the purpose for which they are authorized." Were this doctrine accepted, it would instantly turn the U.S. government and every American state into international law-breakers.

I love how that piece of the article makes it sound as though one person's opinion is somehow going to be made into UN doctrine. Her position is Rapporteur, meaning she simply submits reports at UN meetings. A low level bureaucrat at best.

Nevertheless, the U.N. does not talk about the extreme human rights violations being perpetrated on behalf of U.N. gun control. In the borderlands of Kenya and Uganda, joint military operations are burning villages, confiscating cattle from the pastoral tribes, torturing, murdering, pillaging and turning over 100,000 people into refugees, many of them starving. These atrocities and being perpetrated pursuant to the Nairobi Protocol, a U.N.-led regional treaty which obligates the signatory governments to eradicate unlicensed gun possession.

Of course, they are also forgetting Mugabe's thugs who are murdering the white farmers and causing a famine in that country. They're all disarmed, except for Mugabe's thugs. How convenient.

The Nairobi Protocols were created and enforced mostly by the African nations that signed it. The UN's contributions were aid in the negotiations and support in international circles for the treaty. All of the enforcement has been undertaken by African military and all of the subsequent abuses are simply symptomatic of corruption in African military, not some UN quest to rid the continent of guns.

Muertando

09-07-2006, 21:58

Gravlen

09-07-2006, 22:03

There we go, some one with a brain that doesn't only work in theoretics :)
So you believe we shouldn't do anything to reduce or limit the availability of illegal weapons, since the criminals will get them by breaking the law anyway?

Edit: Oh, and the Penn & Teller show is called Bullshit for a good reason...

Francis Street

09-07-2006, 22:14

Epsilon Squadron

09-07-2006, 22:40

Hooray, DM, another victory in the war against making the world a better place.
Because Darfur, Uganda, Kenya, etc etc are such a better place :rolleyes:

DesignatedMarksman

09-07-2006, 22:47

Hooray, DM, another victory in the war against making the world a better place.

Working towards elemination of my right's doesn't make ANYONE safer except the government AND criminals. One may be both, don't forget.

Francis Street

09-07-2006, 22:56

Working towards elemination of my right's doesn't make ANYONE safer except the government AND criminals. One may be both, don't forget.
No, you're essentially supporting criminals' rights. After all, it's the illegal arms trade that has to be eliminated.

Epsilon Squadron

09-07-2006, 23:00

No, you're essentially supporting criminals' rights. After all, it's the illegal arms trade that has to be eliminated.
But that's not their aim... their aim is the elimination of all private firearm ownership.
So no, we're not supporting criminals rights. We're supporting every humans basic human right to self defense.

Go after the criminals when they break the laws that already exist. Making more laws, making firearm ownership more restrictive will have a disporpotional affect on law abiding citizens vs the criminals.

Gun Manufacturers

09-07-2006, 23:47

Guns are for paranoid freaks, hunters, target shooters, and collectors.

Fixed it for you. :D

Free shepmagans

10-07-2006, 00:05

Even if the UN was hatching some evil plan to take my weapons... it's the fucking UN. What are they gonna do? Pass a toothless resolution and cower in the corner? Even if the U.S. government tried to take guns away, they'd have gun owners huddling together in fortresses ala Waco. It just ain't happening.

Tactical Grace

10-07-2006, 00:09

But that's not their aim... their aim is the elimination of all private firearm ownership.
It's not.

So no, we're not supporting criminals rights. We're supporting every humans basic human right to self defense.
You're not.

Ragun Mezegis

10-07-2006, 00:18

People who argue that the UN is useless sound like that's a surprise. The UN has one major fault... that any one of five particular countries can unilaterally sink ANY motion. It's hard to do anything productive when someone is almost always guaranteed to veto any motion that will have any real effect on the world. The number of motions that were unanimous except for 1-5 (usually veto) votes is staggering.

"Oh, this motion will save hundreds of thousands of lives over the next half century, but it'll decrease our GNP by 0.01%. VETO!"

Free Soviets

10-07-2006, 00:35

But that's not their aim... their aim is the elimination of all private firearm ownership.

see, it's totally the paranoid style in american politics

Tactical Grace

10-07-2006, 00:37

see, it's totally the paranoid style in american politics
Nothing is ever what it seems. Take fluoridation. :rolleyes:

Free shepmagans

10-07-2006, 00:39

People who argue that the UN is useless sound like that's a surprise.
I don't think it's a suprise. Of course, I hate the fact the we participate in it. Just the things it stands for sicken me.

Tactical Grace

10-07-2006, 00:41

Just the things [the UN] stands for sicken me.
Freedom, self-determination, human rights. Subversive stuff.

Free shepmagans

10-07-2006, 00:50

Freedom, self-determination, human rights. Subversive stuff.
*Sigh* No. I like human rights and freedom. I dislike internationalism. Anything which brings us even 1 iota closer to a world government is bad IMHO. Call me paranoid if you must, but the only thing the government should do is protect us from outside forces. I dislike MY government telling me what to do, I hate governments that don't even pretend I put them in office telling me what to do.

Tactical Grace

10-07-2006, 00:56

I dislike MY government telling me what to do, I hate governments that don't even pretend I put them in office telling me what to do.
The US is no different to the UN in this regard. Indeed, considerably worse, as the UN does not have much in the way of a force projection capability.

Eutrusca

10-07-2006, 01:01

Guns are for paranoid freaks.
Oh, thank you so much for that enlightening bit of bullshit! :)

Free shepmagans

10-07-2006, 01:10

The US is no different to the UN in this regard. Indeed, considerably worse, as the UN does not have much in the way of a force projection capability.
Well I can't do very much about that now can I? 1 less organization telling me what to do is an improvement if you ask me.

Psychotic Mongooses

10-07-2006, 01:16

But that's not their aim... their aim is the elimination of all private firearm ownership..
Prove it.

Free Soviets

10-07-2006, 01:24

Nothing is ever what it seems. Take fluoridation. :rolleyes:

i have a list of 48 communist dentists working in the state department!

Conscience and Truth

10-07-2006, 01:34

What part of 'illegal weapons trade' impinges on your right to bear arms?

Anarchic Christian, you are exactly right. If we can't trust our government to curb sales, how can we trust our fellow citizens to have guns.

There is no reason for an individual person to have a gun in today's progressive society. The only people that should have them is the police and other government agents.

This is my view. We need to reduce violence, not increase it. :(

Free shepmagans

10-07-2006, 01:42

There is no reason for an individual person to have a gun in today's progressive society. The only people that should have them is the police and other government agents.

This is my view. We need to reduce violence, not increase it. :(
I respect that, but what if the government oppresses it's people? Or can no longer be trusted? If the citizens have no guns, how can they hope to stage a successful revolution? What if the country is conqured? How can a citizen defend his homeland by joining a proper resistance without a weapon? What if a person is attacked by a criminal who is larger and stronger? The police will take ages to get there, in which time he could already be bleeding out from a knife wound. If you can answer these questions to my satisfaction I will no longer be against gun control.

Gun Manufacturers

10-07-2006, 01:58

[NS]FullMetalJacket

10-07-2006, 02:10

Secret aj man

10-07-2006, 02:36

Anarchic Christian, you are exactly right. If we can't trust our government to curb sales, how can we trust our fellow citizens to have guns.

There is no reason for an individual person to have a gun in today's progressive society. The only people that should have them is the police and other government agents.

This is my view. We need to reduce violence, not increase it. :(

i wont get into the gun debate thing....as i am an avid gun collector/owner/strict constitutionalist/enjoys living and not depending on cops that may or may not appear,or are not corrupt.

but i will address your statement that we need to reduce violence....and mercy me..i concur 100%!
now while this may be hard to understand from a non-american pov...do a quick google search or some basic research(the fbi uniform crime report works)about comparisons between..let me see..the three most heavily regulated(private gun ownership) cities in the country.
nyc/washington d.c./chicago and some of your more,shall we say lax areas or cities.
bear in mind...l.a. is way bigger then d.c. or philly is alot smaller then nyc.

it is incontravertable that areas with almost..no... complete bans on hanguns(other then for leo's)the crime rate..violent crime as well as robberies,is almost ridiculously high in comparison to cities like philly or miami,were the ccw laws are shall issue.

now a person with a grasp on reality,can only deduce..that the fact that armed citizens are mixed in with the population...there is a impact on crimminals...period!

where the crimminal knows that everyone(honest) is helpless..well read the stats yourself.

so,in the states at least..if you want to reduce violence...then you arm people...not disarm people..
this aint rocket science..facts bear it out.

maybe europe or elsewhere is a utopia i am missing out on,where everyone flitters about on candy canes and fairy dust..and no one means anyone harm,but here..different story,and guess what..an armed society is a polite society works here...kinda like mad i guess...but it seems to work for everyone,but the poor smoes stuck in d.c./nyc/and chicago....but they cant protect themselves..i forgot.

do i wish we all could get along,and had no need for guns for self defence...hell yea..(although i would still have em cause i like shooting)but really..it is uniquely american i guess,or euros are so conditioned to be told what to do they just fall in line..no insult intended...trying to make a point..that america aint europe..we all have guns,and we don't kill eachother willy nilly...except where guns are banned...confusing yes..but reality..yes.

that in and of itself should tell you something.

omg...people can own guns and not be homicidal killers...but crimminals will be crimminals no matter what laws or bans are on the books!

and i wont even get into the constitutional aspect/freedom/hunting/sporting aspects.

CthulhuFhtagn

10-07-2006, 02:37

That whole 'clearing brush' thing aside.
Speaking as someone who owns a machete, they're really bad for that. A weed-whacker works better. Hell, a sickle works better. The only purpose a machete has is to do enough damage so that one can push through an area that would be otherwise impassible.

Free Soviets

10-07-2006, 02:42

The only purpose a machete has is to do enough damage so that one can push through an area that would be otherwise impassible.

or just to have a hell of a lot of fun hacking at stuff

CthulhuFhtagn

10-07-2006, 02:43

or just to have a hell of a lot of fun hacking at stuff
Point. I guess I'm a bit bitter because I can't fucking find mine.

