The first act of any tyranical regime is to disarm the populace. One of the things which sets the United States apart from most of the rest of the world - more even than the other provisions of our Constitution - is that our Republic has built into it a tolerance of and endorsement of the right of our citizens to be armed. That right has been qualified and whittled down a bit more than I'm comfortable with over the years, but in principle it still survives.
Yet right here, on our own soil during the week we celebrate our independence, the United Nations is exercising supreme irony by gathering together representatives of the world's many petty tyrranies to discuss the methods by which civilian populations can be disarmed on a world-wide basis, with their chief target the negation of the 2nd Amendment. The U.N. Conference to Review Progress Made in the Implementation of the Programme of Action to Prevent and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects is going on right now in New York - a city which shows the success of incrementalism in eroding our rights by maintaining its own unconstitutional ban on firearms.
The chairman of the conference, Sri Lanka's Prasad Kariyawasam, maintains that the 2001 agreement on small arms and the discussion of the conference will focus on controlling the trade in illegal weapons, not on taking guns from private citizens, yet the wording of the original agreement which can be found in the UN Firearms Protocol does have some troubling elements. It is not a call for the outright ban of guns in the hands of private citizens, but it does clearly imply tight state controls on firearm ownership, including tracking of all guns in private hands and encouraging states to restrict private gun ownership as much as possible, saying:
Tighter controls over the possession of and access to small arms and light weapons by both authorized government bodies (police, armed forces) and by civilians would also help stem the illicit flow of arms.
For the UN the dividing line between privately held arms and illicit arms is a very fine one, merely the matter of the whim of a dictator or a future UN mandate. This may not be an outright gun ban as some have claimed, but it's a big step in that direction. And the real threat may come from the proposed legislation in Congress to implement the restrictions which the UN has mandated, legislation which includes rigid licensing restrictions for gun sales and severe penalties for the smallest infractions.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Diz
Amazing that there are people out there naive enough to believe banning firearms would better society...they'll only learn when someone busts into their house with a gun obtained illegaly out of the back of a van and they have to fight them off with a baseball bat. You can't wipe firearms off the face of the earth any more than you can wipe drugs off the face of the earth...too many people want them for various reasons.
Then again I'm not the type to believe just anyone should be allowed to walk into a store and buy a .357 or an AK with their drug money and do what they want with it. At least make the bastards work a little to find their death weapons.
Why can't there just be reasonable compromise based on common sense? The bottom line is that the hardcore conservatives and liberals are way too anal about the topic and its another one of those "i refuse to go against what mommy and daddy brainwashed me into thinking" issues.
As for the main issue presented in the article, well, the UN can just fuck itself. I think thats already agreed upon by most.
2 - Dave Nalle
On that last sentiment I think you're right on target. More and more of the mainstream population has had it up to their limit with the internationalists and the UN.
Dave
3 - Victor Plenty
Got some questions for you, Mr. Nalle.
1) On what basis can New York's gun regulation be considered unconstitutional? Have there been new court decisions applying the 2nd amendment to state and local governments? Last time I checked, most legal scholars said the 2nd amendment is solely a limit on the federal government.
2) You mention UN statements which "singled out the US as a major offender in the proliferation of small arms largely because of our domestic market for firearms and our lack of repressive regulation of gun ownership." Can you provide references to these UN statements so we can read them for ourselves?
3) If you really believe a strong supply of firearms is essential to American freedom, shouldn't we support any measure that will help stop the illegal international trade in small arms? Keep our precious and limited supply of American guns here in America, defending American liberties. Don't let them slip across our borders to less enlightened lands, where they might fall into the hands of warlords and dictators.
4 - gonzo marx
ummmm...just for Informational purposes...
the Second Amendment sez...
* 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. *
now, i'm of the Mind that good gun control means using both hands...but then again, i can see now problem with proper licensing, just like we do with our cars...under the Principle of a "well regulated Militia"
as for the silliness of the UN on this one...from all accounts it is to stem the flow of illegal small arms in small countries that is the Issue
and it's probably a good thing to stopp the trade in illegal arms for places like Mogadishu ...or Iraq...or Afghanistan
just a Thought
Excelsior?
