CNN Vote - Please Vote Yes

mehulkamdar · Post by **mehulkamdar** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 11:18 pm

CNN, the USA's most viciously anti gun channel (it carries a daily anti India program here called the Lou Dobbs Show which it diplomatically does not show in India, the slimy channel) has a vote on whether the UN is trying to take away Americans' guns at http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/06/21/un.us.small.arms.ap/

Please vote YES. It is not only Americans' guns but the guns of people all over the world that they are trying to take away as the conference is being co-sponsored by IANSA who believe that no one in the world deserves to own any gun.

Please also ntoe that the UN suddenly cancelled the Julky 4th date after it realised that both the Indian and the Sri Lankan candidates for Secretary General, Shashi Tharoor and Jayanta Dharmapala were going to get a diplomatic kick up their posteriors because of their anti gun attitudes from the US government and several East European nations were also strongly opposed to them.

Also, Ted Turner who owns CNN has donated $ 1 billion to the UN in the past and is as anti gun as media barons come. That his channel supports daily anti India propaganda is also an indication of how he feels about India and Indians.

Please vote and get as many people as you can to vote as well.

A personal thanks from me,

Mehul

Sujay · Post by **Sujay** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 11:28 pm

Voted Yes. But surprsingly Yes is in minority.

In the article UN says that the conference of 4th July has been cancelled as UN office will be closed but that; it has not suddenly discovered is for sure.

Isn't the UN clarifying that they are targetting illegal trade in small arms and have nothing against private ownership ? Also if the UN tries to implement ban on private ownership of arms, it has to pass a resolution which will be vetoed by US atleast, if I am not mistaken.

The letters of NRA made some effect at least ( or a major effect ?)

mehulkamdar · Post by **mehulkamdar** » Sat Jun 24, 2006 1:34 am

Sujay,

This is a UN conference in association with IANSA www.iansa.org and their aims are clear if you visit their website. IANSA have clearly said that they do not believe that anyone in the world should own a gun.

The US has vehemently protested this and NRA members have sent more than 100,000 postcards so far to the UN fascists, hence the postponement of the conference to July the 7th. Also, Shashi Tharoor, Jayanta Dharmapala etc have found that the NRA is lobbying against their candidacy for the UN's top post. Hence their very hurried flip flop.

Fortunately, in India a significant section of the Ministry of Exteernal affairs is also against Tharoor's candidacy. Hopefully, he would be consigned to bureaucratic cushion warming soon instead of the top position at the UN.

Mehul

Post by **Grumpy** » Sat Jun 24, 2006 5:40 am

I can`t see the threat - the UN can pass any resolution it likes but the individual member states would have to legislate for that resolution to have legal status within their own countries- how many places are going to do that ? Also the US - just for one - would veto any such resolution and anyway, I agree with Sujay, the proposed resolution is to combat the illegal trade in arms - it has nothing to do with guns in private ownership.

axp817 · Post by **axp817** » Sat Jun 24, 2006 6:57 am

IANSA and the UN definitely have banning/limiting private gun ownership on their agenda along with controlling illegal trade in firearms.

In the 2004 gun debate between IANSA witch Rebecca Peters and Wayne La Pierre, Peters made it very clear that they feel that semiauto handguns, semi-auto rifles like the AR, AK, etc. should not be in civilian possession.

Why did England do away with civilians possessing handguns? UN and IANSA activities are definitely a threat to our guns.

I want to see my children and grandchildren enjoy the same (or better)
gun ownership privileges as me, and I am completely with the NRA in what they are doing.

-Naren

mehulkamdar · Post by **mehulkamdar** » Sat Jun 24, 2006 10:19 am

John,

Naren is absolutely right. IANSA have openly said that no one in the world should own a gun. Do visit their website - these are a bunch of anti gun fascists. In the past Rebecca Peters has openly said that she favours bringing in anti gun regulation into the USA through the UN because, as a member of the UN, the US would be bound by this if it were to sign whatever she and that baboon Kofi Annan cook up.

It is a good thing that the present President is not going to support any such measure - there is a danger though that if someone like Hilary Clinton or Barack Obama were to become the next President they could sign such an agreement if the UN had one in place and cause millions fo Americans to lose their guns. The IANSA and the UN have to be stopped and it is only organisations like the NRA and GOA who have taken the fight to them.

The positive thing about this is how quickly the main culprits in this farce have changed dates and come out with whiny excuses as they rpess their candidacy for the Secretary General's post. Does make me wonder whether there is considerably more than a mere correlation between the oldest profession and that of a bureaucrat.

YouTube · Post by **mundaire** » Sat Jun 24, 2006 3:27 pm

It seems that the poll is rigged! I voted "Yes" using 3 different browsers (so as to beat the browser tracking cookies which prevent people from voting more than once) BUT the total number of "Yes" votes displayed remained the same all three times at 32225 votes....