[NS]FullMetalJacket

10-07-2006, 02:43

Speaking as someone who owns a machete, they're really bad for that. A weed-whacker works better. Hell, a sickle works better. The only purpose a machete has is to do enough damage so that one can push through an area that would be otherwise impassible.

I guess that's why they're so popular with jungle guides...and it looks really cool...

CthulhuFhtagn

10-07-2006, 02:44

i wont get into the gun debate thing....as i am an avid gun collector/owner/strict constitutionalist/enjoys living and not depending on cops that may or may not appear,or are not corrupt.

but i will address your statement that we need to reduce violence....and mercy me..i concur 100%!
now while this may be hard to understand from a non-american pov...do a quick google search or some basic research(the fbi uniform crime report works)about comparisons between..let me see..the three most heavily regulated(private gun ownership) cities in the country.
nyc/washington d.c./chicago and some of your more,shall we say lax areas or cities.
bear in mind...l.a. is way bigger then d.c. or philly is alot smaller then nyc.

it is incontravertable that areas with almost..no... complete bans on hanguns(other then for leo's)the crime rate..violent crime as well as robberies,is almost ridiculously high in comparison to cities like philly or miami,were the ccw laws are shall issue.

now a person with a grasp on reality,can only deduce..that the fact that armed citizens are mixed in with the population...there is a impact on crimminals...period!

where the crimminal knows that everyone(honest) is helpless..well read the stats yourself.

so,in the states at least..if you want to reduce violence...then you arm people...not disarm people..
this aint rocket science..facts bear it out.

maybe europe or elsewhere is a utopia i am missing out on,where everyone flitters about on candy canes and fairy dust..and no one means anyone harm,but here..different story,and guess what..an armed society is a polite society works here...kinda like mad i guess...but it seems to work for everyone,but the poor smoes stuck in d.c./nyc/and chicago....but they cant protect themselves..i forgot.

do i wish we all could get along,and had no need for guns for self defence...hell yea..(although i would still have em cause i like shooting)but really..it is uniquely american i guess,or euros are so conditioned to be told what to do they just fall in line..no insult intended...trying to make a point..that america aint europe..we all have guns,and we don't kill eachother willy nilly...except where guns are banned...confusing yes..but reality..yes.

that in and of itself should tell you something.

omg...people can own guns and not be homicidal killers...but crimminals will be crimminals no matter what laws or bans are on the books!

and i wont even get into the constitutional aspect/freedom/hunting/sporting aspects.
Can someone translate this? I honestly can't understand a word of it. Except "the". I understand that.

CthulhuFhtagn

10-07-2006, 02:45

FullMetalJacket']I guess that's why they're so popular with jungle guides...and it looks really cool...
Yes, it is. Because jungle guides do not clear brush. They, as I said, turn an impassible area into an area that one could squeeze through.

[NS]FullMetalJacket

10-07-2006, 02:46

Can someone translate this? I honestly can't understand a word of it. Except "the". I understand that.

Cities where firearm rules are lax have lower shooting deaths than cities that have "high" gun control....Come on, just because it dosn't have perfect spelling dosn't mean you can't get the gist of it.

Les Drapeaux Brulants

10-07-2006, 02:47

Three cheers for another small victory over the UN.

[NS]FullMetalJacket

10-07-2006, 02:47

Yes, it is. Because jungle guides do not clear brush. They, as I said, turn an impassible area into an area that one could squeeze through.

and they look really freaking cool:D

CthulhuFhtagn

10-07-2006, 02:58

FullMetalJacket']Cities where firearm rules are lax have lower shooting deaths than cities that have "high" gun control....Come on, just because it dosn't have perfect spelling dosn't mean you can't get the gist of it.
It lacks sentences. Bloody sentences. Incidentally, correlation does not mean causation, when there are other factors. Cities with stricter gun control laws also tend to have higher population densities, which is a known contributor to violent crime.

Secret aj man

10-07-2006, 03:05

Can someone translate this? I honestly can't understand a word of it. Except "the". I understand that.

i did not realize i was speaking gibberish...i will concede i am a poor speller and reall suck at sentence construction..but are you honestly going to say you cant understand what i wrote?

it is not that hard to follow i think...unless you just want to make fun of me...and then..you succeeded...wow..i am hurt.

does not take away from my point you obviously cant deduce..or dont want too.

i will admit i use.....dots to pause..so it compensates for my lack of sentence structure..but really..you cant understand what i wrote?

i know i need a remedial writing class..maybe you should take a remedial reading class.

Secret aj man

10-07-2006, 03:12

Can someone translate this? I honestly can't understand a word of it. Except "the". I understand that.

if you care..point out what confuses you,and i will be happy to elaborate..and i promise..only single sentences,if that is adequate.

or do you just want to ridicule me for my less then perfect command of english..or worse...you resorted to the age old tactic of changing the subject cause you have no arguement..and divert attention from your lack of position,and attack me personally...where did i see this before?

i really did not think it was that incomprehensible...but then again...what do i know?

Free shepmagans

10-07-2006, 03:28

Here, I think I got everything. I wont get into the gun debate thing....as I am an avid gun collector/owner/strict constitutionalist/enjoys living and not depending on cops that may or may not appear, or are not corrupt.

I will address your statement that we need to reduce violence....and mercy me. I concur 100%!
Now while this may be hard to understand from a non-American POV...do a quick google search or some basic research(the FBI uniform crime report works)about comparisons between. Let me see. The three most heavily regulated(private gun ownership) cities in the country.
NYC/Washington D.C./Chicago and some of your more, shall we say lax areas or cities.
bear in mind...L.A. is way bigger then D.C. or Philly is alot smaller then NYC.

It is incontrovertible that areas with almost no complete bans on handguns(other then for leo's)the crime rate. Violent crime as well as robberies, is almost ridiculously high in comparison to cities like Philly or Miami, where the CCW laws are shall issue.

Now a person with a grasp on reality, can only deduce. That the fact that armed citizens are mixed in with the population...there is an impact on criminals...period!

Where the criminal knows that everyone(honest) is helpless. Well read the stats yourself.

So, in the states at least, if you want to reduce violence...then you arm people...not disarm people..
this ain’t rocket science. Facts bear it out.

Maybe Europe or elsewhere is a utopia I am missing out on, where everyone flitters about on candy canes and fairy dust and no one means anyone harm, but here. Different story, and guess what. An armed society is a polite society works here...kinda like M.A.D. I guess...but it seems to work for everyone, but the poor shmoes stuck in D.C./NYC/and Chicago.

Do I wish we all could get along, and had no need for guns for self defense...hell yea..(although I would still have em cause I like shooting)but really. It is uniquely American I guess, or euros are so conditioned to be told what to do they just fall in line. No insult intended...trying to make a point. That America ain’t Europe. We all have guns, and we don't kill each other willy nilly...except where guns are banned...confusing yes, but reality.

That in and of itself should tell you something.

Omg...people can own guns and not be homicidal killers...but criminals will be criminals no matter what laws or bans are on the books!

I wont even get into the constitutional aspect/freedom/hunting/sporting aspects.

Secret aj man

10-07-2006, 03:36

Here, I think I got everything.

your point?

i stink at computers but if i can...i will try too copy and remark for each thought..will that help?

Free shepmagans

10-07-2006, 03:48

your point?

i stink at computers but if i can...i will try too copy and remark for each thought..will that help?
No, I mean I think I translated everything. I understood your post perfectly myself...

Secret aj man

10-07-2006, 03:59

Here, I think I got everything.

i think your being incredibly dishonest..if i am replying to the correct poster.

if i am...here goes the dumbed down version...

Originally Posted by translation
I wont get into the gun debate thing....as I am an avid gun collector/owner/strict constitutionalist/enjoys living and not depending on cops that may or may not appear, or are not corrupt.

"this means..i own guns and dont trust cops to save me!"

I will address your statement that we need to reduce violence....and mercy me. I concur 100%!
Now while this may be hard to understand from a non-American POV...do a quick google search or some basic research(the FBI uniform crime report works)about comparisons between. Let me see. The three most heavily regulated(private gun ownership) cities in the country.
NYC/Washington D.C./Chicago and some of your more, shall we say lax areas or cities.
bear in mind...L.A. is way bigger then D.C. or Philly is alot smaller then NYC.

"i agreed with your assesment that violence is outta hand,then pointed out you may have a differing point of view then me as i am an american,then i pointed out the disparity of the violence in american cities with gun bans and cities that have no bans(shall issue)and further went on to say that cities(nyc/chicago/dc) are bigger then cities(philly) that have less gun violence then bigger cities with bans on gun ownership laws"

It is incontrovertible that areas with almost complete bans on handguns(other then for leo's)the crime rate is rather rather high. Violent crime as well as robberies, is almost ridiculously high in comparison to cities like Philly or Miami, where the CCW laws are shall issue.

"kinda self explanatory..i hope"

Now a person with a grasp on reality, can only deduce. That the fact that armed citizens are mixed in with the population...there is an impact on criminals...period!

this is simply,that crimminals are leery of an armed populace,and was pointing to the above facts"

Where the criminal knows that everyone(honest) is helpless. Well read the stats yourself.

hopefully no need to explain a few words"

So, in the states at least, if you want to reduce violence...then you arm people...not disarm people..
this ain’t rocket science. Facts bear it out.

'this is me saying your wrong..facts don't bear your opinioun out"

Maybe Europe or elsewhere is a utopia I am missing out on, where everyone flitters about on candy canes and fairy dust and no one means anyone harm, but here. Different story, and guess what. An armed society is a polite society works here...kinda like M.A.D. I guess...but it seems to work for everyone, but the poor shmoes stuck in D.C./NYC/and Chicago.

"again,stating maybe you have a differing reality then me..not personall..but different"

Do I wish we all could get along, and had no need for guns for self defense...hell yea..(although I would still have em cause I like shooting)but really. It is uniquely American I guess, or euros are so conditioned to be told what to do they just fall in line. No insult intended...trying to make a point. That America ain’t Europe. We all have guns, and we don't kill each other willy nilly...except where guns are banned...confusing yes, but reality.

"this is me agreeing with you,that i wish the world was a lollipop...and you dont understand...but i agree i wish there was less violence"
"..somehow we dont murder eachother when we have guns..crimminals do"

That in and of itself should tell you something.

