Understanding the United Nations & US Gun Control

[WhiteFeather]

This one articles has very good information for you to use to show why gun control doesn't work around the world. Also the dangers of UN.

Personally I don’t recognize any treaty as valid with an organization like the UN…. Only valid treaty are with nations or states and that a treaty once signed & ratified doesn’t amends or supersedes the Constitution is more BS All treaties to be valid have to be in alignment with our Constitution as written, its not the overide method.

Really hope no one is ever dumb enough to bring in the blue helmets to enforce this illegal treaty with a group like the UN only time will tell what the future brings.



read some of the comments on link



http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=38103

Understanding the United Nations and US Gun Control

On Monday, June 28, 2010, The Supreme Court reaffirmed the Second Amendment during the trial of McDonald vs. Chicago. The 5-4 ruling confirmed that neither a state nor city, acting under a grant of authority from the state, could deny a person the right to possess a firearm. This was seen as a victory for gun rights activists, but with the United Nations Small Arms and Light Weapons (SALW) treaty looming in the near future, this fight is far from over.

The U.N. program of action concerning SALW includes restrictions on the manufacturing, storing, transferring and possession of firearms and ammunition if it is not adequately marked. It ensures that once SALW’s program is enacted all licensed manufacturers must apply a unique marking identifying the country of manufacture, manufacturer and serial number of the weapon. Weapons that lack this unique marking that are confiscated, seized or collected will be destroyed. These restrictions will be enforced on a national, regional and global scale.

Once the treaty is signed, if you happen to own a gun that was manufactured without this “unique marking,” you are in violation of the law and must turn over your weapon to authorities. This includes guns that were obtained legally. With gun laws in the U.S. that already place many restrictions on the sale of personal firearms, the adoption of this treaty would further infringe on the Second Amendment of the Constitution. When the founding fathers of the U.S wrote that, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed,” they made no mention of unique markings.

John Bolton, US Representative to the UN under the George W. Bush administration, says, “The [Obama] administration is trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about international arms trade between nation states, but there’s no doubt--as was the case back over a decade ago--that the real agenda here is domestic firearms control.”

The U.N.’s reasons for planning to draft stricter gun laws in the future are mostly related to stopping the illicit trade of small arms and light weapons. However, the President of the Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons, Camilo Reyes Rodriguez of Colombia, in July 2001, stated his disappointment on the “inability to agree… on language recognizing the need to establish and maintain controls over private ownership of these deadly weapons and the need for preventing sales of such arms to non-State groups.” Rodriguez said that these steps were “two of the most important.”

The U.N. shows “overwhelming support” for such measures, according to Rodriguez. The U.N. claims these gun laws would help to lessen gun violence, but statistics foretell a different outcome. A survey by the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) in 2001 found that the top three states with the most gun ownership in America were Massachusetts, Connecticut and Kentucky (in descending order). Another study, by Statehealthfacts.org in 2002, ranked the states with the least gun related deaths per 100,000 people. Hawaii had the least gun-related deaths followed by Massachusetts and Connecticut. The District of Columbia had the most gun related deaths and conversely the least amount of guns owned.

Worldwide gun-related deaths also don’t show any support for more restrictive gun laws. The Eighth United Nations Survey on Crime Trends and the Operations of Criminal Justice Systems in 2002 found that South Africa, Columbia and Thailand topped the list of countries with the most murders by firearms per capita. Yet when 178 countries were ranked in descending order by which had the most civilian firearms per 100 people, South Africa came in 50th place, Columbia was 91st and Thailand was 39th.

You can’t argue that stricter gun control and fewer guns owned by citizens would diminish gun violence when looking at the facts. If a country were to confiscate its citizen’s guns by national law, it would leave guns in the hands of only the government and criminals. I’m not sure which group is more terrifying. When criminals are the only people who possess handguns, law-abiding citizens are powerless to defend themselves. This makes non-criminals easy targets and gun crimes rise respectively.

This was proven to all countries when England enacted a ban on ownership of handguns in 1997. Two years after the gun ban had gone into effect the Countryside Alliance's Campaign for Shooting found that the use of handguns in crime had risen 40%.

David Bredin, the director of the campaign, said, “It is crystal clear from the research that the existing gun laws do not lead to crime reduction and a safer place.” The reason stricter gun control did not mean less violence, the campaign concluded, was “existing laws are targeting legitimate users of firearms rather than criminals.”

If gun control does not coincide with a safer society, then the U.N. has no ground for declaring controls on private ownership would help solve the illegal trafficking of firearms. In fact, if prohibition taught us anything, it is that restrictions do not decrease demand, but only cut supply. When supply drops and demand stays the same, prices rise and incentives lead to added underground crime rings. The U.N. should drop the gun laws, pick up some history books and take a few notes. Maybe then they could focus on something useful like stopping Iran’s nuclear program.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Kendall is a graduate of Arizona State University and preparing to attend the Annenberg School of Communication at USC.

Never Forget

[Neo31rex31]

Pass the ammo please...........is all i can think of

[LittleRedToyota]

just to put this in proper perspective...

this treaty does not actually exist...nor is it likely to at any point in the foreseeable future. it is not "looming in the near future" (and, even if "it" were looming, we wouldn't know what was looming since "it" has not been written).

the UN has been trying to draft such a treaty off and on since 2001...with zero success.

further, like any treaty, if some SALW treaty actually were drafted and adopted by the UN and the executive branch decided to become a party to it, it would still have to be ratified by the senate...which means 67 senators would have to vote to ratify it. in the current and foreseeable political climate, that just plain ain't going to happen. it is not going to happen because the sentiment in the USA right now is decidedly pro-2nd amendment and, probably more importantly, giant US companies with huge amounts of clout in washington make too much money selling small arms and light weapons around the world to let it happen.

i am not saying we should not keep an eye on the UN and, when they have their meeting (which was supposed to be this month...not sure if it actually happened) to talk about how they are going to have another meeting in a few years to talk about having another meeting after that one in another few years, let the president and our senators know we oppose any treaty that infringes on our rights. but, it is important to keep proper perspective...if for no other reason than to ensure our efforts are focused on real issues and we do not become known, and dismissed, as a bunch of chicken littles.

[ronbo1012]

Another positive is that this is the UN you are talking about. In the past when their "proclomations" were not followed after several warnings, the UN got really, really mad and printed their displeasure in CAPITAL LETTERS. Tis was with Iran I believe.

[mmcallister]

HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH....when blue helmet warriors parachute in we can all re-enact RED DAWN....slightly off topic, but i heard the movie is being remade!!!!

but ronbo is right, they aint got teeth or balls in that lil organization.

[Nevermore]

I'd also point out that even assuming: 1) Obama signs the treaty; 2) 67 Senators ratify the treaty (unlikely), that the treaty's provisions must still comply with the US Constitution. The Supreme Court ruled on this back in the 50s in Reid v. Covert. ("[T]his Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty.")

Justice Black wrote, "[N]either the cases nor their reasoning should be given any further expansion. The concept that the Bill of Rights and other constitutional protections against arbitrary government are inoperant when they become inconvenient or when expediency dictates otherwise is a very dangerous doctrine and if allowed to flourish would destroy the benefit of a written Constitution and undermine the basis of our government."

Granted, this may be what certain parties are trying to do, but Supreme Court precedent is not on their side.

[tes151]

I hope nobody is dumb enough to bring in the baby blue helmets. But if they do........