Welcome to Gaia! ::

Thursday, July 14, 2005

Pro-gun Senator David Vitter (R-LA) is getting ready to introduce a bill that would block the United Nations from implementing gun control measures affecting U.S. citizens.

Entitled the "UN Second Amendment Protection Act of 2005," the bill does still not have a number, as Sen. Vitter is trying to get original cosponsors to join him.

Gun owners across America are increasingly victorious in legislative and elective battles at the local, state and national levels. Nevertheless, anti-gun internationalists, long burrowed in the UN headquarters, are planning, with some success, massive international gun control measures.

This entire week, the UN is holding the second biennial meeting of States to consider the implementation of the Program of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects.

Though couched in the flowery rhetoric of protecting victims of violence, the goal of the conference is nothing short of global gun control. The rabid gun banners to our north would seem to agree. "From Canada's perspective.... serious attention should be given to the regulation of civilian possession of small arms," said Tim Martin, head of Canada's delegation to the conference.

Sen. Vitter has meticulously documented and highlighted for his senate colleagues some of the most egregious proposals, including:

* A comprehensive program for worldwide gun control and a total ban on certain types of firearms;

* The establishment of an international tracking certificate which would be used to ensure UN monitoring control over the export, import, transit, stocking, and storage of legal small arms and light weapons;

* Worldwide record keeping for an indefinite amount of time on the manufacture, holding and transfer of small arms and light weapons;

* National registries and tracking lists of all legal firearms.

"The U.N. has no business interfering with our Second Amendment rights guaranteed by our Founding Fathers," Sen. Vitter said.

Much of the UN's agenda was conceived in a 1995 proposal, and then adopted as a Program of Action in 2001. At that time, then-Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton led the U.S. opposition to the Program. The United States has neither signed nor ratified the Program.

Sen. Vitter's bill will prohibit any U.S. funding to the UN unless the President certifies that the world body "has not taken action to restrict, attempt to restrict or otherwise adversely infringe upon the rights of individuals in the United States to possess a firearm or ammunition."

www.gunowners.org

As the great Chuck Heston said: "From my cold, dead hands!" When you see the jackbooted UN thugs coming to take your firearms, shoot to kill.

hmm... yah, we might kick our own asses if we don't comply with UN policy....

In other news, President Bush threatened to engage a surgical bombing campaign agaisnt key parts of the American infrastructure should the rouge nation not agree to disarm peacefully. President Bush, who responded from a secured location, stated that the US will not be swayed by the threat of violence, and that it was fully prepared to engage in retaliatory strikes, with nuclear ordinance should it be required.

As far as I'm concerned the U.N. should never be a law making body in the first place. I understand the that the world's nations need some sort of forum where they can discuss eatch other's dissagreements and form treaties, but when said forum starts acting like it wants to become a government it scares me. Especially when the U.N. is made up largely of our adversaries and nations that do not have democraticly elected leaders. I hear that the U.N. is also eyeing some sort of control or regulation of the internet where of course the U.N. would make the policies for the ruglation of the internet.

Scares me . . . ninja