Omg...people can own guns and not be homicidal killers...but criminals will be criminals no matter what laws or bans are on the books!

I wont even get into the constitutional

"thats should be pretty plain...just cause i got a gun..i dont kill my fellow man..go figure"

do i need to get the crayons out?

since you enjoy insulting people when you have no ground to stand on..i will give you the oppurtunity to insult me again...so i bet i can color in the lines better then you..lol

then again..i have seen some cave sketches that were better then i can do...so i may lose..but my point stands..and your pathetic attempt at rididiculing me amounts to nothing,other then to show you resort to name calling when you lose a point..take your ball and go home..

and to think i agreed in a way with you...i must be getting soft.

i guess this was gibberish as well.

i will add,i re read my op,and i missed alot of key words,so discount what i said,it made little sense to me also...sorry.
i hoped you could read thru the horrid typing errors,sorry.

maybe this makes more sense to you..i hate typing..lol

Free shepmagans

10-07-2006, 04:02

i think your being incredibly dishonest..if i am replying to the correct poster.

No, you misunderstood me. I translated what I thought you were saying for the other guy. I understood you perfectly. I agree with you, I was cleaning up the text so he could read it. I'm sorry for the confusion.

Jon the Free

10-07-2006, 04:09

Ahem ... learn to use the quote tags when quoting other people.

THe UN has, in the past, attempted to pass a universal ban on handguns, thank god the US told them to shove the resolution up their ass. I don't trust the UN and I think we should throw their ass off our soil.

I will be obtaining my Conceiled Carry Permit next year and I hope I never have to use it. A handgun is like a condom: I'd rather have one and not need it, than need one and not have it.

Maybe in Europe if crimes are perpetrated the people will simply allow the police to deal with it. I refuse to take a pacifistic approach. If it's you and me and only one of us is going to walk away you had better pray you are faster and more accurate than I, because I will kill you if you threaten me, my property, or my family.

Jon the Free

10-07-2006, 04:09

Secret aj man

10-07-2006, 04:38

No, you misunderstood me. I translated what I thought you were saying for the other guy. I understood you perfectly. I agree with you, I was cleaning up the text so he could read it. I'm sorry for the confusion.

my bad and thank you.

i really suck at typing..as you can tell.

i also have had some head injuries that make me kinda random...but i still know the point i an trying to get across.

bear with me is all i can say to everyone..if not...oh well...your loss.

Secret aj man

10-07-2006, 04:38

Secret aj man

10-07-2006, 04:45

No, I mean I think I translated everything. I understood your post perfectly myself...

wow..i feel like a twit now..lol...i cannot translate my feelings adequately to paper or type written media.

thanks if you understand my point..when i re read it,it makes sense to me,but it may as well be gibberish to others,for that i apologize.

Secret aj man

10-07-2006, 04:47

*Sigh* No. I like human rights and freedom. I dislike internationalism. Anything which brings us even 1 iota closer to a world government is bad IMHO. Call me paranoid if you must, but the only thing the government should do is protect us from outside forces. I dislike MY government telling me what to do, I hate governments that don't even pretend I put them in office telling me what to do.

hmmmm..i agree 100%

Free shepmagans

10-07-2006, 05:16

wow..i feel like a twit now..lol...i cannot translate my feelings adequately to paper or type written media.
But your points where more developed the half the posters on this board. I think that makes up for it. ;)

The Forever Dusk

10-07-2006, 05:18

“What part of 'illegal weapons trade' impinges on your right to bear arms?”--- Anarchic Christians

“If you do give up guns, it will become far harder for the criminals to get hold of them to abuse them. The US should always support such measures.”--- Adriatica III

the fight against 'illegal weapons trade' doesn't impinge on MY right to bear arms.....it impinges on the rights of millions of other people all over the world to bear arms. I, personally, would find it morally objectionable to attempt to strip others of their human rights...ESPECIALLY while i'm exercising those rights myself.

and for you Adriatica...the united states should NEVER support a measure that would disarm the innocent and leave them at the mercy of others.

Free shepmagans

10-07-2006, 05:22

The fight against 'illegal weapons trade' doesn't impinge on MY right to bear arms.....it impinges on the rights of millions of other people all over the world to bear arms. I, personally, would find it morally objectionable to attempt to strip others of their human rights...ESPECIALLY while i'm exercising those rights myself.

and for you Adriatica...the united states should NEVER support a measure that would disarm the innocent and leave them at the mercy of others.
This deserves a :fluffle: .

The Forever Dusk

10-07-2006, 05:23

"Ahem ... learn to use the quote tags when quoting other people."---Jon the Free

or just do it like this....I happen to like the looks and flow of it better. Either way, it is nice to be able to easily see what poster you are quoting without having to read back.

thanks! :)

Dobbsworld

10-07-2006, 05:33

What the humpin' jumped-up monkey dung is goin' on here, anyway?

When you read... posts they don't make sense and I... find myself drifting in and out... on and on and I... words just seem strung together in random fits... and spurts...

Secret aj man

10-07-2006, 05:44

But your points where more developed the half the posters on this board. I think that makes up for it. ;)

thank you,i am usually embarressed to express my opinion,for fear of the grammer nazi's jumping me.
or i will admit to drunken posts...i dont get the time difference...but thanks anyhow.

on this topic i stand my ground,but i an usually open to reason on most other things.

this is a no brainer to me,as i pointed to government stats and such...different culture is all i can figure for disagreement...but i have been wrong before.

[NS]FullMetalJacket

10-07-2006, 06:37

thank you,i am usually embarressed to express my opinion,for fear of the grammer nazi's jumping me.
or i will admit to drunken posts...i dont get the time difference...but thanks anyhow.

on this topic i stand my ground,but i an usually open to reason on most other things.

this is a no brainer to me,as i pointed to government stats and such...different culture is all i can figure for disagreement...but i have been wrong before.

Yes grammer nazi's are horrible, but as a fellow shooting enthusiast, I salute you:D...We need like a firearms discussion thread on here...

Epsilon Squadron

10-07-2006, 07:24

It's not.

You're not.
Oh? You can somehow explain away the statements by Peters and Frey about abolishing civilian, or should I say "non-state actor", firearm ownership?

Tactical Grace

10-07-2006, 07:53

Oh? You can somehow explain away the statements by Peters and Frey about abolishing civilian, or should I say "non-state actor", firearm ownership?
"Non-state actor" is UN-speak for politically-involved private armies / militias / organisations, as in a warlord's army, a terrorist organisation, etc. The UN frequently refers to terrorist organisations as "non-state actors" - in fact more often than referring to them as terrorist organisations, as the latter is considered to be a more loaded term.

Al-Qaeda is the classic "non-state actor".

The term has nothing to do with civilians. It is in no way synonymous with civilians. If you knew anything about the UN, you would understand the basics of its terminology.

Neo Undelia

10-07-2006, 08:08

the fight against 'illegal weapons trade' doesn't impinge on MY right to bear arms.....it impinges on the rights of millions of other people all over the world to bear arms. I, personally, would find it morally objectionable to attempt to strip others of their human rights...ESPECIALLY while i'm exercising those rights myself.

and for you Adriatica...the united states should NEVER support a measure that would disarm the innocent and leave them at the mercy of others.
Exactly.

One could say that an African villager has even more need for a gun than an American, as his property is far more often under siege, and likely the only place he or she will be able to procure such a weapon is on the black market.
Of course those governments are all for measures to render their respective populations helpless.

Kecibukia

10-07-2006, 15:04

"Non-state actor" is UN-speak for politically-involved private armies / militias / organisations, as in a warlord's army, a terrorist organisation, etc. The UN frequently refers to terrorist organisations as "non-state actors" - in fact more often than referring to them as terrorist organisations, as the latter is considered to be a more loaded term.

Al-Qaeda is the classic "non-state actor".

The term has nothing to do with civilians. It is in no way synonymous with civilians. If you knew anything about the UN, you would understand the basics of its terminology.

And yet Peters openly advocates effective civilian disarmament and numerous representatives in thier opening speaches openly stated that ownership should be limited to Gov't only.

Like I said, the "UN" may not be pushing it but the primary sponsors of this conference are. You do know what the original plan said until Bolton got them to remove it, yes?

Kazus

10-07-2006, 15:28

Exactly. This is from the awesome website www.armedamerica.org

Ochressandro: I find mechanical things beautiful and I simply like shooting. But it's more complex than that -- I hunt to remind myself where dinner comes from and that place isn't "the grocery store". And other reasons apart from that -- as the Founding Fathers said, sometimes the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots. If that day comes, I will be ready, to defend my country against all threats, both domestic and foreign. And lastly, I have sworn eternal enmity to the forces of socialism and control. In short, I own firearms, and have drilled myself to proficiency with their use because I have read "Gulag Archipelago", and I will not let it happen here without a fight.

Advocates of gun control think that they will someday take my arms from me. But they are wrong. I'll own guns all my life.

Those threats will take advantage of said illegal weapons trade.

Non Aligned States

10-07-2006, 15:30

The UN and many of it's members consider ALL non-gov't ownership of arms "illegal".

Nothing more than NRA funded hysteria. The US government profits from the sale of illegal arms, having, and most likely continuing to sell illegal arms to various rebel/terror groups so as to continue their agenda of "projecting American influence". Remember the Contra scandal?

The reason why this hysteria of "they're going to take my guns away" is being set up is so that clueless noobs like you can get behind them in rejecting it and looking good to the voting public. And like the sheep you are, you blindly follow them because big brother tells you he's looking out for you.

Bollocks.

Kecibukia

10-07-2006, 15:36

Nothing more than NRA funded hysteria. The US government profits from the sale of illegal arms, having, and most likely continuing to sell illegal arms to various rebel/terror groups so as to continue their agenda of "projecting American influence". Remember the Contra scandal?

The reason why this hysteria of "they're going to take my guns away" is being set up is so that clueless noobs like you can get behind them in rejecting it and looking good to the voting public. And like the sheep you are, you blindly follow them because big brother tells you he's looking out for you.

Bollocks.

And the sheep like you want the Gov't to be in charge of all firearms and to rely on them for all things. All Gov't profit from illegal firearm sales. Can we say France, Russia and Germany in Rwanda? Howabout Germany and Russia in Iraq?

