The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Politics & RKBA => Topic started by: MikeBjerum on April 25, 2010, 01:07:07 PM
-
Has anyone else come across this?
http://www.nagr.org/UN_lp_survey2.aspx?pid=key01 (http://www.nagr.org/UN_lp_survey2.aspx?pid=key01)
I have been seeing it off and on lately. I am not getting it in e-mails or spam. I am finding it on the editorial pages of online newspapers ... not fringe papers, but regular everyday daily papers in our communities.
Just curious if others are seeing it, and where it falls in the fact vs. BS meter.
-
Its very high on the BS meter, but not total BS either. The treaty is designed to stop flooding countries with AKs and RPGs. Basically it tightens requirements for end user certificates and makes it very hard to sell to anyone other than governments. This is the same as selling tanks and helicopters. As far as I understand it, which is not all that far, the repercussion might be a tightening of EXPORT of firearms. I don't see anything about domestic sales. It might make it harder to get an AK in future, but I have not spent much time on this and so could be wrong either way. I will poke around and report back.
FQ13
PS Here's the wiki cliff notes (of the NGO preffered harshest form of the treaty), which sounds beyond annoying, but not life threatening, if applied only to EXPORTS. If it applies to intra-national transfers, than yes, the end is nigh and we'll all be commiserating with Phil about the good old days and hating BillT more than we already do. It seems however to apply only to commercial inernational transfers. I still don't like it, but I'm not running for the hills either. It would seem to be more a doubledged sword FP wise than anything else. On the one hand harder for countries to ship arms to terrorist groups, on the other, harder for us to send them to "freedon fighters". Also, knowing how the UN works, it will probably wind up biteing Israel in ass, as everything the UN does seems to do.
[edit] What would an Arms Trade Treaty look like?
International non-government and human rights organisations including Amnesty, Oxfam and the International Action Network on Small Arms (who lead the Control Arms Campaign) have developed analysis on what an effective Arms Trade Treaty would look like.[7]
It would ensure that no transfer is permitted if there is substantial risk that it is likely to:
• Be used in serious violations of international human rights or humanitarian law, or acts of genocide or crimes against humanity;
• Facilitate terrorist attacks, a pattern of gender based violence, violent crime or organised crime;
• Violate UN Charter obligations, including UN arms embargoes;
• Be diverted from its stated recipient;
• Adversely affect regional security; or
• Seriously impair poverty reduction or socioeconomic development.
It would have no loopholes. It would include:
• All weapons – including all military, security and police arms, related equipment and ammunition, components, expertise, and production equipment;
• All types of transfer – including import, export, re-export, temporary transfer and transhipment, in the state sanctioned and commercial trade, plus transfers of technology, loans, gifts and aid; and
• All transactions – including those by dealers and brokers, and those providing technical assistance, training, transport, storage, finance and security.
It must be workable and enforceable. It must:
• Provide guidelines for the treaty’s full, clear implementation;
• Ensure transparency – including full annual reports of national arms transfers;
• Have an effective mechanism to monitor compliance;
• Ensure accountability – with provisions for adjudication, dispute settlement and sanctions;
It must include a comprehensive framework for international cooperation and assistance.
NGOs are also advocating that the Arms Trade Treaty must reinforce existing responsibilities to assist survivors of armed violence, as well as identify new avenues to address suffering and trauma.
-
I'm sure Rebecca Peters, funded by George Soros, would approve, and probably contributed. IANSA, is the global Brady Bunch.
“ Rebecca Peters was Chair of the National Coalition for Gun Control, which campaigned to tighten Australia's gun laws in the 1990s. Her research and advocacy helped bring about sweeping changes, including uniform gun laws across the eight states, a ban on semiautomatic rifles and shotguns, and a year-long buyback that destroyed nearly 700,000 weapons. Among the awards she received was the 1996 Australian Human Rights Medal, her country's highest human rights honor.
From the IANSA site:
UN action against gun violence
This year there are many opportunities for your government to take concerted action to reduce gun violence, including:
• Submitting a national report on implementing the UN Programme of Action on Small Arms (PoA) before the world’s governments meet in New York for the Biennial Meeting of States (BMS), 14-18 June.
• Signing the UN Firearms Protocol at the high-level meeting organised at the UN in New York on 18 June. If your government has already ratified the Protocol, it should be implementing it.
• Following-up the outcomes of the international conference on Armed Violence & Development in Oslo from 21-22 April. This is part of the ongoing campaign to include armed violence prevention within the review process for the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).
• Developing strong National Action Plans on Women, Peace & Security, as required by UN Security Council Resolution 1325. This year the resolution is 10 years old, and there will be events throughout the year to commemorate this. Governments should confirm their commitment through effective National Action Plans.
http://www.iansa.org/WoA2010.htm
This is not the only treaty underway either...
-
TW beat me to it, but FQ is dangerously wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebecca_Peters
-
but FQ is dangerously wrong.
And this is new how?
Everyone of the wiki points can be easily twisted by any gummint to repress the possession, use and sale of firearms.
I declare you a terrorist, so therefore, no guns!
I think you're going to go on a rape spree, so, no guns for you!
I accuse you of serious violations of international human rights so guess what? No guns for you!!!
Buying the gun for your son's birthday? Sorry, Charlie, no guns for you.
We have too many guns int his region, so therefore - no new guns and turn the ones you have in - now!
etc.
etc.
et al.
FQ, here's a clue. If the UN wants it, it is automatically wrong. Just start thinking that way and you may yet get that "faux" removed from the faux "libertarian" label.