5 - Victor Plenty
Mr. Marx, I'm well aware of what the Second Amendment says. If you study the history of American constitutional law, you find out these amendments started out as restrictions on the powers of the federal government, and only the federal government.
For many decades, state governments were free to pass laws establishing religions if they so chose. They were also free to organize militias with the right to bear arms, while denying that right to others (such as slaves, for example). The federal government was denied these powers so the states could retain them.
It was only later on that some of amendments in the Bill of Rights were held to be restrictions on the power of state governments. Various court decisions have held the First Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, and others as being applicable to state governments, because of the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment.
As far as I'm aware, there has never been a specific Supreme Court decision which explicitly applies the Second Amendment to state governments. Many of us might like to assume it is applicable, but that does not mean the courts would agree with us. If you can find such a case, I'd be happy to know about it.
6 - gonzo marx
well, there was the one with sawed off shotguns , they were ruled unprotected since they had no "militia" use
but that wasn't my point
all i was trying to point out was the "well regulated militia" part of the Amendment, which is rarely mentioned in these discussions
that's all...really
Excelsior?
7 - JustOneMan
Praise the lord and pass the ammunition!
8 - Dave Nalle
1) On what basis can New York's gun regulation be considered unconstitutional? Have there been new court decisions applying the 2nd amendment to state and local governments? Last time I checked, most legal scholars said the 2nd amendment is solely a limit on the federal government.
Well, those legal scholars don't include San Francisco County Superior Court Judge James Warren who struck down a similar ban in San Francisco was unconstitutional last month. But that's not a fair comparison because he ruled under California law. For federal law we have the opinion from the Justice Department that the 2nd Amendment applies specifically to individuals and not states. The same position was taken by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in the case United States vs. Emerson in 1991. Does that help?
2) You mention UN statements which "singled out the US as a major offender in the proliferation of small arms largely because of our domestic market for firearms and our lack of repressive regulation of gun ownership." Can you provide references to these UN statements so we can read them for ourselves?
There's a reference in the original article to UN documents which express this opinion. One of the relevant quotes from the Firearms Programme is:
In addition IANSA which is one of the main participants in this conference has written:
That's available on the main page of their website as I recall.
3) If you really believe a strong supply of firearms is essential to American freedom, shouldn't we support any measure that will help stop the illegal international trade in small arms? Keep our precious and limited supply of American guns here in America, defending American liberties. Don't let them slip across our borders to less enlightened lands, where they might fall into the hands of warlords and dictators.
I believe I made very clear in the article that there is a difference between the ostensible purpose of this conference in controlling the arms trade and the secondary purpose of restricting gun rights within the US. As for restricting the arms trade that's not an unreasonable goal, though I do wonder why people in other countries shouldn't have the right to defend themselves as well - they probably need guns even more than we do.
Dave
9 - Clavos
It's not a coincidence that totalitarian states always have extremely strict gun control laws.
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.
Only lawyers could look at that clear, succinct sentence and come up with an interpretation that says it only applies to the Federal government. Parse it down, and all it says is the right of the people shall not be infringed. Period.
10 - Dave Nalle
And might I add this quote from the New York State Civil Rights Statute:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed"
Sure sounds like the city ban is in violation of that state law too.
Dave
11 - Dave Nalle
Yep, Clavos. Not one ambiguous word in there. In fact, if you read the state constitutions from the time - including the original New York State constitution which I read recently - there's much more detailed wording when goes on at some length to specify that it means exactly that - private gun ownership and nothing but. Peopel having their guns ready to hand, of course being essential to rapid deployment of a militia.
Dave
12 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Dave,
I often find your optimism with respect to the American economy to be the stuff of cotton candy, but this article has hit the nose. The part that has me mystified is how the "UN" - a bunch of incompetents if there ever was one - is supposed to lord it over the United States.
An American friend of mine, looking at all this from a slightly different perpective, has been issuing warnings for quite some time about the dangers of the UN, and his warnings are far more dire than yours.
13 - JR
Where did that "How Communism Works" pamphlet come from? Judging by the price it must be pretty old. I'm wondering if it was the inspiration for that Jefferson Starship album. They'd do something like that.