Do you deny that the sponsors of the conference have all called for civilian disarmament? Oh wait, now you can claim, "They're not trying to take all guns away". Just everything but single shot longguns w/ a range of less than 100 yds w/ Gov't permission after you have "proved" you "need" it. That's not real disarmament, right?

Do you deny that EVERY "gun control" scheme has led to further and further restrictions? Would you like me to list the numerous examples again that you apparently would like to pretend didn't happen?

Non Aligned States

10-07-2006, 16:40

And the sheep like you want the Gov't to be in charge of all firearms and to rely on them for all things. All Gov't profit from illegal firearm sales. Can we say France, Russia and Germany in Rwanda? Howabout Germany and Russia in Iraq?

Hmmm:

False accusation: Check

Fear mongering of the "they'll take away my guns": Check

Using other governments in an attempt to deflect attention away: Check

Conclusion: You can't really put together a good argument.

Postulation: You would have no problems with Al-Qaeda acquiring sophisticated weaponry. Because you don't want governments preventing the illegal sale of arms to unauthorized (unlicsenced) people.

Do you deny that the sponsors of the conference have all called for civilian disarmament? Oh wait, now you can claim, "They're not trying to take all guns away". Just everything but single shot longguns w/ a range of less than 100 yds w/ Gov't permission after you have "proved" you "need" it. That's not real disarmament, right?

What someone does or believes on the individual level should be kept seperate from their professions. If they cannot keep it seperate, then an argument of bias applies. If not, then accusations of bias are groundless then.

If you cannot argue against the resolution on the points that were raised by it, instead, choosing to attack the people who proposed it personally, then you are deliberately avoiding the issue.

Do you deny that EVERY "gun control" scheme has led to further and further restrictions? Would you like me to list the numerous examples again that you apparently would like to pretend didn't happen?

Name me an arms control scheme that was developed to prevent illegal arms trade on the international level that has both been passed and observed.

No?

Why is that?

For a simple reason. $$$. Lots of $$$.

And spreading the American way by giving guns to dictators of course. I wonder who gave Saddam his weapons? Hmmm, where did the Taliban get those Stinger missiles? I wonder who trained those that would become the leaders of Al-Qaeda?

That's why America will never ratify any such treaty. It endangers the PNAC agenda. And what they do to gain the support of the populace is lie to them, telling them that preventing the sale of illegal arms to criminals, terrorists and rebel groups will threaten their guns.

The likes of Deep Kimchi always crow about how no registered legally owned gun was ever used in a crime. So why should he, and the rest like him ever complain about the illegal trade being stopped? It shouldn't effect legal owners at all.

Perhaps it is because those firearms they covet and treasure so much are NOT legally acquired hmmm?

Or is it because you are simply dupes, willing to follow the government line, nevermind the reality of the situation?

The SR

10-07-2006, 16:46

Working towards elemination of my right's doesn't make ANYONE safer except the government AND criminals. One may be both, don't forget.

you are making even less sense than normal.

the UN tries to bang heads together to make it more difficult to smuggle guns to criminal, terrorist and rogue states. the US and a few others (Iran, Pakistan and Cuba for fucks sake) block this and you are happy?

The world is a less safe place as a result. Just out of interest, where do the AK's and RPG's taking US troops out by the thousand in Iraq and now Afghanistan again get sourced? Grow the fuck up, this is the real world.

Ultraextreme Sanity

10-07-2006, 16:48

FullMetalJacket']Yes grammer nazi's are horrible, but as a fellow shooting enthusiast, I salute you:D...We need like a firearms discussion thread on here...

There are usually a few a week , just to keep the anti gun nazis , tear ducts flowing .

Ravenshrike

10-07-2006, 16:51

What part of 'illegal weapons trade' impinges on your right to bear arms?
Given that the disagreements mainly concerned small arms and had nothing to to with machine guns, rpgs, etc... pretty much everything. Basically we refuse to facilitate to such an extent the oppression of other peoples as well.

The SR

10-07-2006, 16:55

Given that the disagreements mainly concerned small arms and had nothing to to with machine guns, rpgs, etc... pretty much everything. Basically we refuse to facilitate to such an extent the oppression of other peoples as well.

so the iraqi resistance are entitled to buy small arms? We are agreed so.

and assualt rifles are classed as small arms.

so why not just sell them the things AND REMOVE CRIMINALS FROM THE EQUATION?

Ultraextreme Sanity

10-07-2006, 16:55

Since from reading this thread its seems that most posting in it have no clue what the UN ..(.as feeble an organisation that they are IMO.)..is up to with " small arms "

June 22, 2006

Media Advisory: United Nations to Address Control of the Small Arms Trade

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: June 22, 2006

Contact: Whitney Parker, Phone: 202.797.5287

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The United Nations will be holding a two-week conference to address the proliferation and misuse of small arms beginning Monday, June 26. The upcoming UN meeting will review progress made on implementing the Program of Action (PoA), a voluntary agreement established by all UN member states in 2001, and potentially clarify and elaborate state’s existing commitments. This is the third meeting since the watershed 2001 UN Small Arms Conference, marking the first ever comprehensive global small arms initiative. UN member states also met in 2003 and 2005 to discuss the control.

One thousand people are killed every day around the world by small arms and light weapons. An estimated 640 million small arms are in circulation around the world – another 8 million additional weapons and 10 billion to 14 billion rounds of ammunition are manufactured each year: enough weapons to arm one in every 10 people in the world and enough ammunition to shoot every person in the world twice.

According to CDI Senior Analyst Rachel Stohl, “From Afghanistan and Iraq to Sudan , Sierra Leone and Colombia , these weapons fuel conflicts and instability. They also cause immeasurable human suffering. But, unlike every other class of weapon, there are no international legally-binding global controls on the small arms trade. The international community must act now to save lives.”

The United States , which has an outstanding record on PoA implementation, will likely spark controversy at the meeting, as they did at the first UN small arms conference in 2001. The United States is notorious for its hostility to the UN small arms process and unwillingness to compromise on key issues. This meeting will likely be no different, as the United States has already publicly stated its policy redlines, and most controversially, does not want mandatory review conferences on the issue – thus far, the United States is the only country to announce its opposition to standard follow-up meetings.

Stohl, a noted expert on the small arms trade with the World Security Institute’s Center for Defense Information, will be attending the meeting and will be available for interviews. Stohl has done research and analysis of the small arms issue for over 10 years. She is co-author of the forthcoming book The Beginners Guide to the Small Arms Trade (November 2006, Oneworld Publishing) and her work has appeared in numerous publications including the Los Angeles Times, the International Herald Tribune, the Christian Science Monitor, and the Small Arms Survey. She is quoted regularly in international newspapers and has been a frequent guest on radio programs, with numerous appearances on National Public Radio and documentaries, including “Making a Killing: Inside the International Arms Trade,” which appears on the feature film Lord of War DVD

Its mostly a bunch of anti gun nazi's jumping on the disarmament band wangon ...Why they dont bother with North Korea and Iran is beyond my understanding...after all nukes..dont have the cache they used to .

Sane Outcasts

10-07-2006, 16:56

Given that the disagreements mainly concerned small arms and had nothing to to with machine guns, rpgs, etc... pretty much everything. Basically we refuse to facilitate to such an extent the oppression of other peoples as well.

Eh, first, small arms encompasses weapons from pistols to squad automatic weapons and light machine guns. Second, oppressed peoples aren't the only ones who use the black market to purchase these arms. Terrorist organizations and insurgency groups, like the insurgents in Iraq, obtain the bulk of their arms through the same kind of illegal trade.

Ultraextreme Sanity

10-07-2006, 16:57

All studies indicate that, in both the military and criminal sphere,
the greatest percentage of violent deaths occur from the use
of light weapons and small arms.

-Oscar Arias Sánchez, A Scourge of Guns

http://www.fas.org/asmp/campaigns/smallarm.html

ban those bad wittle guns fwom earth and we can all live in fluffle heaven .

Ravenshrike

10-07-2006, 16:58

This small arms conference had nothing to do with doing away with American rights to bear arms.

It was to discuss "illegal arms trade" such as those between American arms producers and African rebels etc.
*cough* bullshit *cough*

http://www.un.org/events/smallarms2006/pdf/arms060627usa-eng.pdf

Our official response to the conference. Of course, instead of intitiating the POA decided upon in the first conference they packed up their toys and flounced off.

The SR

10-07-2006, 16:58

Eh, first, small arms encompasses weapons from pistols to squad automatic weapons and light machine guns. Second, oppressed peoples aren't the only ones who use the black market to purchase these arms. Terrorist organizations and insurgency groups, like the insurgents in Iraq, obtain the bulk of their arms through the same kind of illegal trade.

so the logical question is do the flag waving gun nuts wouild rather thousands of young americans die in iraq and elsewhere than confront criminal gangs.

its very difficult to understand the thought process of the neo-cons here. they would rather al-quaeda armed than the US vote to restrict the illegal gun trade

Kecibukia

10-07-2006, 17:03

Hmmm:

False accusation: Check

Fear mongering of the "they'll take away my guns": Check

Using other governments in an attempt to deflect attention away: Check

Conclusion: You can't really put together a good argument.

Postulation: You would have no problems with Al-Qaeda acquiring sophisticated weaponry. Because you don't want governments preventing the illegal sale of arms to unauthorized (unlicsenced) people.

Pot meet kettle. Conclusion: Neither can you.

Postulation: Personal attacks are all you have. Going to call me a Nazi next?

What someone does or believes on the individual level should be kept seperate from their professions. If they cannot keep it seperate, then an argument of bias applies. If not, then accusations of bias are groundless then.

And since the leaders of the organizations that sponsored the conference are the ones making the statements and it is the official policy of these organizations, the bias is there.

If you cannot argue against the resolution on the points that were raised by it, instead, choosing to attack the people who proposed it personally, then you are deliberately avoiding the issue.

And since you have not brought up any of the resolutions that were being debated and since it is the constant meme of "the UN isn't doing this" while at the same time the members and NGO's are pushing for it, you seem to be the one avoiding the issues.

Name me an arms control scheme that was developed to prevent illegal arms trade on the international level that has both been passed and observed.

