UN and Gun Rights

[Tom Kirkham]

NRA video on the UN and Gun laws:

[sllib]

What a shame they didn't take down the UN building instead of the twin towers.

[SP01715]

F*** the U.N...

[392cobra]

A vintage Warren Poster...

[Anthony]

Somehow I think firearm topics are meant for a different site.

Tom, are you trying to stir the pot?

[Buzz]

People posting and representing this nonsense as a current domestic issue are pushing their own agendas and insulting your intelligence. All of the information, documents and even the officials shown in that video are from 2001 - 2004. The proposed treaty in question deals with regulation of the international firearms trade particularly to regions of conflict and oppressive regimes - nothing to do with US domestic firearms policies. Here's a link to the treaty's summary: http://www.un.org/disarmament/convar...html/ATT.shtml

The UN has always been a platform for people lobbying on behalf of everything from whaling to banning fur coats to the plight of cane toad in Australia. Nothing new here.

The UN CANNOT take away your constitutional RKBA. No US president - even the furthest left leaning - would be foolish enough to try to revoke 2A rights. Focus inwards on intelligent discourse countering the wide-eyed ranting of the Brady Bunch and their supporters to keep firearm ownership by law abiding citizens in a positive light.

Wide-eyed alarmism like the BS presented here by pied pipers masquerading as your friends is just as detrimental to the RKBA as the anti-gun propoganda spouted by the Brady bunch and their followers in that it plays up to the stereotype of pro-gun activists being a bunch of whacked out idiots. People that rally support by playing on fears and deep emotions have their own agendas and care little about you or your rights.

What business is this of mine - a foreigner who doesn't live in the US? A lot actually, because the upholding of the American belief in the rights of citizens to defend themselves and their families is one powerful, shining beacon to free societies around the world of the reality that weakening the the law abiding citizen serves only to strengthen and embolden the criminals and enemies of freedom. If the US RKBA is ever lost, it would pave the way for tyrannical disarmament of citizens around the world.

The most powerful weapon in the arsenal of those who believe in the RKBA is the vote. Keep the intelligent discourse open and ensure that it remains clear to all political leaders and aspiring political leaders that tampering with the 2A is political suicide.

People who use BS to trump up non-issues and promote irrational emotionalism and fear mongering about the issue to enhance their own popularity should be given the heave-ho as well.

[Ronbo]

Buzz, let me throw a twist your way...

So what was the UN's stance when England and Australia stripped the the right of their citizens to own firearms???

Fact of the matter is the UN never has, or will attempt to adopt a policy of pressuring it's members to ensure it's citizen's freedom to defend themselves.

The UN should have died with the Warsaw pact, they are a shining example of non-represenative government.

[427sharpe]

Thanks Tom...reminded me to renew my NRA membership!
Now read the first paragraph on IANSA page about rape in Africa, lamenting how roving military bands use firearms to rape and plunder...all the while trying to get citizens to give up 2A rights! Imbeciles.

[Buzz]

It's not really a twist, Ronbo - we agree that the UN is little more now than a huge special interest lobby and their stance on most issues runs mostly against the grain of the model of a free western-style democracy.

What I am against is the dishonest strategy of whipping peoples' emotions into a frenzy by misrepresenting and blowing a non-issue way out of context. The proposed treaty that was referenced in the OP is not targeted at private ownership of firearms in the US. Representing it as such is just plain lying in order to gain popularity by pandering to people's knee jerk reactions to an emotionally charged issue.

The UN as it functions today is a waste of time, but they are not coming to take your guns! That can only happen from within if intelligent people remain silent and complacent and allow the loudmouth rabble rousers and snake oil salesmen on both sides of the aisle to manipulate the sentiments of concerned citizens in a self-serving bid for power and influence. Beware the pied pipers.

[Tom Kirkham]

Originally Posted by Anthony

Somehow I think firearm topics are meant for a different site.

Tom, are you trying to stir the pot?

That is why I posted in the lounge. I actually highly respect the opinions of the people who post on this board. I am very interested in what the members of this forum opinions are, both for and against this issue as well as other issues. So yes, I am trying to stir the pot of fresh ideas and well reasoned thought. However, I am by no means trying to start a flame war. Flame wars have only succeed in driving people away and killing any new ideas.

[LoBelly]

Originally Posted by Ronbo

Buzz, let me throw a twist your way...

So what was the UN's stance when England and Australia stripped the the right of their citizens to own firearms???

....

.

Point of order -

Most states in Australia have aligned the gun ownership laws
Basically - you have to be licensed to own a gun
The minimum age is 12 (where I live)

I think that Ronbo is basically proving Buzz's point here:

The NRA (& others) have been waging a fear campain based on untrue statements secure in the knowledge that they're unlikely to be called on it.

The following sites have reasonable summaries of the rules - no doubt many of you in the US would identify the serious limitations imposed.

http://www.rurallaw.org.au/handbook/....php#Ch15Se925
http://www.police.vic.gov.au/content...ocument_ID=219
http://ssaavic.com.au/ssaa.php?id=6&

As a society Australians can change these laws if they like by electing officials that will alter the rules - they are almost always on the ballot paper - few (none) get up.