14 - Dave Nalle
Ruvy, all it takes is for the UN to have willing accomplices withi9n the US, and we have plenty of internationalists to open the door for them. On the right there are global corporatists who think the UN will smooth their way into new markets and on the left there are international socialists who see the UN as the easiest way to force their agenda on the US despite our laws and government. Enough of these people are in positions of power that if we don't fight the UN every day the result could be disastrous.
And JR, I can't remember where the pamphlet came from - I found it last year. But it's at least as old as the early 60s. I did modify the octopus head to get rid of the hammer and sickle and put in the UN symbol.
Dave
15 - Gina Weiss
It boggles my mind that some treasonous entity involved us in the U.N. to begin with.
WHO or WHAT began the thought to put our country's policies in the hands of International policymakers???
16 - Deano
I find it quite ridiculous that all of the people screaming about how useless, corrupt and ineffectual the UN is, suddenly become all "omigawd THE UN's coming fer us!" when they read the hot-button bullshit the NRA is foisting regarding the small arms conference.
Try to keep it at least somewhat in perspective. The NRA (and others) are hyping this issue for their own domestic purposes and frankly nothing the UN determines in any case has any binding impact on US domestic law unless the federal government decides to go along with it and implement it - which they can't and won't, not only because of the Constitutional fight but because it would be politically untenable.
Yeesh. Tuck the paranoia back in your pants for God's sake...you're about six inches from yammering about black helicopters and Templer conspiracies.
17 - Dave Nalle
Deano, I tried very hard in the article to put the NRA version of this story in perspective. If I was not clear, I agree with you that the NRA is blowing this out of proportion for their own purposes. But at the same time they are not wrong about it, they're just exaggerating the immediacy and certainty of the threat. There's no question the UN and those involved in this conference would like to disarm the US populace for whatever reason - more because they just hate guns and want to kill the US gun industry than anything else. Whether they can pull it off is much more debatable, and whether the intent of this treaty is to do anything more than take a first step while mainly addressing other issues is also open to question.
What is, however, very clear is that the UN and their backers in this fight see US gun manufacturers as THE #1 culprit in the spread of arms, and they'll use any means to go after them, including disarming the American public to hit them in the pocketbook.
dave
18 - Deano
Dave,
SIPRI estimates world military spending at roughly $1001 billion in 2005 with the US responsible for approximately 50% of that spending.
I don't have access to how much of that breaks down to Small Arms but my understanding is the domestic sales of Small arms in the US are estimated at roughly 8-million registered applicants purchasing guns (2004 DOJ figures). If you assume a price point per purchase of between $500 and $1000 (probably high, given how cheap handguns are), you get a domestic small arms sales of between $4 and $8-billion annually. Don't take this wrong, but bluntly the US domestic gun purchases are nothing but small beer...on a relative basis, you aren't that economically significant.
Given that the US is at the top of the list of countries in providing transperancy in its arms shipments, while other areas such as Moldova, Transdniester and Israel are at the bottom of the transparancy list (utterly black actually), I don't think the US is particularly top of the list for "disarming its citizenry", even supposing the UN could ever develop the cojones and the wherewithall to actually do it. They can't effectively disarm East Timor or Afghanistan, what hope do they have in Texas?
It should be noted you are correct in that the one's that do face possible problems are the US gun companies (who, coincidently also pad the NRA's pockets nicely) as they are facing a tightening level of scrutiny for their direct (company to foreign party) sales at a time when global competition for small arms business is burgeoning rapidly and new controls are pushing some purchasers to alternate sources of supply, mostly illicit.
The aim of the conference is to reduce and control the amount of illicit small arms trade which is currently at record levels with factories in Central Asia, and other locations pouring out weaponry at an increasing rate as they have no other primary industry or source of hard currancy. It is, quite literally, like a dirve-thru in some location with no documentation or legal limitations on who sells and who buys.
The increased scrutiny is likely to impact only the "under-the-table" type of sales not US sales to reputable foreign governments. Due to the high levels in transparency in US sales, it seems unlikely to have a major deterimental impact on US manufacturers.