No?

Why is that?

For a simple reason. $$$. Lots of $$$.

And since that is avoiding the question I asked, it goes back to you. Why are you avoiding the question? Don't like the answer?

And spreading the American way by giving guns to dictators of course. I wonder who gave Saddam his weapons? Hmmm, where did the Taliban get those Stinger missiles? I wonder who trained those that would become the leaders of Al-Qaeda?

That's why America will never ratify any such treaty. It endangers the PNAC agenda. And what they do to gain the support of the populace is lie to them, telling them that preventing the sale of illegal arms to criminals, terrorists and rebel groups will threaten their guns.

Now you're the one trying to redirect the arguement. Want me to name more countries that have passed on weapons? Did I try and say the US didn't do that? Are you denying that the majority of countries do the same thing?

The likes of Deep Kimchi always crow about how no registered legally owned gun was ever used in a crime. So why should he, and the rest like him ever complain about the illegal trade being stopped? It shouldn't effect legal owners at all.

Perhaps it is because those firearms they covet and treasure so much are NOT legally acquired hmmm?

Or is it because you are simply dupes, willing to follow the government line, nevermind the reality of the situation?

And since the original POA included severely restricting civilian ownership until the US had them take it out, the majority of opening statements included proposels for expanding the conference to restrict civilian ownership and the very proponents of the conference push for the same thing, it seems the dupe is you.

Ravenshrike

10-07-2006, 17:05

so the iraqi resistance are entitled to buy small arms? We are agreed so.

and assualt rifles are classed as small arms.

so why not just sell them the things AND REMOVE CRIMINALS FROM THE EQUATION?
Not for the purposes of the disagreements in question. I'm technically using a subset of small arms when I use the term. Not to mention that the conference was not about targeting the criminals, at least not the parts that the US was opposed to. It was targeting the weapons. Biiiiig difference.

Kecibukia

10-07-2006, 17:07

The SR

10-07-2006, 17:13

And more of the personal attacks. Is this the hoplophobe version of a Godwin now?

You know what kills the majority of soldiers in in Iraq? It's not "small arms", it's improvised explosives.

Even by the organizers of the conference, the majority of "small arms" owned by civilian are in the US. Most of the speakers promoted civilian disarmament. If they were serious about "just illegal gun running" they wouldn't mention that at all.

Not for the purposes of the disagreements in question. I'm technically using a subset of small arms when I use the term. Not to mention that the conference was not about targeting the criminals, at least not the parts that the US was opposed to. It was targeting the weapons. Biiiiig difference.

the conference was called and about restricting gun smuggling and the illegal sales of weapons. in response to the NRA's disengenous campaign Kofi Annan restated that legally held property was never in doubt. NGO's can say what they like, they had no votes or input. your government chose not to try and stop criminals and terrorists having easier access to guns. its that simple.

the reality is a coalition of the US, Iran, Cuba and Pakistan were the only nations on the planet who decided to block a motion to intensify efforts to restrict the trade. The US even vetoed a motion to revisit it in 5 years.

You must be so proud.

Kecibukia

10-07-2006, 17:16

the conference was called and about restricting gun smuggling and the illegal sales of weapons. in response to the NRA's disengenous campaign Kofi Annan restated that legally held property was never in doubt. NGO's can say what they like, they had no votes or input. your government chose not to try and stop criminals and terrorists having easier access to guns. its that simple.

the reality is a coalition of the US, Iran, Cuba and Pakistan were the only nations on the planet who decided to block a motion to intensify efforts to restrict the trade. The US even vetoed a motion to revisit it in 5 years.

You must be so proud.

I'm proud to know that you apparently didn't follow the conference. So you're denying that the majority of public speaches by government reps included calls for increased restrictions on civilians? Did you read what the US was opposed to? Do you deny that the NGO's are used as "experts" when drafting resolutions? Have you ever seen the statue in front of the UN building?

I like how you convienently add countries like Cuba and Pakistan when attacking the US but fail to mention the countries involved in the UN Human Rights Commission.

Epsilon Squadron

10-07-2006, 17:18

the conference was called and about restricting gun smuggling and the illegal sales of weapons. in response to the NRA's disengenous campaign Kofi Annan restated that legally held property was never in doubt. NGO's can say what they like, they had no votes or input. your government chose not to try and stop criminals and terrorists having easier access to guns. its that simple.

the reality is a coalition of the US, Iran, Cuba and Pakistan were the only nations on the planet who decided to block a motion to intensify efforts to restrict the trade. The US even vetoed a motion to revisit it in 5 years.

You must be so proud.
Your bigotry is showing.

The U.N. has been trying to restrict civillian gun ownership for years.

You say that the US is for giving terrorists guns but rather, you are for the disarmament of civillians... so that they have no defense agaisnt terrorists or governments.

You are the type that are directly responsible for the massacres in Darfur and Uganda. Thanks but no thanks.

Ravenshrike

10-07-2006, 17:19

4. Undermining the Kyoto Agreement by withdrawing from it, which significantly hurts the effort to try to lessen the effects of global warming and other environmental problems.
Ahh yes, the Kyoto accords. Of course, any self-respecting scientist, even those convinced of major man-made global warming acknowledges that Kyoto does nothing except allow a bunch of idiots to clap themselves on the bakc at how enlightened they're being, and that assumes eveyone stays in full compliance, which they aren't

Non Aligned States

10-07-2006, 17:21

Postulation: Personal attacks are all you have. Going to call me a Nazi next?

Correction: The Nazi's were against private ownership of weaponry.

Refutation: You did not say why illegal arms trade should not be stopped.

And since the leaders of the organizations that sponsored the conference are the ones making the statements and it is the official policy of these organizations, the bias is there.

Incorrect. Seperation of personal life and professional life is a valid argument so long as it is true. Otherwise, should we say that Bush jr supports the drug trade because he snorted coke when he was younger?

And since you have not brought up any of the resolutions that were being debated and since it is the constant meme of "the UN isn't doing this" while at the same time the members and NGO's are pushing for it, you seem to be the one avoiding the issues.

Which resolution? The one that the people chairing specifically said did not do anything about legally owned weapons?

And since that is avoiding the question I asked, it goes back to you. Why are you avoiding the question? Don't like the answer?

The answer is simple. There isn't one. Why? Because prior to this, there was no working example to base it off. Asking for one is like asking for a working example of powered aircraft prior to the Wright Brothers.

Now you're the one trying to redirect the arguement. Want me to name more countries that have passed on weapons? Did I try and say the US didn't do that? Are you denying that the majority of countries do the same thing?

I deny no such thing. I do however, state that the reason why the US government attempts to prevent such a resolution is two fold. One, the money, two, it would hamper their attempts to arm and fund paramilitary terror organizations to spread their influence.

I do not deny that such cases occur in other countries as well. However, US involvement in similar trades should not make it any less culpable merely because someone else is doing it.

And since the original POA included severely restricting civilian ownership until the US had them take it out, the majority of opening statements included proposels for expanding the conference to restrict civilian ownership and the very proponents of the conference push for the same thing, it seems the dupe is you.

So are you saying that when they announced that it had nothing to do with legally owned weapons, they were lying?

The SR

10-07-2006, 17:27

Your bigotry is showing.

The U.N. has been trying to restrict civillian gun ownership for years.

You say that the US is for giving terrorists guns but rather, you are for the disarmament of civillians... so that they have no defense agaisnt terrorists or governments.

You are the type that are directly responsible for the massacres in Darfur and Uganda. Thanks but no thanks.

thats why annan said legally held guns anywhere were not under threat? he was lying of course, dirty foreigner.

how am I, who wants to restrict the illegal trade in guns responsible for Darfur, and I presume you mean Rwanda? Pull the other one, the NRA are up to their necks with those who sell guns illegally and lobbied hard to protect their interests.

Ravenshrike

10-07-2006, 17:28

But that's not their aim... their aim is the elimination of all private firearm ownership.
So no, we're not supporting criminals rights. We're supporting every humans basic human right to self defense.

Go after the criminals when they break the laws that already exist. Making more laws, making firearm ownership more restrictive will have a disporpotional affect on law abiding citizens vs the criminals.
Now now, that's not true, according to Rebecca Peters, titular head of IANAL

"I think American citizens should not be exempt from the rules that apply to the rest of the world. At the moment there are no rules applying to the rest of the world. That’s what we’re working for. American citizens should have guns that are suitable for the legitimate purposes that they can prove. I think that eventually Americans will realize that their obsession with arming themselves in fear, in a paranoid belief that they’re going to be able to stave off the ills of the world through owning guns, through turning every house into an arsenal, eventually Americans will go away from that. I think Americans who hunt—and who prove that they can hunt—should have single-shot rifles suitable for hunting whatever they’re hunting. I mean American citizens should be like any other citizens of the world."

as well as

"People who have guns for self-defense are not safer than people who don’t… having a gun in that situation escalates the problem."

Which is complete bullshit. Generally it shuts the situation down. The vast majority of criminals, when faced with the possibility of their immediate death, will turn tail and run, even if they have a weapon.

Ultraextreme Sanity

10-07-2006, 17:30

so the logical question is do the flag waving gun nuts wouild rather thousands of young americans die in iraq and elsewhere than confront criminal gangs.

its very difficult to understand the thought process of the neo-cons here. they would rather al-quaeda armed than the US vote to restrict the illegal gun trade

so I guess because I think your little satement of non factual flatuence..is simplistic and paints you as a fluffle /leftwing / radical , looking for the utopia that doesnt exist...that makes me a " flag waving gun nut who likes dead ameicans and a non confrontational policy concerning criminal gangs and a neo con " .....and YOU actually have a simplistic brain cell that thinks anything the UN can come up with will un arm AL QUEADA...:eek:

Call me when the UN un Arms North Korea and stops iran from getting Nukes..
maybe if they concentrate on the BIG things instaed of the little pin pricks of non sense and flower children ..the world will be much safer .

The UN ...couldnt disarm Saddam in ten years.....they couldnt find their own ass with both hands...yet YOU think they can controll " illegal" arms sales...even if they themselves cant EVEN DEFINE an illegal arm ..:D :D :D :D
And you wonder WHY sovergn countries WONT pput their affairs in the care of the UN ...:D :D :D Iys because they have not lost their sanity yet .

