The UN "doesn't want to take away our guns"

[jednp]

Read this story just posted on yahoo. http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060621/ts_nm/arms_un_dc

If you've watched Rebecca Peters debate Wayne LaPierre on this issue, you will clearly see where her oganization IANSA stands on the issue of the U.S. owning guns. She is one of the biggest pushers on this issue to the UN so for them to say that the NRA is just making this up, when she's on the record saying we only need single shot guns that can't fire over 100 yards then the people at the UN are lying out their butts! She claims we are part of the world, and we need to abide by the rules of the world... while currently there are no rules, but that is her hope to establish some through these meetings at the UN, and that is when we will need to follow them.

Edited to add: Ms Peters is on the record as saying all guns start out legal, and end up in hands of people illegally. So that's her basis for needing all guns out of civilians hands. So I for one, after watching the debate video... believe the intention of the UN and IANSA is to strip us of our guns eventually. I don't believe this is something made up by the NRA, not when she's on the record saying this stuff.

[SLCDave]

It's a good thing Rebecca didn't disarm the founders of our nation. After all, they were criminals performing illegal acts. She needs to shut her piehole.

[beardman2]

there is a poll over at cnn about this

[[TASF]Overkill]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/06/21/un.us.small.arms.ap/

Down in the article somewhere...

[BeardXXXd]

cold dead hands

[KeithM]

Is Rebecca Peters part of the UN? Sounds like the UN's goal and her group's goal are different. Plus the whole July 4th aspect of this is just a way to rouse the populace in to irrational anger over something the UN can't do anyways. The UN couldn't outlaw weapons. They might attempt to control the sale of weapons between countries, but there's nothing they can do within the individual member countries on an issue like this. Plus even if they put some new rule in place, it's up to the member countries to agree to it and enforce that rule, and the US never would.

[jednp]

Originally Posted by KeithM

Is Rebecca Peters part of the UN? Sounds like the UN's goal and her group's goal are different. Plus the whole July 4th aspect of this is just a way to rouse the populace in to irrational anger over something the UN can't do anyways. The UN couldn't outlaw weapons. They might attempt to control the sale of weapons between countries, but there's nothing they can do within the individual member countries on an issue like this. Plus even if they put some new rule in place, it's up to the member countries to agree to it and enforce that rule, and the US never would.

Rebecca Peters is the head of an organization called IANSA. I don't believe she is part of the UN. However, she has quite a few nations and organizations supporting her cause and she seems to have quite a voice in the UN.

Her goal is to basically shut down all weapons manufacturing, sales, and ultimately ownership. Because all illegal guns start out as legal. So, if you get rid of legal guns, there's no chance for them to become illegal. At least in her eyes.

And to your claim that it's up to the member countries to agree and enforce the rule, that's partially true I suppose. Most countries would go along with it because they want to be good in the eyes of the world. The US wouldn't go along with it absolutely... but as I've read, consider the possibility of getting a president in office that is very anti-gun. There's some provision in the laws that allows him to enter into agreements like that, even if the majority of senate and congress oppose it. I guess that's what Clinton did to enter into NAFTA which wasn't supported by the majority of house and senate. I don't think the US will go along with this at all, not anytime soon. But I can see the potential for it to happen in the future. I just read in a magazine a quote from someone named Cathy Sorbo, of the Seattle Post Intelligencer commentary and it said this "Sorry, but it's been 215 years and it's time to infringe". That was her talking about gun control and the second ammendment.

It seems more and more each year we get nuts like that getting their views out in public, giving false hope to people that guns are the problem, and not the people. More and more people believe that anymore it seems. It just worries me that someone is trying to force the UN to make us give up guns. I worry a lot with this Rebecca Peters because she's already pretty much wiped out guns in Australia, England, and tightened gun control in places like South Africa... well at least she thinks she has.. that place is so full of guns and criminals it's not even funny. but the thing is, she succeeded in getting something passed with strong gun control. And she has people with a lot of money backing her. People who try to influence our elections to get anti-gun people into office.

[jednp]

The United States, including U.S. Ambassador John Bolton, will participate in this year's conference. A fact sheet on the U.S. State Department Web site says the United States supports efforts to stem the illegal flow of small arms

taken off of the CNN story.

This couldn't be more true. the only difference in what the U.S. supports in stemming the illegal flow of small arms, is we only want to stop the illegal guns. Unlike the people working with the UN to get this passed, who really want to get rid of almost all guns because those legal guns end up being the illegal guns they are talking about eventually. Don't believe for a second that the U.N. and IANSA and other countries aren't wanting the world to give up guns. I wouldn't think it were true, had I not watched it come from the mouth of the person who is the biggest pusher behind this action.