Today on Blogcritics
Home » The UN and Supreme Irony on Independence Day

The UN and Supreme Irony on Independence Day

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

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.

Make no mistake that the intention of the UN and its supporters is the ultimate elimination of private gun ownership. Anti-gun radicals from all over the world have been invited to attend the conference in the expectation that their voices will be heard while those of the American public will be ignored. No one will appear to represent the interests of private gun owners. The 60 nations officially represented at the conference include a rogue's gallery of tyrranical and terrorist nations, among them Iran, China, Nigeria and Indonesia.

The National Rifle Association has made a major issue of this conference, probably out of proportion to the real threat which it poses. Their efforts have been remarkably successful, with over 100,000 letters sent from their website to UN and US government officials decrying the conference and its efforts. Adding another letter to that pile probably wouldn't do any harm.

The UN has, in past statements, 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. The timing of this conference to coincide with our major patriotic holiday is certainly no coincidence. The UN is sending a message to gun manufacturers and gun owners that they stand hand in hand with groups like HGCI, IANSA, and the Brady Campaign to work step by step to disarm American citizens and put them at the mercy of tyrants at home and abroad.

There will come a point where Americans in government and individually are going to have to decide whether they are willing to stand up for the protections of our Constitution against the dictates of the UN. This conference is one more step towards that moment of conflict.

Powered by

About Dave Nalle

  • 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.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com 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

  • http://victorplenty.blogspot.com 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.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer.php?name=gonzo%20marx 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?

  • http://victorplenty.blogspot.com 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.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer.php?name=gonzo%20marx 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?

  • JustOneMan

    Praise the lord and pass the ammunition!

  • http://www.elitistpig.com 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:

    “To ensure that all confiscated, seized or collected small arms and light weapons are destroyed expeditiously … To encourage States [countries], in the interests of awareness raising and confidence building, to carry out public destruction events. To develop a reference manual on ecologically safe methods of small arms and light weapons destruction.”

    In addition IANSA which is one of the main participants in this conference has written:

    “The speakers urged the Conference to take action in key areas affecting both the legal and illegal trade including … controls on the availability, use and storage of small arms within states, including strong domestic firearms regulation as well as a prohibition on the sale and possession of military weapons by civilians.”

    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

  • 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.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com 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

  • http://www.elitistpig.com 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

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com 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

  • http://www.gweissestate.com/blog/gweiss 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???

  • http://www.booklinker.blogspot.com 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.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com 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

  • http://www.booklinker.blogspot.com 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.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com 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

  • http://www.booklinker.blogspot.com 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.

  • http://www.gweissestate.com/blog/gweiss 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.

  • 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?”

  • 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.

  • http://www.booklinker.blogspot.com 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.

  • http://www.booklinker.blogspot.com 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.

  • http://www.booklinker.blogspot.com Deano

    Joey – I highly recommend you actually read what the conference is about. It is not about disarming the United States or un-arming your citizenry. Strange as it might seem, fucking over America is not always the UN’s purpose in life…sometimes they just like to hear themselves talk (admittedly some of the members do like to fuck over America whenever they can but that’s generally because they are trying to distract from their own actions and stupidities…and there are a lot of them hiding out in the UN General Assembly. That is the price you pay for being a superpower. Get over it.)

    I will also note that it is a conference (you know – the exchange of ideas) and has no weight of law or capability to impose anything upon you. You are not subject to the “laws of the UN” – the UN is not a law-making body. International law is manifest in international treaties primarily and that needs to go through your own government and cannot be imposed upon you except by yourselves or by external force (i.e. a war…and you’d have to lose).

    I do think that if it comes down to Dave in his fortified compound holding out against Lord Humungus and his evil minions…well, my money would have to be on Dave.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    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.

    The Rockwell article aside, the legislation does exist, but I believe that it has not yet been passed. It originates in 2001 because that’s when the US was one of the 60 nations to sign on to this programme and in compliance with that treaty we agreed to frame and pass that legislation. The threat is real. If this UN programme moves forward we have agreed to take the steps outlined in the Rockwell article to comply with it. It would still have to pass Congress, but one never knows how that will come out, especially with the possibility of Democrats taking over one or both houses.

    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 don’t think anyone in the US wants to do that. But can you honestly tell me that gun shows and personal sales of firearms within the US have ANY impact on the international trade in small arms?

    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.

    It’s about us when it effects us negatively, regardless of what good the programme may be doing elsewhere at the same time.

    It’s also not a great thing for the US when our gun manufacturers are being specifically targeted.

    Dave

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    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.

    All true. But there ARE people in the UN who are actively evil, and they have more say there than they ought to, through voting blocks and the way committees are formed. I can’t see any justification for supporting or cooperating with an organization which is at best corrupt and incompetent and at worst politically opposed to the US and heavily influenced by tyranical states.

    Dave

  • http://www.booklinker.blogspot.com Deano

    “there ARE people in the UN who are actively evil, and they have more say there than they ought to, through voting blocks and the way committees are formed”

    Yes. The same thing can be said for virtually every government on Earth, including the US.

    I’m not telling you to cooperate or support the UN on all things – you obviously do that selectively as fits your interests. Whether the UN can continue in the post-cold war era is a good question. Like it or not, in the absence of any effective alternative, the UN is an important piece in the multilateral international political structure.

    The US obviously could “go it alone” but at the cost of alienating a significant number of countries (even more then GWB has already alienated…) that view the UN, however flawed, as an important multilateral forum. In addition you toss out a forum that, albeit flawed, provides a formal mechanism for multilateral diplomacy, one that provides a useful forum for the US in working with its allies and friends around the world. You might just need these people at some point…

    Tossing out the UN without any alternative forum stronger then the regional military and economic treaties (i.e NATO, WTO) would probably be a fairly strong indicator to the rest of the world that the US does not feel itself bound by any laws or obligations…my guess is that it would shatter the multilateral strategy that has been pursued by the major powers since WWII and trigger a major arms race among all nations, one that would be aimed at developing deterrance weapons (i.e WMD) since, in the absence of the UN, the only deterrence possible would be from being able to blast your enemies into perdition first.