Ravenshrike

10-07-2006, 17:30

This is my view. We need to reduce violence, not increase it. :(
Governments are far and away the worst mass murderers in the history of mankind.

Kecibukia

10-07-2006, 17:31

Refutation: You did not say why illegal arms trade should not be stopped.

I agree w/ illegal arms trades being stopped. I never said I supported illegal arms trade. I oppose using it as an excuse to restrict civilian ownership which has nothing to do w/ the illegal arms trade.

Incorrect. Seperation of personal life and professional life is a valid argument so long as it is true. Otherwise, should we say that Bush jr supports the drug trade because he snorted coke when he was younger?

The official policy of the NGO's promoting the conference is civilian disarmament. Do you deny this?

Your false analogy doesn't hold up. Does BJ publicy support cocaine use?

Which resolution? The one that the people chairing specifically said did not do anything about legally owned weapons?

You mean the one that was initially included in the POA and is still being pushed by the organizers and member countries?

The answer is simple. There isn't one. Why? Because prior to this, there was no working example to base it off. Asking for one is like asking for a working example of powered aircraft prior to the Wright Brothers.

I deny no such thing. I do however, state that the reason why the US government attempts to prevent such a resolution is two fold. One, the money, two, it would hamper their attempts to arm and fund paramilitary terror organizations to spread their influence.

I do not deny that such cases occur in other countries as well. However, US involvement in similar trades should not make it any less culpable merely because someone else is doing it.

And I'm not saying it should. Just like everyone else, your definition of "terror organizations" is subjective. The US called for a non-blanket policy. At least the US is being honest about it unlike all the other countries that are still funding organizations but attended.

So are you saying that when they announced that it had nothing to do with legally owned weapons, they were lying?

When most of the speeches call for expansion of the POA, the precedent is set.

Epsilon Squadron

10-07-2006, 17:31

thats why annan said legally held guns anywhere were not under threat? he was lying of course, dirty foreigner.

how am I, who wants to restrict the illegal trade in guns responsible for Darfur, and I presume you mean Rwanda? Pull the other one, the NRA are up to their necks with those who sell guns illegally and lobbied hard to protect their interests.
Keep making crap up.... it suits you.

Yes, Kofi was lying. It doesn't matter to me that he's a foreigner... why does it to you? Are you a racist?

You are supporting the U.N.'s attempt to restrict civilian gun ownership. Therefor you are supporting those governments that take advantage of their unarmed citizens to commit atrocities against them like what's happening in Darfur and elsewhere.

Kecibukia

10-07-2006, 17:34

thats why annan said legally held guns anywhere were not under threat? he was lying of course, dirty foreigner.

That's why the majority of member speeches including expanding the POA to include civilian ownership.

how am I, who wants to restrict the illegal trade in guns responsible for Darfur, and I presume you mean Rwanda? Pull the other one, the NRA are up to their necks with those who sell guns illegally and lobbied hard to protect their interests.

Do you know who supplied the weapons in Rwanda and Darfur?Do you know who claimed it was perfectly legal? Do you know who stood by and did nothing while these genocides occured?

Show the proof. You keep making this accusation but have yet to show any evidence.

Ultraextreme Sanity

10-07-2006, 17:38

Michael douglas...hehehehe they use him as a poster boy...

Developing common guidelines for national controls on transfers of small arms and light weapons: progress since 2003 (Submitted by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland: A/CONF.192/2006/RC/WP.1

http://www.un.org/events/smallarms2006/documents.html

go educate yourself .

also ask yourself why the US ..after going along with the 2001 origional aggreement thought the 2006 version wasnt worth wiping your ass with .

http://www.fas.org/asmp/campaigns/smallarms/StateOAS14apr05.htm

Administration Thumbs Nose at UN, Sends NRA to Obstruct Cooperation on Stopping Illegal Weapons Trade
A conference to review UN efforts to stop the illegal weapons trade began on Monday, attended by thousands of hopeful government and NGO representatives. Unfortunately the meeting is clouded by the National Rifle Association's (NRA) coup of stacking the U.S. government delegation to the conference with NRA board members and supporters. Despite more than 60% of Americans (in 10 key states) favoring a complete U.S. ban on military style assault weapons, the NRA intends to obstruct international efforts to stop these weapons from being sold to human rights abusers. For more on NRA representation on the U.S. delegation, see the Center for Defense Information's Media Advisory.

There are nearly 639 million illegally traded small arms in the world, killing an estimated 500,000 people a year. UN efforts in this area mean life and death for many countries plagued by small arms that are struggling to develop, allow refugees to return, and bring normalcy to their lives. The U.S. must participate in the UN conference in good faith and not allow the NRA's agenda and misinformed conspiracy theories to stop the UN from saving thousands of lives.

For more on the small arms issue and the UN conference, see "What is the UN Programme of Action?" below. Check back on this page for updates from FCNL at the UN conference

NOW... sane people....ask why anyone should have a say on what types of weapons people in the 10 states as quoted above should have ...aside from those that LIVE AND VOTE IN THOSE STATES .( also note that the US has 50 states..and even if the 60 percent bullshit number was true...they most likey used an AVERAGE of the ten states..places like NY, VT, CT and NJ being in the 80 percent range ...and already having assault weapon bans of some type on the books ..so I guess the OTHER 40 states should just go fuck themselves ).

Despite more than 60% of Americans (in 10 key states) favoring a complete U.S. ban on military style assault weapons, etc.

I call extreme bullshit on the above statement.

Now ...ask again ...why we think its BULLSHIT that the UN is not trying to impliment any form of gun controll in the US ? So how does it correlate to human rights abusers ???? but its the NRA that comes up with conspiracy theory's ????

http://www.fcnl.org/issues/item.php?item_id=1836&issue_id=47

summary of the 2005 version

http://www.iansa.org/documents/2005/red-book/int-responses-poa.pdf#page=4

Non Aligned States

10-07-2006, 17:59

I agree w/ illegal arms trades being stopped. I never said I supported illegal arms trade. I oppose using it as an excuse to restrict civilian ownership which has nothing to do w/ the illegal arms trade.

You didn't clarify this earlier. Instead, you immediately latched onto my post without mention of this particular aspect. Please do so next time. It will save us both a headache.

The official policy of the NGO's promoting the conference is civilian disarmament. Do you deny this?

Your false analogy doesn't hold up. Does BJ publicy support cocaine use?

This does not answer the question. Is there evidence that during the conference, the ones involved in it displayed bias? You cannot use actions outside of the conference as a reference, only those within.

You mean the one that was initially included in the POA and is still being pushed by the organizers and member countries?

Clarify.

And I'm not saying it should. Just like everyone else, your definition of "terror organizations" is subjective. The US called for a non-blanket policy. At least the US is being honest about it unlike all the other countries that are still funding organizations but attended.

Terror organizations, freedom fighters, guerillas, insurgents, the list goes on, but the recipients, and their actions, are almost always the same, if not in idealogy, then in conflict.

Actually, I would not be surprised to find out that the US government still is funding various terror organizations of one sort or another. And when I say terror organizations, I do mean the likes of Al-Qaeda or some such variant. There is after all, more to terrorism then Al-Qaeda and terrorists with Islamic backgrounds. They just happen to be the flavor of the week.

However, the ban was for non-state actors. To my understanding, that includes any organization and/or dealer not recognized and authorized by the government to deal in the traffic of arms. From a legal standpoint, this should do nothing about your average citizen and their own ability to purchase legally available weaponry.

But, consider this. A blanket ban such as this would force the government to either acknowledge and authorize illicit groups that it sells arms to, untenable politically, or cease such trades, also untenable but from an intelligence viewpoint. The resultant scandal from the discovery of US arms in the possession of an illicit group in say, a foreign country, had this movement passed would have been very, very hard to shrug off.

Now, given your stance, I presume you mean that a blanket ban is not permissible. However, this ban is designated for non-state actors and does not deny individual ownership. In your eyes, what kind of non-state actor should be exempt from this ruling then? Keep in mind that government recognized and authorized arms dealers can be considered to be state actors.

When most of the speeches call for expansion of the POA, the precedent is set.

Calls for expansion however, differ very much from what is on the paper that is to be signed. At the time those statements were made, were they lies? In this, there are only two possible answers. Yes, or no.

Either way, it is late, and I am expected early tommorrow. I bid you good night.

Ultraextreme Sanity

10-07-2006, 18:10

You didn't clarify this earlier. Instead, you immediately latched onto my post without mention of this particular aspect. Please do so next time. It will save us both a headache.

This does not answer the question. Is there evidence that during the conference, the ones involved in it displayed bias? You cannot use actions outside of the conference as a reference, only those within.

Clarify.

Terror organizations, freedom fighters, guerillas, insurgents, the list goes on, but the recipients, and their actions, are almost always the same, if not in idealogy, then in conflict.

Actually, I would not be surprised to find out that the US government still is funding various terror organizations of one sort or another. And when I say terror organizations, I do mean the likes of Al-Qaeda or some such variant. There is after all, more to terrorism then Al-Qaeda and terrorists with Islamic backgrounds. They just happen to be the flavor of the week.

However, the ban was for non-state actors. To my understanding, that includes any organization and/or dealer not recognized and authorized by the government to deal in the traffic of arms. From a legal standpoint, this should do nothing about your average citizen and their own ability to purchase legally available weaponry.

But, consider this. A blanket ban such as this would force the government to either acknowledge and authorize illicit groups that it sells arms to, untenable politically, or cease such trades, also untenable but from an intelligence viewpoint. The resultant scandal from the discovery of US arms in the possession of an illicit group in say, a foreign country, had this movement passed would have been very, very hard to shrug off.

Now, given your stance, I presume you mean that a blanket ban is not permissible. However, this ban is designated for non-state actors and does not deny individual ownership. In your eyes, what kind of non-state actor should be exempt from this ruling then? Keep in mind that government recognized and authorized arms dealers can be considered to be state actors.

Calls for expansion however, differ very much from what is on the paper that is to be signed. At the time those statements were made, were they lies? In this, there are only two possible answers. Yes, or no.

