Defensive Carry banner

1 - 20 of 38 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
25,483 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
There will be some pretty broad coverage on this thing - which has already started off. I thought it might be handy to collect reports each day as and when they come thru from NRA - so we finish up with ref' data in one place.

I will start off with these few items from NRA-ILA and add more later - or anyone else can too if they spot something from another source.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

U.S. Supports Right To Bear Arms At UN Small Arms Conference

The UN "Small Arms" Conference entered its second day with more country statements being delivered to the delegates gathered in the General Assembly Chamber.

Read More: http://www.nraila.org/CurrentLegislation/Read.aspx?ID=2295

------------------------


Day One Of U.N. Gun Ban Summit
Townhall.com
They`ve gathered in New York City, the best and brightest minds in the global gun ban movement. Oh, they don`t want you to think for a second that they`re actually interested in your guns.

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/CamEdwards/2006/06/27/202729.html

------------------------



U.N. Challenge To Second Amendment
Front Page
"As our Independence Day celebration approaches, the United Nations is holding a global conference in New York, starting on June 26th and lasting through July 7th, whose real agenda is to begin a backdoor process of interference with our constitutionally protected right to individually bear arms," writes Joseph Klein.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=23088

------------------------
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
660 Posts
Isn't this the reason we have the right to bear arms? To protect ourselves from those (gov't) that wish to take our freedoms away?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,068 Posts
PackerfanXD said:
Isn't this the reason we have the right to bear arms? To protect ourselves from those (gov't) that wish to take our freedoms away?
The UN isn't a government, or a body with any governing authority.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,134 Posts
I responded to this on another thread, will we merge the un threads or keep up with multiples ?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
146 Posts
Tom357 said:
The UN isn't a government, or a body with any governing authority.
True, but they have the power to tell a government what to do. We are not safe from the UN. If they pass a resolution to ban all small arms, all member nations must comply with that resolution. Meaning bye bye to the 2nd.

This is a huge deal and must be watched closely.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
791 Posts
Lumberjack98 said:
True, but they have the power to tell a government what to do. We are not safe from the UN. If they pass a resolution to ban all small arms, all member nations must comply with that resolution. Meaning bye bye to the 2nd.

This is a huge deal and must be watched closely.
Don't think they can pass anything like this without our concent. We hold a permanent seat and can veto anything we don't like.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
25,483 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
Today too -
Wayne LaPierre: U.N. Out To Get Your Gun
NewsMax
Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association of America, has said of the U.N. conference, "Dictatorships, terrorist states and so-called `free` nations of the world plan to meet on our home soil to finalize a U.N. treaty that would strip all citizens of all nations of their right to self-protection."

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/6/27/91047.shtml
U.S. Rejects Limits On Personal Guns
Washington Times
The United States will oppose any international effort to limit access of U.S. civilians to legal firearms but supports stronger controls on arms imports and exports, a senior State Department official says.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20060627-103617-7798r.htm
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,134 Posts
I have been looking ( fruitlessly so far ) for the LaPierre Peters debate that was televised ( yea i know nra is selling it lol ) if anyone happens to see it , or even an honest transcript ( all i have seen have been edited ) let me know please .
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
569 Posts
Redneck Repairs said:
I have been looking ( fruitlessly so far ) for the LaPierre Peters debate that was televised ( yea i know nra is selling it lol ) if anyone happens to see it , or even an honest transcript ( all i have seen have been edited ) let me know please .

Are you talking about the one with Rebecca Peters at King's college? I bought it and have watched it. I offered it up earlier to anyone that wanted to see it. If you want I will mail it to you.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,134 Posts
Sent pm Ruger

Also here is the link to the transcripts of the delegates ( i am linking the page that has Mr. Robert Joseph our Under-secretary for Arms Control and International Security Affairs about half way down the page )

http://www.un.org/events/smallarms2006/mem-states060627.html

Transcripts require Adobe Acrobat or other .pdf reader
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
25,483 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
No NRA UN updates today.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25 Posts
Today,

“The Canadian Lesson”

By Tony Bernardo
Canadian Institute for Legislative Action


Mr. President, I am Tony Bernardo, Executive Director of the Canadian Institute for Legislative Action. I want to thank you and the Conference for making it possible for NGOs to speak today.