Also - to support what Tom said - this is basically the only place where I hear from a broad(er) cross section of the US so its very informative to me and I appreciate being able to have these discussions and understand the divergent views.

.... back to your regular programming ....


LoBelly

[mdmull]

I'm just sayin' - "You wanna shoot the breeze about stuff that isn't necessarily Cobra related? Here's the place to be."

[Ronbo]

Originally Posted by LoBelly

Point of order -

Most states in Australia have aligned the gun ownership laws
Basically - you have to be licensed to own a gun
The minimum age is 12 (where I live)

I think that Ronbo is basically proving Buzz's point here:

The NRA (& others) have been waging a fear campain based on untrue statements secure in the knowledge that they're unlikely to be called on it.

The following sites have reasonable summaries of the rules - no doubt many of you in the US would identify the serious limitations imposed.

http://www.rurallaw.org.au/handbook/....php#Ch15Se925
http://www.police.vic.gov.au/content...ocument_ID=219
http://ssaavic.com.au/ssaa.php?id=6&

As a society Australians can change these laws if they like by electing officials that will alter the rules - they are almost always on the ballot paper - few (none) get up.

Also - to support what Tom said - this is basically the only place where I hear from a broad(er) cross section of the US so its very informative to me and I appreciate being able to have these discussions and understand the divergent views.

.... back to your regular programming ....


LoBelly

I understand all to well...

Privileges are licensed, not rights.

[LoBelly]

Originally Posted by Ronbo

I understand all to well...

Privileges are licensed, not rights.

Your point is well made - and frequently a topic of debate in Australia.

Australians have no personal rights under Australia's Constitution - although the High Court has found that the constitution implies some rights.

In deed the most overt declarations of rights afforded to Australian citizens has been through the ratification by local legislatures of UN conventions (..gasp.. ).

The lack of rights to own firearms enabled the newly elected Liberal government to move to restrict gun ownership in 1996 only 3 weeks after being elected - without a mandate (i.e. without having mentioned stated this action would be part of their policy agenda)

The guns were however not ceased but compulsorily purchased by the government. This purchase was funded by increasing the tax on all taxable (personal) incomes by 0.2%.

Naturally Australians were outraged by these actions and unceremoniously dumped the John Howard/Liberal government 4 elections and 11 years later.

- that'll learn 'im !

In case anyone is interested, the central argument against a (personal) bill of rights is neatly summarised in this passage

"There are many people who fear that a Bill of Rights will effectively take power to make laws on controversial issues away from the legislature and place it instead in the hands of an unelected elite – namely, the judiciary. In interpreting what the broadly worded phrases mean, the court is said to be taking on a role which is essentially the “stuff of politics”, and therefore beyond its proper role and power..."

from: http://www.courts.act.gov.au/supreme...ch3March04.pdf

The judge making the speach goes on to say that he thinks such fears are highly exaggerated, and that

"The voice of that majority is indeed no proof of justice. As Hilary Charlesworth has noted, the major political parties in Australia typically agree on the groups whose rights can be conveniently and, indeed, popularly, trampled upon."



LoBelly

[Ronbo]

Originally Posted by LoBelly

The guns were however not ceased but compulsorily purchased by the government. This purchase was funded by increasing the tax on all taxable (personal) incomes by 0.2%.

LoBelly

They were siezed, the money was irrelevent. (in fact I wouldn't be suprised if you didn't have to take the money)

It's alarming to us in the US, because we (mistakenly for the most part) trace our laws back to England. Many here (again mistakenly) feel England and of course Australia are most like us. We are facing the same foes time and time again. And of course the big one, we speak the same language (more or less).

What happened in England an Australia was a huge (and rightfully so) wake up call to what was in store for us. As powerful as America may be, it cannot stand alone against the rest of the world.

As a free citizen I expect my government to put what ever pressure it can on your government to stop infringing on your rights as a fellow free citizen. (this in theory is what the UN is supposed to do and not much else)

[BeanCounter]

Australians have no personal rights under Australia's Constitution

No wonder Quigley came back home.

[392cobra]

Originally Posted by LoBelly

.

Australians have no personal rights under Australia's Constitution
LoBelly

I have to wonder if this doesn't stem from Australia having been a Penal Colony ??

The Government never evolved.

[Ronbo]

Originally Posted by 392cobra

I have to wonder if this doesn't stem from Australia having been a Penal Colony ??

The Government never evolved.

It's not a Republic, same as England. Without our Bill of rights we'd be in the same trouble, relying only on representation. Worse yet a pure democracy, history is full of examples of the majoity being wrong about some matter either by manipulation or ignorance. (which is why lobbying is not the pure evil that it's often believed to be)

Many people here in the US don't understand the difference which is why you always hear the US referred to as a "democracy". Good government must do the right thing, even if it's not the popular (or profitable) course of action.