See New York, Ban Some Guns...

The likely agenda for the international host of delegates for the convention being held at the UN over the past few days (due to end on July 4th, no less) has been innocently stated by Annan and others to be an attempt to stave the illicit trade of firearms in the world. What they've made obvious in their agenda and the NGO gun disarmament groups they've invited to participate is their desire to strike at nations, mostly the U.S. that still allow their citizens relatively free access to firearms.

Ron Paul (R-TX) discusses how this commission has hopes that this will lead to an international gun ban treaty in his latest editorial, and what those who support gun rights will face in the future.

Fortunately, U.S. gun owners have responded with an avalanche of letters to the American delegation to the conference, asking that none of our tax dollars be used to further UN anti-gun proposals. But we cannot discount the growing power of international law, whether through the UN, the World Trade Organization, or the NAFTA and CAFTA treaties. Gun rights advocates must understand that the forces behind globalism are hostile toward our Constitution and national sovereignty in general. Our 2nd Amendment means nothing to UN officials.

Townhall.com has been running a series on the daily activities at the conference, courtesy of Cam Edwards (Don't try to access it til after the 4th as the site is being redesigned).

Well, this one can be summed up pretty easily. Any convention that praises Red China's ability to curb private ownership of firearms pretty much screams out totalitarian fascist slag. While they were at it, I hope they included in the minutes the body count Mao and his successors rung up on that unarmed citizenry. I'm sure there will also be little or no mention of the approximately 100 million people killed by their own governments (China being #1) and the fact that, by and large, they didn't have the priviledge their governments had of being armed and capable of defending themselves.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. You run with the Devil, the Devil don't change. You do. No, of course I realize that isn't original, but I like saying it all the same. A group that tolerates petty dictatorships, communist totalitarian states and warlords and which puts them on equal footing with its democracies is not going to make those other less savory governments act like democracies. It will, however, slowly start to tarnish the standing of the more free governments and cause a general shift towards the less free. This is just the way of things, and we have the benefit of sixty years of history to prove my point.

The NGO's (non-governmental organizations at the conference) that cling like lampreys to a shark (like the imagery?) in an attempt to do what the Democrats failed for over a decade to do hope to add enough language to any agreement and put pressure on enough Senators to try and get it ratified some day in the U.S. (holding out hope of course for a willing Democrat President like Clinton of course). Of course, that doesn't mean they are inactive on the home front. Just because they've not been able to act legislatively, they have still been working their way through the courts to restrict gun rights.

One of their latest crowing points is the Massachusetts ruling that homeowners who fail to lockup guns can be held liable for their improper use if they are stolen. The amusing side note to that is, the gun in that case was locked up, but not "adequately enough" to keep it from being stolen, so it's based on if the judge thinks you did enough to keep criminals from your gun. Don't you just love subjective rulings?

But I digress. This conference will do as ones in the past have done. Groups with close ties to the likes of International ANSWER and the World Worker's Party, which hijacked the old disarmament organizations and apparatus of the Cold War some years ago to use for their gun control agenda, realize that their influence is dependent on whether or not they can deliver restrictions on individual freedoms, one of the largest of which is the right to defend yourself. Their support from some of these self-same totalitarian governments and Marxist organizations comes from a desire to use subversion and the West's own "utopian" idea of a world governing body to solve all our ills.

While we have little to fear from the UN telling us to do anything, we must be mindful and vigilant of the framework and agreements they do develop and their possible implications with more pliable and willing future U.S. administrations. Much like with the government power extensions with things like the Patriot Act, it doesn't hurt to realize that although the current administration may try and show restraint, others will be far less trusting of we the people and far more eager to enact their own view of how we should be safe and secure. History tells us that's one thing we can depend on.

So, fear not when a UN bureaucrat suggests there should be stronger steps taken to police nations that allow too much "liberty" in gun rights and ownership, but keep a wary eye, and watch who amongst our government (in Congress and elsewhere) nods approvingly. Those are the people you'll be wanting to question more thoroughly come the next few election cycles.

And memo to New York, I thought Giuliani cleaned out all the thugs and crooks from the city. Bloomberg must be slipping.