Obviously, it’s hard to imagine a body as remote from accountability to its “subjects” as the U.N., who I wouldn’t trust to do much more than standardize international marine buoys. (Even then, they’d probably decide red and green lights were Zionist-influenced holdovers from the era of Caucasian capitalist colonialism, coming up with a complex 12-shade pastel scheme symbolic of the rights of the oppressed that would soon have freighters colliding or running aground the world over.)
No sooner did I return to my desk the next day, however, than I learned the simpering statists at the U.N. had decided America’s Fourth of July weekend was a great time for their latest attempt to push through their ban on civilian small arms and light weapons. (See www.un.org/events/smallarms2006/ -- featuring the outfit's motto, "Crush the Illicit Trade in Small Arms," outrageously illustrated with a photo of perfectly good rifles and handguns being flattened by a giant piece of machinery.)
Needless to say, the kleptocrats-in-charge, still presumably enjoying their "Oil-for-Peace" bribes, insist they have no interest in "denying law-abiding citizens their right to bear arms in accordance with their national laws."
This might be branded “disingenuous,” were there not a better word ready to hand. Thinly veiled by some rhetorical sleight-of-hand, it’s a lie.
Those who have been watching the gun-grabbers for awhile can usually spot the trick, here. It’s related to the one that led the Nazis to tell the Jews of Holland and other European countries -- as they were being boarded onto the trains to the death camps -- to carefully stack their luggage on the platforms, clearly marking their names and addresses in chalk. The idea was to limit resistance (until it was too late) by reassuring the victims that everything would be fine. Surely their fate would not be so bad if the Germans were taking such care to make sure their luggage would reach them ... right?
Of course, the Germans had no intention of doing anything with that luggage except looting it. They knew the Jews would have little future use for it.
Similarly, you have to look at the underlying political philosophy of the gang now in charge of the U.N. to get an idea of who they really believe ought to be allowed to "bear arms in accordance with their national laws."
Our ambassador to the U.N., John Bolton, called them on this chicanery back in 2001. Under the soothing rhetoric he found the actual draft version of the U.N.’s “Program of Action” on small arms specifically referenced civilian possession, stating:
“The illicit trade in small arms and light weapons can be exacerbated by the unregulated possession of small arms and light weapons by civilians not part of responsible military and police forces. The measures below can contribute to addressing this aspect of the illicit trade in these weapons.
“(a) States will establish appropriate national legislation, administrative regulations and licensing requirements that define conditions under which small arms and light weapons can be acquired, used and traded by private persons.
“(b) States will seriously consider the prohibition of unrestricted trade and private ownership of small arms and light weapons specifically designed for military purposes (e.g., assault rifles, machine guns, grenades and high explosives produced for military purposes).”
Now check out the U.N. Web site at www.irinnews.org/webspecials/small-arms/default.asp. From a close examination of the Third World gun dealers and their “caches” pictured there, it would appear the deadly “military style” weapons of which we need to ban “private ownership” include turnbolt K-98 Mausers (or are those VZ-24s?) and Webley break-top revolvers, both of which were out of date by 1949.
Bolton’s firm stand got the dashiki-clad kleptocrats to remove that verbiage in 2001, but now they’re back. In late June, America’s Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, Robert Joseph, found cause to again inform the assembled totalitarians: “The U.S. Constitution guarantees the rights of our citizens to keep and bear arms, and there will be no infringement of those rights. The United States will not agree to any provisions restricting civilian possession, use or legal trade of firearms inconsistent with our laws and practices.”
If only Foggy Bottom's commitment were as strong as Mr. Joseph makes it sound. In fact, World Net Daily informs us that:
"The U.S. has provided more than $27 million to help various nations destroy surplus stockpiles of small arms and light weapons and offers regular technical assistance, according to the State Department.” (You think “law-abiding” American citizens wouldn’t like to buy that stuff at cost, if the U.N. were serious about wanting to guarantee "law-abiding citizens their right to bear arms"? I'll happily pay shipping costs for a ZB 1926 or ’30 in any working condition, guys. A Belgian FN-D? Swedish Model 21 in 6.5mm? Just give me a call.)