Either way, it is late, and I am expected early tommorrow. I bid you good night.

I'll tell you right now the US is supporting anti mullah factions in Iran..those that are hoping for democracy..are they arming them ? I guess not at the same levels the Iranians are arming the shiite militia in Iraq...the ones going around as death squads etc. but I wouldnt be suprised if the US did or would arm them as well as the Kurds and any other PRO democracy pro US group in an area that is considered vital to NS or US interests .

HELPING a home grown pro democracy group overthrow a despot is supposed to be a good thing is it not ? Or would you have the US just go around bombing dictators all over the world one at atime or in bunches ?
You cant even deal with removing Saddam Hussein .

BTW....show me where in the UN pov that it would prevent civilian gun ownership of any type...I read the thing...and the origional...up to 2005..I cant find the text for the 2006 version and reccomendations.

The way I gather from the opposing POV is that by the US accepting the treaty...something only Congress can do ...it can then be used as a tool by Congress to enforce laws on arms ownership in the US by using treaty obligations as the excuse...

BUT TREATY OBLIGATIONS CAN NEVER TRUMP THE BILL OF RIGHTS .

The second ammendment . It would have to be ignored .

restrictions on arms have been tolerated ..BUT..these are restrictions that the people of the US have voted for ( by electing those individuals that pass the laws ) .

Why would someone in the US want the UN dictating domestic policy to them ? If anyone can see any other argument ...domestic concerns..against the treaty ..please point them out..again I cant find in the treaty where it says civilian gun ownership is illegal . And position papers and policy argument do not count ..they are just bullshit arguments waiting to be voted against or for..not POLICY .

Psychotic Mongooses

10-07-2006, 18:12

HELPING a home grown pro democracy group overthrow a despot is supposed to be a good thing is it not?

Given the United States' record of that, that is a laughable statement.

Ultraextreme Sanity

10-07-2006, 18:24

Given the United States' record of that, that is a laughable statement.

Righto bud ...who has a better record ?

Psychotic Mongooses

10-07-2006, 18:25

Righto bud ...who has a better record ?

Ah, the old "We're not as bad as X/Y/Z" argument.

Kazus

10-07-2006, 18:26

Its very difficult to understand the thought process of the neo-cons here. they would rather al-quaeda armed than the US vote to restrict the illegal gun trade

Of course. Dont you see? The right to bear arms is so important that everyone needs to have that right. Otherwise, we wouldnt have any enemies to shoot!

Ultraextreme Sanity

10-07-2006, 18:29

Ah, the old "We're not as bad as X/Y/Z" argument.

no ...its the old we are better than x/y/z or anyone else at it DESPITE our shortcommings and mistakes .

At any rate it has nothing to do with this topic .

Kecibukia

10-07-2006, 18:41

You didn't clarify this earlier. Instead, you immediately latched onto my post without mention of this particular aspect. Please do so next time. It will save us both a headache.

This does not answer the question. Is there evidence that during the conference, the ones involved in it displayed bias? You cannot use actions outside of the conference as a reference, only those within.

The conference chairman:
“States that have not already done so” should “adopt adequate laws, regulations and administrative procedures to regulate the possession of small arms and light weapons.”

IANSA:
“(M)any States already prohibit the civilian possession of light weapons, and this should be recognised in the paragraph devoted to light weapons control.”

‘Model Parliamentary Resolution on Small Arms and Light Weapons:
“strongly recommend that governments prohibit the civilian possession and use of all light weapons and automatic and semi-automatic rifles and machine guns.”

Indonesia:
“We believe that no armed group outside of the State should be allowed to bear weapons. We also believe that regulating civilian possession of Small Arms/Light Weapons will enhance our efforts to prevent its misuse. In our view, the issue of ammunition should also be addressed in the context of the Program of Action because in the absence of ammunition, small arms and light weapons pose no danger.”

Brazil:
“this Review Conference should not limit ourselves to renewing our commitment to the full implementation of the Program of Action. It should rather be taken as an opportunity to address the Program’s shortcomings, by means of the adoption of substantive aimed at strengthening and complementing its mechanisms.”

Clarify.

Section II, paragraph 20 of the draft:

(a) States will establish appropriate national legislation, administrative regulations and licensing requirements that define conditions under which small arms and light weapons can be acquired, used and traded by private persons.

Terror organizations, freedom fighters, guerillas, insurgents, the list goes on, but the recipients, and their actions, are almost always the same, if not in idealogy, then in conflict.

Actually, I would not be surprised to find out that the US government still is funding various terror organizations of one sort or another. And when I say terror organizations, I do mean the likes of Al-Qaeda or some such variant. There is after all, more to terrorism then Al-Qaeda and terrorists with Islamic backgrounds. They just happen to be the flavor of the week.

However, the ban was for non-state actors. To my understanding, that includes any organization and/or dealer not recognized and authorized by the government to deal in the traffic of arms. From a legal standpoint, this should do nothing about your average citizen and their own ability to purchase legally available weaponry.

But, consider this. A blanket ban such as this would force the government to either acknowledge and authorize illicit groups that it sells arms to, untenable politically, or cease such trades, also untenable but from an intelligence viewpoint. The resultant scandal from the discovery of US arms in the possession of an illicit group in say, a foreign country, had this movement passed would have been very, very hard to shrug off.

Now, given your stance, I presume you mean that a blanket ban is not permissible. However, this ban is designated for non-state actors and does not deny individual ownership. In your eyes, what kind of non-state actor should be exempt from this ruling then? Keep in mind that government recognized and authorized arms dealers can be considered to be state actors.

IMO, those that promote democratic governments. That doesn't matter though. The US has called for a non-blanket issue. It at least is being honest.

Calls for expansion however, differ very much from what is on the paper that is to be signed. At the time those statements were made, were they lies? In this, there are only two possible answers. Yes, or no.

Either way, it is late, and I am expected early tommorrow. I bid you good night.

And what you're asking for is a false dichotomy. Half-truths, misleading statements, etc are not necessarily "lies" but don't contain the whole truth.

Epsilon Squadron

10-07-2006, 18:43

Of course. Dont you see? The right to bear arms is so important that everyone needs to have that right. Otherwise, we wouldnt have any enemies to shoot!
Please explain why you feel that people should be stripped of one of their basic human rights? The right to self defense?

Tactical Grace

10-07-2006, 19:54

Please explain why you feel that people should be stripped of one of their basic human rights? The right to self defense?
People should have the right to self-defence.

Provided ownership of the weapons in question is legal according to their country's domestic laws, and said weapons have been purchased from a licensed / legal vendor with full traceability of the firearm through each prior stage of sale all the way back to an original manufacturer's factory.

You don't have the right to purchase weapons from terrorists and drug dealers for 'self-defence'. You want self-defence? Go to an official vendor.

Kazus

10-07-2006, 19:57

Please explain why you feel that people should be stripped of one of their basic human rights? The right to self defense?

You dont need to defend yourself when theres nothing to attack you with.

Deep Kimchi

10-07-2006, 20:00

You dont need to defend yourself when theres nothing to attack you with.
94 percent of violent crimes in the US are committed without any weapon at all.

If I am being beaten to death by someone larger than I am, a pistol is quite useful.

I have used one three times to stop from being robbed. All without shooting anyone.

Kecibukia

10-07-2006, 20:02

You dont need to defend yourself when theres nothing to attack you with.

So you're saying that criminals are going to have thier access to knives, bats, sticks, rocks, and thier own bodies permanently removed and enforced?

Kecibukia

10-07-2006, 20:04

People should have the right to self-defence.

Provided ownership of the weapons in question is legal according to their country's domestic laws, and said weapons have been purchased from a licensed / legal vendor with full traceability of the firearm through each prior stage of sale all the way back to an original manufacturer's factory.

You don't have the right to purchase weapons from terrorists and drug dealers for 'self-defence'. You want self-defence? Go to an official vendor.

Howabout when the domestic laws prevent people from realistically obtaining said weapons and prevent them from being utilized in self-defense. Should those laws be opposed?

Teh_pantless_hero

10-07-2006, 20:04

94 percent of violent crimes in the US are committed without any weapon at all.

If I am being beaten to death by someone larger than I am, a pistol is quite useful.

I have used one three times to stop from being robbed. All without shooting anyone.
I guess that makes you feel superior then?

Kazus

10-07-2006, 20:05

If I am being beaten to death by someone larger than I am, a pistol is quite useful.

That large man would think said pistol is useful too.

Deep Kimchi

10-07-2006, 20:07

I guess that makes you feel superior then?
Extremely. Because I am alive and unharmed.

I've taught this to several hundred women now, who no longer are stalked, beaten, raped, and abused by their ex-husband or ex-boyfriend.

Women who rely on the police to enforce a protective order statistically double their chance of death.

So far, with my group, none of the women have been even slightly bothered in several years. Not one incident - not even phone threats.

Sure it's superior. Because it works.

Kecibukia

10-07-2006, 20:08

That large man would think said pistol is useful too.

Especially when it's being pointed at him, preventing the crime he was trying to commit.

Unless you're trying to say that making more laws to disarm people who actually follow them will be followed those who are breaking the law in the first place.

Teh_pantless_hero

10-07-2006, 20:11

Extremely. Because I am alive and unharmed.
I guess that does (but shouldn't) explain the egotism.

I've taught this to several hundred women now, who no longer are stalked, beaten, raped, and abused by their ex-husband or ex-boyfriend.
Good for them. Self-defense and a self-help grup wouldn't have hurt I bet.

Women who rely on the police to enforce a protective order statistically double their chance of death.
Well that is a problem with police recruitment, why don't you become a policeman?

Sure it's superior. Because it works.
And look, you completely changed the nature of my question.

Especially when it's being pointed at him, preventing the crime he was trying to commit.
Are you then assuming criminals can't get guns, only "good" people?

Kecibukia

10-07-2006, 20:18

Good for them. Self-defense and a self-help grup wouldn't have hurt I bet.

Which is what teaching them to use a firearm is.

Well that is a problem with police recruitment, why don't you become a policeman?

No, that's a problem w/ the laws that state the police do not have to enforce OOP, training, and morale.

And look, you completely changed the nature of my question.

Are you then assuming criminals can't get guns, only "good" people?