    Or you can continue to muddle along, trying to reform, rebuild or replace the UN, while building an alternative collection of international multilateral structures in parallel to the UN that do work effectively, until the day comes that you can turf the UN painlessly without having half the planet start trying to out-arm the other half…

    Have fun with it.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    As I’ve said before, I’m for replacing the UN with an international organization which actually works, represents countries on a more sensible basis, and limits the participation of tyranical and genocidal regimes. As time passes it becomes more and more clear that the UN is both too meddlesome and at the same time not really powerful enough to stand on its own and resist corrupting influences, and that kind of defeats the purpose of having it in the first place.

    The US obviously could “go it alone” but at the cost of alienating a significant number of countries (even more then GWB has already alienated…) that view the UN, however flawed, as an important multilateral forum.

    Given the flawed nature of the UN and the very questionable way many of the member governments behave, it seems sensible to me to strive to bring them up to at least our standards of freedom and government rather than trying to legislate our way down to their inferior standards.

    Dave

  • Ruvy in Jerusalem

    Deano,

    As a young teen, I used to study almanacs (I preferred the World Almanac) and in them, I’d find the list of international organizations that had affiliated with the UN. The UN fascinated me, as it was a construct for a world government that could insure world peace. And I thought that this was a great idea.

    Then the Six Day War broke out. That’s when I started to come out of my dreams of imaginary world governments and see just what was going on.

    It was the failure of U Thant to keep a UN force in the Sinai that allowed Nasser to start on his expansionist and war-making fantasies that spring of 1967 which resulted in the Six Day War. Had U Thant said “no” to Nasser, there would have been no confrontation between Israel and Egypt, and there would have been no war. Period.

    Had U Thant stood up to Nasser, as he ought to have to preserve the peace in the region, he would have been roundly denounced as the tool of the “Zionist imperialist lackeys, cabal of Jewish world bankers, and international Jewish communists” or some such nonsense. There would have been calls fo his resignation and all sorts of other unpleasantnesses that the good Burmese gentleman wished to avoid.

    U Thant took the easy way out. So, today, there is no Mandelbaum Gate here dividing this city, and no Jordanians shooting from the Old City to the Hebron Road. I get to pray at the Western Wall if I wish, and see full rainbows from end to end in Ma’aleh Ephraim (no folks, there are no pots of gold at the end of the rainbow) or go to pray in Hebron where Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (and allegedly Adam and Eve) are buried.

    I’m not complaining. But this did not happen because the UN was doing its job. It is an irony of history that I relish thinking about.

    My point? The UN might have stood in the way of nuclear war between the USSR and the USA to a degree, but the real thing that kept the planet from going up in nuclear smoke was the unwillingness of the two super-powers to engage in suicide.

    The truth of the matter is that the most successful UN operation that ever took place was the resistance to the invasion of North Korea. This occurred only because the Russians were asleep at the wheel. If the UN were to be disbanded, there is no reason to disband all the international organizations that function today. A concert of nations, similar to the one that kept the peace for a century in Europe, would keep the peace in the world. The corrupt thieves who run the UN now could be dispatched to the hell-holes they have crawled out of to infest New York like two legged cockroaches. And we could go back to arguing over the World Cup

  • http://www.booklinker.blogspot.com Deano

    Believe me Ruvy, I’m under no illusions as to the extremely limited effectiveness of the UN.

    I’ve met a lot of guys tossed into the hotspots over the years, being asked to stand between the combatants with little backup and support and no resources (and no mandate on what to do when it all goes to hell). It is a thankless task that can and does get people killed, mainly due to the UN and its motto of “too little, too late”.

  • Joey

    Deano,
    You got the talk… but the UN ain’t got the walk. Go hang the UN flag out on your doorstep on the 4th and pledge your pledge of faith to it.

    Personally, I think the UN no longer serves a useful purpose and hasn’t for many a moon.

    That’s why I believe that the “conversations” being held are ludicris considering some of those seated at the table.

    What bothers me is that there are those who take the UN as the embodiment of law (I think you may be in that category). When they have no juristiction over ME, my country, or our freedom. Is that not the case? If so, and if they have no jusistiction over ME, my country, or our freedom, then pack them off to a country/cartel/federation/confederation which wishes to come under the auspices of this governing body.

    I’m not one to be placated over my liberties granted by MY constitution. It’s that simple. No other country in the world has the constitution which the U.S. enjoys. That speaks volumns… every one else can sit in a UN sandbox. I would chose not to.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Go hang the UN flag out on your doorstep on the 4th and pledge your pledge of faith to it.

    I’m picking that as my quote of the day.

    Dave

  • http://www.booklinker.blogspot.com Deano

    “What bothers me is that there are those who take the UN as the embodiment of law (I think you may be in that category).”

    I guess the *four* times in my comments I stated that the UN has no jurisdiction or legal say over you just sailed on past….oh well.

    “Go hang the UN flag out on your doorstep on the 4th and pledge your pledge of faith to it.”

    It’s nice glib little closer, good for all occasions, and I’m sure it serves you well when you trot it out at parties…but…

    You should know for future use that “pledge your pledge” is repetitive and unnecessary. You need to tighten your sentence structure to just read: “Go hang the UN flag out on your doorstep on the 4th and pledge your faith to it.”, it has more impact and punch that way.

    Have a Happy 4th!

    By the way, UN Day is October 24th. I’m sure you’re looking forward to it.;)