“A June 9 State Department fact sheet says, ‘Given the close links between terrorism, organized crime and drug trafficking, the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons has the potential to affect any country in the world at any time,’ ” World Net Daily continues.
“The State Department urges ‘focused efforts to identify and curb the sources and methods of the illicit trade via robust export controls, law enforcement measures, and efforts to expeditiously destroy excess stocks. ...’ ”
Make no mistake, the United States is part-way down this road. Tried to buy a reasonably priced machine gun or hand grenade at your local gun store, recently? Heck, in Mosul, Afghanistan, under MILITARY OCCUPATION, The AP reported back in January that each householder is still allowed to possess one automatic assault rifle and 50 rounds of ammunition. They did not mention requiring fingerprints or a “$200 transfer tax.”
Nor do the fans of a disarmed peasantry lack supporters, right here at home. The Minneapolis Star-Tribune on June 30 endorsed the U.N. campaign to “curb ... private gun ownership” in an editorial headlined “Global gun control to keep the peace.” The editorial concluded: “This forum seeks only to slow the flow of guns that ... (kill) more than 300,000 innocent people a year. Gunrunners and killers aside, who in the world can object to that?”
I don’t always agree with NRA chieftain Wayne LaPierre, but he tells WND that he sees the U.N. as “a club of governments, some of which want to ‘strip opposition forces of the means to challenge their authority.’ ”
Sounds about right. These gun-grabbing thugs regularly stage symbolic “gun destruction” events -- a little different from selling them at cost to "law-abiding ciitizens," no? The outfit’s press releases play the standard public relations trick of lumping together citizens killed by their own oppressive governments, a smaller number of evil agents of the local tyrant killed by righteous freedom fighters, and the far smaller number of “small arms deaths” caused by crime, suicide, and accidents, to come up with the scary statistic “300,000 killed by small arms each year,” as though small arms at the very least deserve to be treated like typhoid, or at worst have been found to get up at night and stalk the streets, dispatching people at random.
What about the genocidal murder of 800,000 to 1 million Tutsis in Rwanda in 1994, guys? Small arms involved? Actually, most of the victims were killed with machetes. How was that possible? Because residents of this former colony lacked small arms to defend themselves and their families against being “rounded up,” in the first place. Chalk up another million killed by “gun control.”
For a worldwide tally of the 75 million disarmed victims killed by their own governments in the 20th Century -- four times more than killed in all domestic and international wars -- visit the Web site of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, at www.jpfo.org/deathgc.htm. Giving up their small arms has brought happiness and long life to SO many minorities, over the decades.
The U.N. willfully ignores the fact that civilian small arms have facilitated virtually every leap forward for liberty in the past 250 years, starting with the American Revolution, to the success of which they were indispensable.
They might as well try to ban private ownership of automobiles -- leaving only powerful central governments with nifty tanks and Armored Personnel Carriers -- on the grounds that vehicles propelled by internal combustion engines “kill and maim hundreds of thousands each year.” (Or is Al Gore already on that?)
This is the outfit, mind you, that in 2003 actually placed Libya at the head of its Human Rights Commission, rendering that body (according to the Wall Street Journal) “worse than a joke. ... Among the 33 governments that voted in favor of Libya (by secret ballot) were almost certainly the rulers of such civic sinkholes as Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Cuba and Zimbabwe. ... These are folks who do not have the guts to face a genuine system of democracy back home. They wield their votes at the U.N. not as legitimate representatives of their own fellow citizens, but as two-faced members of the global club of tyrants, who hold sway through force and fear.”
And that, perhaps, is a slightly more complete answer to “What I think about the United Nations.”