Oh Nos a summit
Over at The Gun Blogs, XD45 writes:
The first step to taking your legally owned guns passed in the U.N. yesterday (Oct 26th). This is truly disturbing as you can imagine; not only was the U.S. the only nation that voted no, but that this is a solid foundation for the anti-gun lobby to go forward with their agenda.
From the article:
United Nations member states voted Thursday to create an international treaty to curb the illicit trade in guns and other light weapons, despite strong opposition from the United States and other big powers.
On Thursday, a vast majority of delegates to the U.N. General Assembly’s first committee endorsed the resolution calling for the establishment of a treaty to stop weapons transfers that fuel conflict, poverty and serious human rights violations.
As many as 139 countries voted in favour of the resolution while 24 abstained. The United States, the world’s largest supplier of small arms, was the only country that opposed the resolution.
Other major arms-manufacturing nations that oppose the treaty but did not participate in the voting include Russia, China, India and Pakistan.
Err, so the US was not the only country that opposed the resolution. More:
“No weapons should ever be transferred if they will be used for serious violations of human rights,” they said in a letter to the delegates who are currently attending the General Assembly session.
Supporters of the resolution said they hoped that it would help close loopholes in laws that allow the flow of small arms to conflict zones across the world, and thus give rise to violations of human rights and undermine development.
October 31st, 2006 at 9:06 am
Err, so the US was not the only country that opposed the resolution.
No one said that. What they said is that the US was the only nation that VOTED NO. This is a fact. There are other nations that opposed the measure, but they didn’t vote no, they abstained. This is not a good sign, it says to me that they oppose the measure because it will adversely affect their arms manufacturing industries but that they agree in principle with restricting the transfer of arms. That’s my take anyway. The US was the only nation that voted No and, thereby made a clear statement opposing the restriction of trade in small arms to law abiding citizens.
“No weapons should ever be transferred if they will be used for serious violations of human rights,”
Sounds great, the only problem is that the UN “Special Rapporteur” assigned to evaluate the issue recently declared that self-defence is NOT a “human right” and that the exercise of self defence by individuals violates the “human rights” of the person (or “state actor”) they defend against. Therefore, the trade of small arms for the purposes of self defence (or opposition to tyrannical government) may easily be defined as “weapons…[that] will be used for serious violations of human rights”
It is no secret that the ultimate goal is to disarm civilians completely and utterly. The better to ensure the longevity of “state actors” like Robert Mugabe, Jim Jong Il and Kofi Anon.
Another reason to make sure the Dems don’t take control of our government. How long do you think President Hillary, Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid would take to sign and ratify a treaty restricting gun rights?
October 31st, 2006 at 9:17 am
I know but the article said The United States, the world’s largest supplier of small arms, was the only country that opposed the resolution. Then said Other major arms-manufacturing nations that oppose the treaty but did not participate in the voting include Russia, China, India and Pakistan.
November 1st, 2006 at 11:26 pm
“No weapons should ever be transferred if they will be used for serious violations of human rights,”
Does this prevent Glock from selling to the ATF?