And just like you accuse DK of, you change the nature of my statement. Did I say criminals "can't" get firearms? Show me where I did. Did you ignore the second part of the post? Did I respond to a poster saying that "good" people wouldn't need firearms if criminals didn't have them?

Teh_pantless_hero

10-07-2006, 20:21

Which is what teaching them to use a firearm is.
No, that is teaching them how to use a firearm.

No, that's a problem w/ the laws that state the police do not have to enforce OOP, training, and morale.

The police can't enforce the laws with lacking numbers, training, and equipment.

And just like you accuse DK of, you change the nature of my statement. Did I say criminals "can't" get firearms?
Your statement suggested that the criminal had no pistol when you said "especially when it is pointed at him." Your second sentence has jackshit to do with the first one.

Kecibukia

10-07-2006, 20:26

No, that is teaching them how to use a firearm.

So you're saying that the ability to use a firearm to defend oneself is not self-defense?

The police can't enforce the laws with lacking numbers, training, and equipment.

The police in many cases won't nor do they have to enforce OOP's.

http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-278.ZS.html

Try again.

Your statement suggested that the criminal had no pistol when you said "especially when it is pointed at him." Your second sentence has jackshit to do with the first one.

In your opinion only. We all know what opinions are worth. Are you saying that a person cannot defend themselves against an armed criminal?

Teh_pantless_hero

10-07-2006, 20:34

The police in many cases won't nor do they have to enforce OOP's.

http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-278.ZS.html

Try again.
Maybe you should read what it actually said.

In your opinion only. We all know what opinions are worth.
So I prove you wrong and the best retort you have is to pull the equivalent of "your mom."

Are you saying that a person cannot defend themselves against an armed criminal?
Woo woo! Here comes the Strawman Express!
I made no statement about who should or shouldn't have a gun. I stated correctly, apparently, that you were implying that the criminal wouldn't have a gun.

Kecibukia

10-07-2006, 20:40

Maybe you should read what it actually said.

What you said didn't even reply to half of my statement. Keep trying

So I prove you wrong and the best retort you have is to pull the equivalent of "your mom."

Um, no, you "proved" nothing. You read what you wanted into a statement that said no such thing and dismissed the rest based on your own prejudices.

Since you ignored the first question (shock), are you stating that learning to defend yourself w/ a firearm is not self-defense?

Can criminals still attack people w/o a firearm?

Can a person defend themselves w/ a firearm against an armed attacker?

Are you saying that "properly equipped etc" police will always and are legally obligated to enforce an OOP?

Barbaric Tribes

10-07-2006, 20:43

your mom!

Teh_pantless_hero

10-07-2006, 20:44

What you said didn't even reply to half of my statement. Keep trying

Incoming facts, hard right, hard right!

Um, no, you "proved" nothing. You read what you wanted into a statement that said no such thing and dismissed the rest based on your own prejudices.
You implied the criminal wouldn't have a gun but the "victim" would.

Since you ignored the first question (shock), are you stating that learning to defend yourself w/ a firearm is not self-defense?
I was using my own definition of self-defense as unarmed, which does not include guns.

Can criminals still attack people w/o a firearm?

Can a person defend themselves w/ a firearm against an armed attacker?

Are you saying that "properly equipped etc" police will always and are legally obligated to enforce an OOP?
The Strawman Express is now boarding.

Kecibukia

10-07-2006, 20:47

Incoming facts, hard right, hard right!

Which you seem to have none of.

"Even if the statute could be said to make enforcement “mandatory,” that would not necessarily mean that respondent has an entitlement to enforcement. Her alleged interest stems not from common law or contract, but only from a State’s statutory scheme."

You implied the criminal wouldn't have a gun but the "victim" would.

I "implied" nothing. You read into it what you wanted.

I was using my own definition of self-defense as unarmed, which does not include guns.

Ah, "your own definition". Gotcha. Redefining terms is a good way to go about things.

The Strawman Express is now boarding.

W/ your engineer THP. Good thing you refuse to answer questions. Are you now trying to say that the poster I responded to DID NOT say that a person wouldn't need a firarm to protect themselves from an unarmed criminal?

Ravenshrike

10-07-2006, 23:33

The police can't enforce the laws with lacking numbers, training, and equipment.
Unless we can magically jump the number of police to a 1:1 ration with civilians and ensure through the same magical means their uncorruptibility they will never, as you so eloquently put it, have the numbers, training, and equipment. Even New York, with one of the closest cop:civvie ratios in the US still has tons of violent crimes. So unless we start drafting cops, and at a young enough age to ensure their compliance with the laws, I doubt your fluffy bunny system will work.

Ravenshrike

10-07-2006, 23:37

Your statement suggested that the criminal had no pistol when you said "especially when it is pointed at him." Your second sentence has jackshit to do with the first one.
Actually, as I noted before, most criminals are extremely unwilling, if they can get away, to risk their lives against a threat as strong, or stronger then themselves. And a CCW carrier is a stronger threat mainly because said criminal has nowhere to practice with his gun.

The Forever Dusk

10-07-2006, 23:41

"Provided ownership of the weapons in question is legal according to their country's domestic laws, and said weapons have been purchased from a licensed / legal vendor with full traceability of the firearm through each prior stage of sale all the way back to an original manufacturer's factory.

You don't have the right to purchase weapons from terrorists and drug dealers for 'self-defence'. You want self-defence? Go to an official vendor."---Tactical Grace

actually, the right to self defense in ingrained in every person in every place. if a country bans the sale of firearms to its' citizens, then it is violating their rights and it is at fault for the necessity of turning to less than 'legal' procurement of firearms.

The Forever Dusk

10-07-2006, 23:48

"You dont need to defend yourself when theres nothing to attack you with."---Kazus

you are absolutely correct......so as soon as every government body in the world lays down its' weapons, every baseball bat, golf club, kitchen knife, brick, glass bottle, etc. is gone from the face of the earth, and every single person is bound with duct tape so as to be unable to use their arms or legs, then there will be nothing to attack us with.

i offer you my personal promise that as soon as those conditions are all met, i will immediately destroy every firearm that i own

Tactical Grace

11-07-2006, 00:10

Howabout when the domestic laws prevent people from realistically obtaining said weapons and prevent them from being utilized in self-defense. Should those laws be opposed?
Not by foreign actors. I don't want the US, and I don't want the UN, or anyone else, lobbying the UK to permit private gun ownership. It should be left up to the people here. But the UN is right in trying to limit the possibility of people purchasing guns illegally from drug dealers, gangsters and terrorists.

Deep Kimchi

11-07-2006, 01:34

Not by foreign actors. I don't want the US, and I don't want the UN, or anyone else, lobbying the UK to permit private gun ownership. It should be left up to the people here. But the UN is right in trying to limit the possibility of people purchasing guns illegally from drug dealers, gangsters and terrorists.

I certainly don't want anyone to lobby the US from outside trying to eliminate private gun ownership. The vast majority of gun sales in the US are completely legal.

What I find ironic is that most of the weapons in the hands of drug dealers, gangsters, and terrorists were pumped into the world not by illicit arms dealers, but by various USSR and US programs designed to put over 40 million AK-47s, and a similar number of Western weapons out there.

Not sold by companies directly to the recipient. Not sold in gun stores. Not sold by private people out of the trunks of cars. Sold by official government personnel - often dumping them on purpose.

As a current example, the current administration fears that if a Democratic President is elected, the government in Afghanistan will be abandoned. So right now, millions of rifles and millions of rounds of ammunition (all of the Russian and Chinese variety) are being purchased en masse by the US government, and "stockpiled" in Afghanistan.

Not as though there aren't enough weapons there - but the government will have the new ones, and their opponents will have to make do with dad's AK.

Non Aligned States

11-07-2006, 07:11

The conference chairman:
“States that have not already done so” should “adopt adequate laws, regulations and administrative procedures to regulate the possession of small arms and light weapons.” *snip the rest*

Were these statements issued during the deliberations or outside as opinion pieces?

[QUOTE=Kecibukia]
(a) States will establish appropriate national legislation, administrative regulations and licensing requirements that define conditions under which small arms and light weapons can be acquired, used and traded by private persons.

This was removed as requested by the US correct?

IMO, those that promote democratic governments.

One can hardly call the Shah of Iran, the Mujahideen and Saddam Hussein people who promoted democratic governments. I very much doubt that you will find a single non-state actor that the US has supported in the past that was democratic in nature. Democratic governments have a tendency to throw out their puppet masters once they gain independance.

What the US does support in terms of armed groups is more often than not, dictatorships.

That doesn't matter though. The US has called for a non-blanket issue. It at least is being honest.

Honest about what?

And what you're asking for is a false dichotomy. Half-truths, misleading statements, etc are not necessarily "lies" but don't contain the whole truth.

So in your opinion, what is the whole truth?

Similization

11-07-2006, 07:52

Not by foreign actors. I don't want the US, and I don't want the UN, or anyone else, lobbying the UK to permit private gun ownership. It should be left up to the people here.No, no! It should be up to the arms peddlers, of course. You're robbing them of a market.But the UN is right in trying to limit the possibility of people purchasing guns illegally from drug dealers, gangsters and terrorists.But these are the peoples who make semi-legit government & corporate pillaging & terrorism possible. The economic benefits of illegal arms trades are enormous, and all costs is national & global stability & some dead poor people.

Your gross hippie-humanist-law-and-order-ethics & critical thinking, are not only undesirable & wholly misplaced. Your attitude is despicalble & an obstruction to good, wholesome murderous pillaging. All all right-thinking people wants is dead presidents - in every sense of those words. There's a reason the three-strike rule was invented: to reeducate people like you, you... delinquent.

I bet you're also one of those anti-democratic freedom-haters who thinks the aristocracy has no business ruling your country. Hell, you're probably an anti-capitalist, free-market-hater who wants to do away with the tax barriers & our completely fair subsidies that enables us to export aggri-produce to 3rd world countries at 48% of the manufacture cost, are't you?

Feh! Anti-everything nice & wholesome & double-plus good person. Shame on you. Ignorance is wisdom. Slavery is freedom. Poverty is wealth. Death is destiny.

NationStates Jolt Archive

The UN small arms conference failed miserably....