If you actually honestly interested in developing improved global security, stability and safety for the US and a reduction in terrorism, war and problem states (like Somolia, Sudan, Afghanistan, etc.) and the dangers of non-state actors, then developing international recognized controls around the illicit proliferation of small arms is a must. If it means that some of the US arms companies have to pay a little more attention to who they sell to - well, tough shit, it ain't all about what's good for them.
Throwing the baby out with the bathwater due to paranoia and fantesies about UN conspiracies is just plain dumb, there is a huge global security implication here.
19 - Dave Nalle
Deano, all that you say may be true, but you also overlook the immediate implications for US gun owners. The legislation in congress which goes along with this UN programme includes measures to make it impossible for private citizens to sell guns at gun shows or through person to person sales without a hard to obtain and expensive license. That's the kind of thing the NRA and many of the res to fus are worried about.
Yes, the programme may be aimed at countries which heavily export arms to questionable customers, but the unintended consequences which serve the interests of those who want to take away gun rights in the US are still very, very real.
Dave
20 - Deano
I'd be interested in hearing some real specifics about how the UN efforts are tied into US legislation because I read your Rockwell article and it sounds like the usual rhetorical overreach and it takes a bit of epic linking to tie the two together...not to mention the fact that the article dated back to 2001.
It would be nice if the US could try not to gut collective international efforts which, weak and limited as they are, are genuinely aimed at enhancing collective global security. I recognize that gun owners in the US are psychotically paranoid about their right to bear arms but trying to reduce the number of small arms littering the world's hotspots shouldn't be held hostage to the NRA's vague and unsubstantiated claim of linkage to your right to tote your guns. Strange as it might sound, it's ain't always about you.
21 - Gina Weiss
I find it quite ridiculous that all of the people screaming about how useless, corrupt and ineffectual the UN is, suddenly become all "omigawd THE UN's coming fer us!" when they read the hot-button bullshit the NRA is foisting regarding the small arms conference.
Nothing sudden about my feelings for the UN...US should have never become a part of it in the first place. And it's not paranoia. Ever heard of the New World Order or is that a psychotic episode to you also? Frankly, pretending the evil doesn't exist is the worst kind of denial.... It's not us who is fantasizing.
"The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
Dave's got it right-on here, IMO.
22 - Clavos
I recognize that gun owners in the US are psychotically paranoid about their right to bear arms
Deano, the right to bear arms is, as you know, part of the Bill of Rights. Obviously, this particular right is not important to you, but let's say, hypothetically, for a moment that someone tries to take away a right you DO care about--the right of free speech for example. If you protested such an attempt, would that make you "psychotically paranoid?"
23 - Joey
I don't even want to respond to this...
I can't believe the UN, at our invitation is discussing ways to un-arm citizenry.
Cuba is.
Sudan is.
Zimbabwie is.
All totalitarian regimes, who want the legal madate (sanctioned by the holy of holies... the UN), so they can step up subjugation of their populace. Those governments don't care about protecting anything but their sorry butts, when come to haul you ass off to a concentration camp someplace.
The Nazi's did it.
Lenin did it.
Mao did it...
What is it about human nature... you just don't understand?
Machiavelli (sp) said it best. I paraphrase here but will put it into quotes for the sake of making the statement associate... "An unarmed person (state, country), unable to defend itself, is despised." In other words.. if you can't defend yourself... or don't have the weaponry to do so... you will be dealt with... with impunity.
PERIOD.
24 - Deano
I'll knock these down one at a time:
Gina - do you know honestly anything about the UN, its genesis and evolution or are you just gathering your knowledge strictly from cable news talk shows?
The UN was not imposed on the US, it was developed by the allies and the US after WWII, an offshoot of the earlier League of Nations, which was partially inspired by the US and Woodrow Wilson. Second key point - for nigh on 40 years the UN was a key element in helping limit Soviet and Communist political manuvering during the Cold War (I trust you've heard of it?). Did it always do what the US wanted - No, but on serious, critical issues, it generally toed the US line through the 50's and 60's, with a few minor exceptions.