-
Here's the fustrating thing. I said I would look into it, and I will. I've spent about an hour thus far which is just getting started. Thing is, and this is worrysome, nothing definitive is out there. Go to the UN site, you get pages of goals, programs, reports from commisions, statements from delegates of attending nations (including one by Syria, at the time in in charge of the UN Human Rights commission :o) going off on a bat sh!t crazy rant that against Israel that you couldn't make up if you tried. Thing is the text of a finalized, not proposed, treaty is illusive. (Sort of like Pelosi's "You have to pass the bill to learn what it says"). Still, the other side seems equally detached, bringing on a parade of horribles without saying "paragraph 4 on page 632 gives the UN the right to X,Yand Z. All hat, no cattle. As it appears, at this time, its potentially scary if it applies inside a nations borders, undesireable if its just exports. I will report back. Tom and Path I would ask you to assist. Lets ignore the NRA, Brady Bunch and Oxfam and just get to brass tacks. The board deserves (hell, I deserve), answers not ideology.
FQ13
-
Here's the fustrating thing. I said I would look into it, and I will. I've spent about an hour thus far which is just getting started. Thing is, and this is worrysome, nothing definitive is out there. Go to the UN site, you get pages of goals, programs, reports from commisions, statements from delegates of attending nations (including one by Syria, at the time in in charge of the UN Human Rights commission :o) going off on a bat sh!t crazy rant that against Israel that you couldn't make up if you tried. Thing is the text of a finalized, not proposed, treaty is illusive. (Sort of like Pelosi's "You have to pass the bill to learn what it says"). Still, the other side seems equally detached, bringing on a parade of horribles without saying "paragraph 4 on page 632 gives the UN the right to X,Yand Z. All hat, no cattle. As it appears, at this time, its potentially scary if it applies inside a nations borders, undesireable if its just exports. I will report back. Tom and Path I would ask you to assist. Lets ignore the NRA, Brady Bunch and Oxfam and just get to brass tacks. The board deserves (hell, I deserve), answers not ideology.
FQ13
FQ, here's a clue. If the UN wants it, it is automatically wrong.
Learn it, live it.
It does not matter a tinker's damn what the treaty looks like, proposed or finalized - it is and always will be a way for the one worlders to devastate American authority and power in the world. Nothing good can ever come of it.
-
I will not have any time till next weekend but what I have found is this ;
After pushing through Australia's idiotic gun laws Rebeca Peters came to the attention of George Soros, who hired her to push his own gun ban agenda by heading a NGO I forget the name, it's probably listed at the Wikipedia page about Soros )
Once she had her foot in the door she got herself appointed to the Committee on Small Arms where she has been working for years to push through a "Treaty" that would "effectively abolish private gun ownership" .
As she has been working away the US opposed her efforts until a while back, when Hillary announced the US had changed it's position.
-
I will not have any time till next weekend but what I have found is this ;
After pushing through Australia's idiotic gun laws Rebeca Peters came to the attention of George Soros, who hired her to push his own gun ban agenda by heading a NGO I forget the name, it's probably listed at the Wikipedia page about Soros )
Once she had her foot in the door she got herself appointed to the Committee on Small Arms where she has been working for years to push through a "Treaty" that would "effectively abolish private gun ownership" .
As she has been working away the US opposed her efforts until a while back, when Hillary announced the US had changed it's position.
Any cites for this? Because as I said, if its just an export regulation no real concern, though we should still oppose it in principle. If however, it effects a country's gun laws, it should be fought tooth and nail. We are the outlier on gun rights, just as in other political freedoms, such feedom of speech when even Australia wants to censor the net. We should not be held hostage to an international "consensus" that holds our rights cheaply. I don't give a f@ck what Australia thinks (sorry Phil). We do need to to understand that even "friendly" nations wil act against us. Its nothing personal, just that being the biggest kid on the block scares the other kids and they will balance against us. If making us look like the bad guy makes us weaker, Russia, China and France wll do so, even if they do have thriving arms industries. Its just the price of power (cf my earlier posts on http://www.downrange.tv/forum/index.php?topic=12248.0). I do think that here are those abroad, just as at home, who truly do blame guns and other weapons for crime. They just can't accept human nature for wht it is and don't get that if all guns were to vanish tomorrow, all the horrors we see today wouldn't go away, but rather be made worse as the weak would have no recourse against the strong. This treaty is a bad idea. I just have yet to see in blck and white ow bad an idea it is. A nusiance or a disaster?
FQ13 who will report back
-
Any cites for this?
FQ13 who will report back
How about her official Bio in Wikipedia, and some of her own words ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebecca_Peters
-
some light reading attached
a sample Reasons to Question the 740,000 Factoid being used to Promote the Arms Trade Treaty. ABSTRACT: Currently, the United Nations is drafting an Arms Trade Treaty to impose strict controls on firearms and other weapons. In support of hasty adoption of the Treaty, a UN-related organization of Treaty supporters is has produced a report claiming that armed violence is responsible for 740,000 deaths annually. This Article carefully examines the claim. We find that the claim is based on dubious assumptions, cherry-picking data, and mathematical legerdemain which is inexplicably being withheld from the public. The refusal to disclose the mathematical calculations used to create the 740,000 factoid is itself cause for serious suspicion; our own calculations indicate that the 740,000 figure is far too high. Further, while the report claims that 60% of homicides are perpetrated with firearms, our review of the data on which report claimed to rely yields a 22% rate. The persons responsible for the report have refused to release their homicide calculations, or any other calculations. This Article also shows how a narrow focus on restricting firearms ownership continues to distract international attention from life-saving, viable solutions. We propose some practical alternatives which have already saved lives in war-ravaged areas.