Five years ago in this very venue, at the 2001 Small Arms Conference, NGOs were also allowed to make presentations. I was privileged enough to be one of the presenters on that occasion. Mr. President, throughout this Conference’s proceeding others have commented on what has and has not occurred, what has and has not changed.

Mr. President, a great deal has changed in Canada. With the possible exception of Brazil, I do not think any state represented here today has undergone a change in attitude or policy such as Canada has. Now it should be obvious that I speak as a representative of a Canadian NGO and not the government of Canada. Notwithstanding that fact, I am here today to ensure that due attention is paid to what has occurred.

Mr. President, there have been two watershed events in Canada since the 2001 Conference, and they are directly related. First, Mr. President, Canada had the on-the-ground experience of attempting to institute an extensive but impractical gun registration system. Many are familiar with the details and I will not cite chapter and verse or inundate you with budgetary horror stories. I’ll only say that what was supposed to cost millions of dollars cost billions of dollars – what was supposed to fight crime only made criminals out of law-abiding citizens and what was supposed to be a model for the world turned out to be a painful lesson of how not to do it.

The second watershed event was that the very firearms registration scheme I have just described went on to become a significant political issue in several federal elections. The government that produced the programme is, shall we say, no longer with us. Elections have consequences and policies change. The registration scheme itself is now in the process of being reformed by the current government.

Mr. President, there is an important lesson to be learned here. Regulatory schemes, whether they are national or international, are doomed to failure if their primary impact is upon the law-abiding; hunters, sport shooters and firearms owners. Mr. President, perhaps others will disagree with this assessment, but we believe the Canadian experience cannot be ignored. The UN must focus on illegal international trafficking and not be seduced into impractical new schemes.

Unfortunately, Mr. President, the draft report does contain one such scheme. An international effort on marking and tracing of ammunition is beyond the pale of what is either practical or realistic. Indeed, the implementation of importation marks applied to firearms has already been significantly delayed in Canada due to the horrendous costs and technical problems associated with it, costs that shall be born by legitimate industry and ultimately, Canadian sportspersons. Yet, the technical difficulties in applying markings to previously manufactured firearms are mere “child’s play” compared to the impact that the marking and tracing of ammunition would have on legitimate industry.

On behalf of the millions on people in Canada’s recreational firearms community, we implore the United Nations to consider these factors when striving for focus on these critical issues.

Finally, I’d like to congratulate a number of countries for the inclusion of language respecting the legitimacy of sport shooting. Such language facilitates the common goals we seek.

With that comment, Mr. President, thank you for your indulgence and patience.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
25,483 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
More today -

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Day Four At The UN Gun Ban Conference

Townhall.com

It seems to be getting quiet at the United Nations. Oh, the delegates are still speaking, but on Thursday much of the discussion moved behind closed doors. Its funny, actually. Every anti-gun delegate or activist talks about the need for transparency in firearms ownership, but those running the gun summit dont seem that interested in transparency for what theyre doing.

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/CamEdwards/2006/06/30/203225.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


GOP Eyes U.N. For Budget Cuts As Ill Will Grows

Washington Times

Republicans in Congress moved yesterday to cut U.S. contributions to the United Nations budget just one day before the world body is scheduled to lift a budget cap imposed by the United States and other donors and to resume spending as usual.

http://www.washtimes.com/world/20060630-121948-5466r.htm

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Letters to the Editor: A U.N. gun grab

Washington Times.com

Rachel Stohl claims, "The United Nations met to assess progress made in implementing the 2001 U.N. Programme of Action, agreed to by all U.N. member states, including the United States, to address the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects, not a global gun ban, as the NRA claims" ("A necessary summit," Letters, Tuesday).

Allow me to quote the speech the representative of Indonesia gave on the first day of this conference: "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."

That is a gun ban, folks. Plain and simple.

JACK SCHEIBLE - NRA member

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20060628-094623-9351r_page2.htm
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
25,483 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
NRA update and first few days summary just in -

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

U.N. GUN BAN CONFERENCE UPDATE

With the "U.N. Conference to Review Progress Made in the Implementation
of the Programme of Action to Prevent and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in
Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects" having begun on Monday,
June 26, here are some of the "highlights" (and "lowlights) of the
week's events.

