U.S. agrees to timetable for UN Gun Ban

[jahwarrior72]

You mean like going from ready to nuke the entire Middle East flat after being attacked then 7 years later electing a guy to the White House with a middle name of Hussein?

really? that's the first thing you could think of to say? really? you ignored the fact that we're deep inside the biggest deficit we've ever seen, but think the fact that his middle name isn't an Anglo-Saxon name is somehow relevant? really?

grow the fuck up, already.

[Yellowfin]

really? that's the first thing you could think of to say? really? you ignored the fact that we're deep inside the biggest deficit we've ever seen, but think the fact that his middle name isn't an Anglo-Saxon name is somehow relevant? really?

grow the fuck up, already.

I'm talking about public perception. Immediately after 9/11 there was a degree of hostility to Middle Eastern ethnicities, even if under the surface and not blatant stuff like race riots and widespread (though one or two occurrences probably did happen) targeting of individuals looking a certain way or with certain names. If you don't think it was at least on people's minds you're not being honest. THEN, AT THAT TIME, it probably would have been unthinkable to have a similar sounding name on a ballot and have people vote for it on a national scale. That may sound strange or maybe even not nice to you, but that's reality. After a little over half a decade of cooling off, the vote went the way it did, a reversal or dampening of public sentiment to the contrary probably had a lot to do with it.

What I am addressing by this entire line of talking about the matter is that public perception and sentiment is important, and it is highly subject to change. It can even reverse completely inside the time of a decade or even less. It is very frightening when you think about it that way and realize that the outcome of elections is often swayed by it and can even be entirely determined by it. The consequences of this cannot be overlooked, and our founders were very wary of it hence the design of the government to make it move slowly and (ideally) in limited and finite amounts.

[LittleRedToyota]

Immediately after 9/11 there was a degree of hostility to Middle Eastern ethnicities,

not among everyone. not by a long shot. many of us were able to keep a proper perspective throughout the entire event and aftermath.

moreover, the fact that some people temporarily lost perspective and have since regained it, isn't really applicable to whether the political climate regarding gun control will change in the next 7 years. the current view is not based on a lack of perspective, so there is no comparison.

THEN, AT THAT TIME, it probably would have been unthinkable to have a similar sounding name on a ballot and have people vote for it on a national scale.

i don't think that is true at all (i think that perception depends on where you were and with whom you associated most often). it certainly would not have been unthinkable. and i highly doubt all politicians with middle easter/muslim sounding names were defeated in the next election.

moreover, though, if it is true, that is nothing more than a pathetic reflection on america.

What I am addressing by this entire line of talking about the matter is that public perception and sentiment is important, and it is highly subject to change. It can even reverse completely inside the time of a decade or even less.

it can, but in this case is not likely to. the current political climate regarding gun control is based on rationality and understanding...and in fact, has actually survived a few emotional shocks (like VA Tech) quite well.

the political climate, to the extent it was as you have characterized it, after 9/11, on the other hand, was based on emotional reaction.

the political climate is much more susceptible to what you are worrying about when it is based on emotional reaction rather than on rational understanding. again, the climate has survived--and quite nicely actually--VA Tech and several other incidents which could have caused problems. if anything, these incidents have caused more people to want to own guns to defend themselves and, thus, have actually tipped the climate even more in our favor.

is what you are worried about possible? sure, but if VA Tech and other incidents so far have not done it, it is going to take a very serious event--and a very misguided reaction--for it to happen. possible, but highly unlikely, imho.

again, though, that doesn't mean let our guard down--just that we should be realistic in prioritizing our battles.

[ira82]

not among everyone. not by a long shot. many of us were able to keep a proper perspective throughout the entire event and aftermath.

Don't know what country you live in or what news stations you were watching but in our very own state alone as well as NJ and other across the country people were looting and targeting business etc of arab owners and employees. There were citizens all over the country screaming we need to go to war and get bin laden and the taliban etc. i think the people who kept a so called level head about this is probably 10 percent of the US population and how many of thos 10 percent were arabs?

[LittleRedToyota]

Don't know what country you live in or what news stations you were watching but in our very own state alone as well as NJ and other across the country people were looting and targeting business etc of arab owners and employees. There were citizens all over the country screaming we need to go to war and get bin laden and the taliban etc. i think the people who kept a so called level head about this is probably 10 percent of the US population and how many of thos 10 percent were arabs?

i disagree. obviously the news was not going to report on people who were not targeting arab/muslims ("this just in: john smith did not mistreat or denigrate any arabs today!!" ). watching the news does not give one a random sample of the american population and, thus, the actions/attitudes of the general US population cannot be extrapolated from what you see on TV.

what one observed among people they actually have contact with after 9/11 probably depends to a great extent on where one lives and with whom one associates.

at the time, for example, i was pretty heavily into the pittsburgh music scene and the national ultimate frisbee scene. among those populations the response was overwhelmingly not a reaction against arabs/muslims in general. many people in those subpopulations were pissed at the actual a-holes who did it, but did not make bigoted generalizations based on that. further, much frustration and embarrassment was expressed regarding americans who were responding like bigoted/racists a-holes.

america was united in our shock and outrage. but we did not all misdirect that outrage. many did, but many did not.

[nfafan]

Don't know what country you live in or what news stations you were watching but in our very own state alone as well as NJ and other across the country people were looting and targeting business etc of arab owners and employees. There were citizens all over the country screaming we need to go to war and get bin laden and the taliban etc. i think the people who kept a so called level head about this is probably 10 percent of the US population and how many of thos 10 percent were arabs?

