Alphecca

Long time reader, first post . . .

The IANSA/UN crowd is very blatant about getting a treaty concerning national firearms laws.

IANSA's July 5th conference newsletter says as much while complaining about issues that were deleted from the conference:

http://www.iansa.org/un/review2006/documents/RevConNewsWednesday5july.pdf

Quote follows:
"Strengthening national firearms
legislation – nothing to do with
implementing the PoA?

The deletion of II.2 and II.4
significantly weakens the document, by
removing almost all reference to national
laws. The pressure to remove these
paragraphs comes no doubt from the
narrow domestic concerns of two States
who are out of step with international
standards related to national small arms
control regimes. This should not obstruct
progress on a topic of vital interest to the
majority of UN Member States."

Can we say "Security council member veto"?

Ultimately, the UN is powerless to enforce anything. Who is elected to office in the US is far more important than anything that body does.

But if they did try to implement such a ban there would indeed be a civil war...and I know which side I'd be on.

"But if they did try to implement such a ban there would indeed be a civil war...and I know which side I'd be on."

You mean the side of "the lunatic fringe of the US right"? LOL

OK, I'm for doing something about illicit, illegal weapons trade.

Except, why are all non-government-owned weapons (to become) illegal? Why, for the umpteenth time, are legitimate (at least in my eyes) owners the target, while those who own weapons to intimdate, "look good", or use against other people get a free pass through a revolving-door criminal system around the world? And since when are governments so much better than the people who live under them? Arm the SS and janja (? Somalia, Darfur?) while arresting the gypsies and darkies!

I am reminded of a story out of Australia about eighteen months ago. Security firms can be licensed for firearms. One firm stored its not-in-use guns in a safe at an airport. Armed thieves captured the employees, the safe was opened, and some twenty firearms were taken. How did this happen? Well, the guards, protecting the weapons, working for a company authorized to have, issue, and use guns - were not allowed by the law to be armed themselves!

The US Congress would NEVER ratify anything even close to this.

"The US Congress would NEVER ratify anything even close to this."

Depends on the Congress; look what happened to this one:

"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."

"illicit, illegal weapons trade" is an oxymoron.

Bearing arms is basic human right. Calling them illicit or illegal is like complaining about unlicensed political speach, newspapers, or fax machines.

The fact is that apart from budgetary matters, General Assembly resolutions are non-binding on any member nation.

All tyranny is locally enforced regardless of whether it is national or super national. Run for city council in your city and make sure only pro-Second Amendment people staff your city PD and City Managment. I have successfully done this in my city.

Though tyranny is locally enforced, freedom is locally defended. I also agree with Kristopher's comment: the term "illegal arms" is a lie and a fraud of Orwellian proportions. It is small arms control arms control that is "illegal" according to the Laws of Nature and the Laws of Nature's God. Gun confiscators operate outside of the highest laws governing human conduct thus place themselves outside the protection of those higher laws. This is why such people can be lawfully resisted with deadly force and those resisting them can do so with a clear conscience.