Day One, Monday, June 26: U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan claims the
Conference's purpose was not to ban "law abiding citizens right to bear
arms..." However, others in the anti-gun cabal obviously disagree, as
evidenced by this statement from Indonesia's representative: "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 ProgramME of Action because in the absence of ammunition,
small arms and light weapons pose no danger." Regardless of Annan's
statement, the topic of "regulation" of civilian possession is obviously
still alive.

Day Two, Tuesday, June 27: U.S. Under Secretary of State Robert Joseph.
Joseph politely but forcefully gave the U.S. "red lines" -- issues which
the U.S. strongly opposes and will not allow into any Conference report
or recommendations. These include interference with Americans' Right To
Bear Arms, a U.N. ban on transfer of arms to freedom fighters and
international regulation of ammunition. The U.S. also said it was not
ready to commit to any future conferences on small arms. As Joseph noted
later, "The U.S. Constitution guarantees the rights of our citizens to
keep and bear arms, and there will be no infringement of those
rights..The United States will not agree to any provisions restricting
civilian possession, use or legal trade of firearms inconsistent with
our laws and practices."

Day Three, Wednesday, June 28: A new draft of the U.N. "Small Arms"
Conference "final" report became public. Unfortunately, the draft
contained provisions on two issues the U.S. considers "red lines" and
will not accept -- a U.N. ban on transfer of arms to freedom fighters
and international regulation of ammunition. The proposed document also
calls for U.N. meetings on "small arms" up to and including additional
conferences in 2008, 2010, and 2012! The U.S. is opposed to these
constant meetings which seem to rehash the same issues.

Day Four, Thursday, June 29: The Swiss Small Arms Survey (an anti-gun
think tank) released its book supporting international regulation of
ammunition. Although the U.S. continues to strongly oppose the
inclusion of ammunition in any Conference report, several countries
insist on pushing the concept. In another development, the President of
the Conference appointed three "facilitators" to work on the text of the
final report. The so-called facilitators are from Switzerland, Columbia
and Japan.

America's gun owners must continue to be vigilant and to take action on
this front. For additional information on the U.N.'s attempt to impose
its anti-gun will on the U.S. and around the world, please visit
www.NRAILA.org, where daily postings tracking the U.N. Conference can be
found. Also, please visit www.stopUNgunban.org, or call (800) 672-0636.
This site provides valuable information and an opportunity to order
Wayne LaPierre's new book The Global War On Your Guns. The book spells
out a chilling warning that gun owners in the United States and abroad
must heed, and exposes a far-reaching scheme to pass a global ban on
civilian ownership of arms--including YOURS! Help stop the U.N.'s
attempt to thwart our Freedom. Please visit the site or call the
toll-free number today!


NRA NOT ALONE IN ITS IRE AGAINST U.N.

As noted in the previous story, America's gun owners are no doubt most
focused on U.N. efforts to promote transnational anti-gun laws.
However, that is just the tip of the iceberg. In addition to recent oil
for food, sex, and corruption scandals at the world body, a story in
today's Washington Times notes that Members of the U.S. House of
Representatives are promoting legislation to withhold U.S. contributions
to the U.N. Among the reasons cited for these actions are: recent
remarks by a U.N. bureaucrat that the U.S. government needs to do more
to defend the U.N. to the American public; displeasure with the makeup
of the U.N.'s Human Rights Council that includes some of the world's
most notorious human rights abusers and sponsors of terrorism; and the
U.S. goal of implementing a proportional voting system on financial
matters, where member-nations' votes would be commensurate with the
percentage of dues they contribute.

NRA APPLAUDS CONGRESSIONAL LEADERS FOR INCLUDING
GUN OWNERSHIP RIGHTS IN THEIR "AMERICAN VALUES AGENDA"

The NRA is pleased by Tuesday's announcement by House Congressional
leaders to include gun ownership rights as part of their 2006 "American
Values Agenda".

