In recent years the terms “genocide” and “ethnic cleansing” seem to be used interchangeably, the difference for diplomats at the United Nations (UN) seems to be whether or not the diplomats can officially call it one or the other.
Showdown on Global Control Looming at UN June 24-July 7
June 10, 2006
by Joseph P. Tartaro
They like to avoid the term genocide because it seems to carry an extra measure of opprobrium that offends the governments engaged in such mass murders.
Whatever you call it, the government-sponsored murder of thousands or even millions of people of one color, religion, cultural difference by another group of a different color, religion or cultural difference is the most heinous kind of genocide.
These genocidal horrors take place not because of guns, but because one faction fears or hates another, and the one that contributes the bodies of the dead is the one that cannot defend itself. Study after study has shown that disarming of the people, especially the targets for genocide, is the essential precursor to these mass murders.
The global anti-gunners like the people at Amnesty International, the International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA), Oxfam and their government and philanthropic supporters like to blame such organized mass murder on guns. They sometimes use the terms “small arms” and “light weapons.”
In just a few weeks, they will meet under UN auspices in New York City (June 24-July 7) to try and impose a binding international gun control treaty on the world. The meeting is officially called a review of the 2001 agreement entitled “the UN Programme of Action on Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects.” Since the 2001 agreement was finalized, there have been addition protocols on regulating the international as well as national transfer and possession of small arms and light weapons. However, while there have been some binding regional protocols adopted, the 2006 meeting which starts in June is a pivotal one for the globalist gun controllers.
There have been two views expressed by different governments. In the first, there is reliance on general guidelines for the manufacture, import-export and possession of such firearms. In the second camp, the focus is on a binding international agreement that would supercede national laws and constitutions, including that of the United States.
The whole process is a complex one in which the nations of the world have been creeping ever closer to what some might call an “international firearms preemption law.” They would like it imposed by governments which in many cases have either sponsored or been complicit in oppressive tyranny, if not outright genocide and ethnic cleansing.
According to a 2006 IANSA position paper prepared for the June-July UN meeting, entitled “Bringing the global gun crisis under control,” 1,000 people are killed by guns every day. The IANSA paper warns that if the upcoming meeting in New York does not resolve the issue as IANSA and its government and non-government allies hope, another good window of opportunity will not open again until 2011.
The IANSA paper is revealing in many ways and is too long to detail here. Anyone with access to the Internet can find it on the organization’s website: www.iansa.org, and can print it out in PDF format for sharing with others who are concerned by the linkage between gun control and the genocides perpetrated by various governments around the world. The involvement of small arms and light weapons in these mass murders is irrelevant. The Nazis exterminated millions of Jews, Gypsies and other targeted populations without firing many guns. Gas chambers, furnaces and other hideous devices accomplished their task. Stalin was able to do it with the gulags. Saddam Hussein with poison gas. And in Rwanda, primitive machetes were the primary tools of the genocidal butchers.
In most of these cases, the killing fields were largely ignored by the members of the United Nations, in many cases the same countries that are now crying crocodile tears about the victims of gun violence.
For your information, IANSA defines small arms as “weapons that can be carried and used by an individual, “for example, revolvers, pistols, rifles, shotguns, submachineguns and assault rifles.” Light weapons in the IANSA lexicon are those that require more than one person to operate them.
“In this report,” IANSA notes, “we use the words ‘small arms,’ ‘guns’ and ‘firearms’ interchangeably.
If it is not clear yet that IANSA and friends mean to disarm individual citizens or every country, the IANSA report offers the Australian law as a model of “effective national gun laws.”
Under that standard, every country would have:
- Licensing for all gun ownership, based on a series of criteria, including minimum age, training and “establishing a genuine reason for needing to own a gun;”
- Arbitrary police discretion in the issuance of gun licenses;
- People subject to domestic violence restraining orders against would be subject to compulsory seizure of all firearms;
- All guns must be registered at time of sale or transfer and when the license is renewed;
- A 28-day waiting period to buy any gun;
- The “genuine reason” for having a gun must be proven separately for each gun, “effectively imposing a limit on the number of guns a person can own;”
- Guns cannot be bought or sold privately but only through a licenses dealer of the police;
- Strict requirements on how guns are stored,
And that doesn’t include the restrictions on the types of guns which can be legally possessed.
Of course, there are many other restrictions on manufacturers, governments and sellers and importers of firearms. There are guidelines for marking guns which are essentially equivalent to the US system of serializing each gun.
However, there would be international requirements on how governments could sell or transport small arms and light weapons, which means pistols, revolvers, rifles, shotguns, etc.
The Australian model is only one example of the sweeping international regulation on firearms manufacture, transfer, acquisition and possession which IANSA, Amnesty International and Oxfam would like to see imposed on the world.
These groups and their sponsorspeople like billionaire anti-gun and political kingmaker George Sorosas well as supporting governments such as Britain, Japan and Canada have been prepping hard for the upcoming UN meeting. So have pro-gun rights groups in this country, such as the National Rifle Association and the World Forum on the Future of Sport Shooting Activities, both of which are accredited to the UN as non-government organizations.
At the moment, American gunowners’ best hopes lie in the Bush Administration’s Ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton. Bolton slowed the whole global gun control scheme down in 2001 with his policy speech before the United Nations. He has said before that he would never agree to any treaty which would abrogate individual constitutional rights, especially of the Second Amendment to the US Constitution.
Perhaps future history books will rank Bolton with James Madison, Patrick Henry and George Mason.
There are a lot of ways concerned Americans can express their views on the global gun control campaign going on at the UN. One is to let the White House know how you feel. A second is to write letters to the editors of your local newspapers helping to explain what the whole debate is about. And a third is to let your senators know how you would feel about any treaty which would overturn your individual civil rights as an American.
Return to Archive Index