The primary purpose of the UN through that period of time was to provide an international structure and forum to prevent WWIII - an event that given the advent of the nuclear age would have been devestating no matter who won. The UN was a tool for helping contain major conflict, it was never designed to create a perfect world or even a semblance of a world government, which is why the Security Council and the veto system was involved - no one wanted to give the UN real authority over their sovereignty - and no one did. So when you scream about the impotence of the UN when dealing with international crises try to remember it was never designed nor desired to be potent or hold real international power - that is reserved for states.
The current problems with the UN (and there are MANY) stem mainly from the advent of a large number of developing nations and the nascent post-colonial political movement within the General Assembly (of which there are many factions - The Pan-Arab, the Group of 77,etc.). The result is that a significant portion of UN members milk the UN for political gain (both domestic and international, aid funding and as a political forum to make their voices heard in the international arena. I mean would anybody listen to Togo on any given day of the week except at the UN? Hell, no! The result is that the General Assembly, the development programs, the Human Rights committees and the bureaucracy are filled with inexperienced, politically motivated and often corrupt persons appointed by their governments and assisted by personal connections - making the UN possibly one of the most blatently bureaucratic and corrupt international organizations (after the IOC that is).
Does the UN have a master plot to take over the world - shit, get serious and read up on this stuff before you sound off on it, I mean at least the get basics for god's sake...
The UN has no real power - it receives almost all its funding from the developed members states (with the US (perpetually in arrears) paying the majority of the freight - it has no standing military and has to beg and borrow the basic necessities from its members. During the Rwanda crisis the head of the UN peacekeeping force (a few hundred men) Canadian General Romeo Dallaire, at the height of the genocide, was not able to get anyone at the UN to answer his frantic phone calls after 5 pm as everyone would go home at the end of the workday- and you're worried about a UN-imposed New World Order? How in the bloody hell do you expect them to impose it? March down 5th avenue and block traffic?
Evil my ass! The UN isn't evil, it's incompetent, bureaucratic, densely political and in the grip of antiquated anti-colonial post-coldwar angst, but its not evil. It's not compenent or focused enough to be evil.
So why keep it? Well, if you crack open a book on international law you will quickly discover that international law is soft, grey, mallable and weak as putty, with little or no enforcement beyond goodwill, reputation and socially acceptable practices. The UN provides a forum for discussion, a place where a wide range of vital issues can raised and addressed and (gasp) sometimes useful things can emerge...things like the World Health Organization. Having a UN, however weak, provides a check and a balance on international affairs, a mechanism for political actions and a medium to build political support for international action. It is a multilateral arena that permits nations to resort to something other then force of arms when solving problems.
Does it work - hell no, not well, as pointed out previously it was never designed to actually work. Nation-states do not want to give up their sovereign rights which is why a huge portion of the bloody-minded members refused to support a much justified UN sanctioned actions against Saddam - because they don't want a precendent set that would potentially get their heads on the chopping block next!
So yes - reform the UN, quit the UN if you want, but don't spout off that gibberish about a New World Order like it is anything more serious then some glib phrase that has been appropriated to justify isolationism and self-interest. You might recall the President who coined the phrase in the first place? - George Bush I.
25 - Deano
Clavos - I am admittedly using a bit of hyperbole when I said "psychotically paranoid " so please pardon my verbal excesses.
I'm not posting on whether the right to bear arms should exist or not, or the extent of it. As I noted that is entirely a domestic issue and a separate argument, what I am finding annoying is the insistant and deliberate linking of the UN small arms conference which is aimed at checking the international illicit burgeoning small arms trade.
It is not targeted at preventing gang-bangers in Detroit getting the latest Glock to pop off with but rather on major illegal shipments of weaponry that somehow conveniently manages to find its way into the hands of people such as, oh say, the Taliban in Afghanistan, child soldiers in Darfur, rebels in Sierra Leone, FARQ in Colombia, Shining Path in Peru etc.
Small arms might sound minor compared to WMD but due to proliferation, particularly due to the freeing up of large numbers of arms stockpiled during the Cold War, it is now the staple of almost every conflict around the globe. If you want to develop and improve global security, reduce terrorism and stablize the "failed states" that terrorists operate within with impunity, you need to start locking down the illict small arms trade or the people on the receiving end of those bullets are very likely to be US soldiers in some god-for-saken hellhole trying to do an impossible task of creating stability in the midst of a sea of weapons.