"On behalf of our four million NRA members nationwide, we deeply
appreciate the House Republican leadership for recognizing the
fundamental importance of protecting law-abiding Americans' Second
Amendment rights," said Chris W. Cox, NRA's chief lobbyist. "We strongly
encourage and endorse these pro-gun bills as part of the their "American
Values Agenda.'"

"Family, faith, patriotism and hard work bind us together as Americans.
Our laws should reflect those priorities, and House Republicans are
committed to the American Values Agenda, policies that stress the core
values on which our nation was built," said House Majority Whip Roy
Blunt (R-Mo.).

House Republican leaders have put together a package of "pro-freedom"
bills slated for votes this summer and fall. Two of those measures are
H.R. 5092 and H.R. 5013, bills that are also among NRA's top legislative
priorities.

H.R. 5092 is the "Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives
(BATFE) Modernization and Reform Act of 2006." This measure would make
critical changes in the way BATFE enforces federal firearm laws. H.R.
5092 was introduced after abuses were exposed in several BATFE oversight
hearings by the House Crime Subcommittee held this spring.

H.R. 5013, the "Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act", would
prohibit the confiscation of legal firearms from law-abiding citizens
during national emergencies, barring practices like those employed by
officials in New Orleans in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. The NRA
recently passed a similar measure into state law in Alaska, Idaho,
Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, South Carolina,
Virginia, and Louisiana.

"NRA members, gun owners and sportsmen across the country should contact
their congressmen, urging them to support these pro-gun bills. No
matter what the circumstances, lawful gun owners have the right to
possess their firearms in their homes. That's what this legislation
ensures," concluded Cox.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
4,964 Posts
Lumberjack98 said:
True, but they have the power to tell a government what to do. We are not safe from the UN. If they pass a resolution to ban all small arms, all member nations must comply with that resolution. Meaning bye bye to the 2nd.

This is a huge deal and must be watched closely.
Not so. No treaty may modify the Constitution. So such a UN treaty would not in itself be an immediate ban on firearms ownership in the US.

However, this merits close scrutiny, as such a resolution would certainly be used by an anti-gun administration or Congress to impose another idiotic ban.

Matt
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,011 Posts
Speaking as a teacher of Advanced Placement American Government...

MattLarson said:
Not so. No treaty may modify the Constitution.Matt
Sorry Matt...but you're wrong. The mechanism is built into the Constitution and as a part of the Constitution from the start it is already legal....right along with both the Formal and Informal Amendment process and the CON-CON (Constitutional Convention) process which could actually scrap the whole document to start over from scratch. This is why we must NEVER allow any contemporary politician to issue a call for such a CON-CON. I know it's been tried in the recent past, but like any Constitutional Amendment, it has a distinct time limit to expire. It requires (IIRC) 38 states to ratify the convention within a seven year period. In the 1980's we got to 35 before the time ran out.

Who controlled Congress in the 1980's? Whew! That was close. I'll bet you never even knew. That's not a slam on you...it's just that this is my career and I've already been a Teacher of the Year once....so I'm at the top of my game. Only 5 more years till retirement.

The Constitution gives the President the power of the Executive to make treaties with foreign entities. The CHECK is that the Senate must ratify the treaty. Presumably (in the eyes of Founding Fathers) the Senate will act in the true "best interests" of the country.

Here's the nightmare scenario: We lose the Oval Office to Hillary, we lose control of the Senate to the extreme left wing of the Democratic Party and BILL becomes Secretary General of the UN. Something he has made no secret of coveting. If anybody screamed CONFLICT OF INTEREST I'm sure they'd happily get a divorce...having achieved the pinnacle of success each needed the other to get.

What do you think their #1 target (sorry) is going to be? If you're thinking the GUNS you're in the "X" ring!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,068 Posts
Lumberjack98 said:
True, but they have the power to tell a government what to do. We are not safe from the UN. If they pass a resolution to ban all small arms, all member nations must comply with that resolution. Meaning bye bye to the 2nd.

This is a huge deal and must be watched closely.
I agree that it needs to be watched closely, but the UN does not have governing (or super-governing) authority over member nations. If the UN passes a resolution, member nations don't have to comply, although there may be enormous peer pressure to do so. While the Constitution provides for amendment, such modifications would originate from within our government, not imposed by the UN.
 
1 - 20 of 38 Posts
Top