Tend to agree, but... Can't say I personally seen an Arab backlash, but can certainly imagine there absolutely was - no doubt worse in the areas most affected, and in those areas with the most readily visible mid-east-looking people in the local population.

OTOH, there was the mass hoopla about revenge and war - even from the leftist Dems that now run for cover to deny they ever voted for Bush II to start a war. But that's a whole 'nother thread.

[eXceLon]

While there is no doubt that the UN is generally anti-gun, I've not yet seen any credible evidence that these sorts of treaties are about disarming US citizens. From what I've been able to tell these sorts of agreements are largely about international arms dealing, particularly supplying arms to war zones. Like when Russia sells some backwards African country a bunch of guns and bombs so that they can oppress their own people.

The absolute worst that could come out of this, and even this is absolute conjecture, would be if it would prevent foreign gun manufacturers from exporting their product to US consumers. Then we wouldn't be able to get our Austrian Glocks, Croatian XDs, and our Italian Berettas. I'm pretty sure that's not what these kinds of treaties are all about though.

[Elmar]

Yes, it is.

In the world of facts it is not, in the world of fiction it could be.

You seem to be more interested in the latter.

[das]

The UN And International Treaties THIS IS OFF NRA WEBSITE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[/U]
Wednesday, November 25, 2009


Over the last few weeks, we have received many inquiries regarding the UN and the impact of international treaties on our Second Amendment freedom.

The NRA has been engaged at the United Nations and elsewhere internationally in response to anti-small arms initiatives for over 14 years. In most cases, agendas for the elimination of private ownership of firearms are disguised as calls for international arms control to stem the flow of illicit military weapons. These instruments are generally promoted by a small group of nations and a large number of Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) working in conjunction with departmental bureaucracies in multi-national institutions such as the UN and European Union.

The new U.S. administration, to no one’s surprise, has changed direction in the UN with respect to international small arms control initiatives that were resisted by the previous administration.

The current issue under discussion, the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), is in the early stages of the negotiation process. There is no actual draft text at this time. Work on the ATT is scheduled to continue by a consensus process between now and 2012. It should be noted that any treaty must be approved by two thirds of the U.S. Senate for ratification.

Attempts to thwart our freedoms should be no surprise, given the anti-gun climate of the international community in general, and the current U.S. administration in particular.

More generally, the NRA does not concern itself with foreign policy or arms control initiatives—except to the extent they would directly or indirectly affect Second Amendment rights.

We have been actively opposing transnational efforts that would limit Second Amendment freedoms. For many years, NRA has been monitoring and actively fighting any credible attempts on the part of the UN to restrict our sovereignty and gun rights. As a recognized Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) at the United Nations since 1997, NRA gives gun owners a strong voice in the UN’s debate over global “gun control.” As one of over 2,000 NGOs representing everyone from religious groups to the banking industry, NRA has access to UN meetings that are closed to the general public, and is able to distribute informational materials to participants in UN activities.

Most importantly, NRA’s status as an NGO allows us to monitor more closely the internal UN debate over firearm issues and report back to our members. The role NRA plays within the UN as an NGO is almost identical to the role our registered lobbyists play every day on Capitol Hill and in state capitals across the nation—educating and informing decision-makers of the facts behind the debate, and working to protect the interests of American gun owners and NRA members.

Due to our NGO status, NRA was able to take an active role in thwarting the absurdly titled “UN 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” in 2006, and the previous meeting, the “UN Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons” in the summer of 2001.

The UN Small Arms Conference ended in deadlock with no formal conclusions or recommendations, due in large part to the NRA. In the final analysis, the complexity of the issue and the concerns of hunters, sport shooters and firearm owners world-wide prevailed. The failure of the program was total; no recommendations on ammunition, civilian possession or future UN meetings, or for that matter any other subjects, were adopted.

In addition to its UN activities, NRA is a founding member of the World Forum on the Future of Sport Shooting Activities (WFSA). The WFSA is an association of hunting, shooting, and industry organizations that was founded in 1996. The WFSA includes over 35 national and international organizations, and represents over 100 million sport shooters worldwide.

NRA members may rest assured that we are actively engaged in international matters. We have never hesitated, nor will we hesitate, to use the political and other resources available to us to resist any international agreement that could in any way affect our Second Amendment rights.
DIRECTLY OFF OF NRA WEBSITE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!


Copyright 2010, National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action.
This may be reproduced. It may not be reproduced for commercial purposes.
11250 Waples Mill Road, Fairfax, VA 22030 800-392-8683
Contact Us | Privacy & Security Policy

Links to Congress
The U.S. Senate
U.S. House of Representatives
Senate Schedule
House Schedule
Search THOMAS
Virginia: Bill to Restrict Gun Show Sales to be Heard Tomorrow!
Virginia: Restaurant Carry Measure Heading to the House Floor!
Pro-Gun Measures Move to New Mexico Senate Floor!
Anti-Gun Bill Could Be Voted on Any Day in Illinois!
Maine Legislature to Consider Bill Undermining Park Carry
MORE >>
Voter Information
Grassroots Activism
Another Way To Get Involved: Online Social Networking
Volunteers Needed For 2010 NRA Annual Meetings In Charlotte
Help Us Help You
The NRA Online Advisory Panel
Can't Spell "Freedom's Voice" Without Free!
MORE>>

[ehidle]

Nothing in your post is fact. It's mostly rampant speculation, doom, and gloom on the part of the author.