So unless they are limiting it to one vote per IP (really silly as corporate networks have hundreds, sometimes thousands of machines behind one external IP), it would seem that they are either moderating the votes OR not registering additional votes OR simply that they have pre-decided what the outcome of the poll should look like!

Cheers!
Abhijeet

mehulkamdar · Post by **mehulkamdar** » Sat Jun 24, 2006 9:04 pm

Abhijeet,

Thanks for this information. Crappy Nonsense Network could be expected to do something like this. They are slime.

Mehul

Post by **Vikram** » Sat Jun 24, 2006 9:28 pm

Voted 'Yes'. IANSA types live in safe cocoons and speak from there.Experience of threat may make them sing a song of different tune and lyric. I am sure that if a criminal looms over them or theirs with a murderous intent,if there is a gun at hand, they would personally shoot the criminals.

Having said that, I am also against illegal guns.One less gun in the hands of criminals, one life saved. I would support any measure- of course that does not jeopardise legal gun ownership- that pursues this end.

Best- Vikram

Post by **Grumpy** » Sun Jun 25, 2006 5:37 am

Who at the UN is anti-gun ? The UN is a representative body and any proposal to ban private gun ownership would have to be introduced by a member nation.......and if any country should do so the USA would veto it anyway. IANSA have no power and can talk to UN staff officials as much as they like but it won`t get them very far. Likewise the UN might ( a highly unlikely `might` ) try to introduce such a proposal but even if passed - which it wouldn`t be - it would have to be ratified by individual nations. AIN`T GOING TO HAPPEN.
Individual nations might want to introduce such legislation domestically but that`s up to them. You`re crediting the UN with a lot more power than it actually has - its` actual power is very limited and doesn`t compare to a national ( or the European ) Parliament. No member nation would allow the UN to legislate over its` domestic affairs and it has no power to do so.
CNN might like to think it has political influence but the facts are otherwise. Its` editorial attitudes to many matters are so contrary to US ( and worldwide ) public opinion that its` viewing figures have dramatically declined and continue to do so.
By the way, you can vote whichever way you like on that CNN poll but your vote isn`t recorded. Either the poll has closed or it has a technical problem.

Post by **Mack The Knife** » Sun Jun 25, 2006 9:31 pm

Voted.

No idea what the post count was before I did so cannot confirm whether or not it was counted - read Grumpy's comment later.

Mack The Knife

mehulkamdar · Post by **mehulkamdar** » Sun Jun 25, 2006 9:31 pm

John,

Check out this link http://www.unodc.org/pdf/crime/a_res_55/255e.pdf

The fact is that the committee of village idiots that is the UN has it's own views about gun ownership and 40 countries have agreed to adopt the IANSA's "recommendations." I saw what happened in India when bureaucrats and politicians decided that they knew best about gun ownership - groups like Indians For Guns would probably have been stillborn if the ruling thugs didn't do what they did in 1984. I cannot but agree and that most wholeheartedly with the NRA's view that gun ownership rights are too important a matter to be entrusted to either the politicians and bureaucrats or to the super bureaucratic fascists at the UN.

A slimy bureaucrat like Kofi Annan whose $ 17 million New York City townhouse is probably worth more than all the land in the country he crawled out of, is not quite someone whose diktats are worth respecting. Even less worth respecting is an organisation that such a slimy character heads.

Mehul

Post by **Vikram** » Tue Jun 27, 2006 5:56 pm

Just curious and for the sake of keeping the pot stirred,

Did any of you see "Lord of War" starring Nicholas Cage as an illegal arms runner? If you haven't, please do. Documentary like and very vividly exposing. And dear mods, this is entirely in line with the present topic.

BTW, Mehul, I was going through the text here (http://www.unodc.org/pdf/crime/a_res_55/255e.pdf). It mostly deals with controlling illicit arms manufacturing and their traficking. Sounds reasonable to me.

Best- Vikram

mehulkamdar · Post by **mehulkamdar** » Wed Jun 28, 2006 11:45 am

Vikram,

Do check this report: http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns ... 02729.html

I would be glad to know what you and John find reasonable in what is actually happening. Please be assured that I shall be posting about the conference on a daily basis over here.

I have enough experience with politicians and bureaucrats to suspect every word and action of theirs. I have also lived long enough in India and in other parts of the world to know that this suspicion is, indeed, the right way to go from experience. Actions speak louder than words is an old saying - over here, the words themselves say enough about the actual intentions of the scum involved.

mehulkamdar · Post by **mehulkamdar** » Fri Jun 30, 2006 10:49 am

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
STATEMENT
BY
Robert G . Joseph
Undersecretary of State for
Arms Control and International Security
United Nations Conference to Review Progress Made
in the Implementation of the Program of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate
the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects

Mr . President, distinguished colleagues, it is my honor to present the views of my government at this important conference .

I want to begin by thanking the .President of the Review Conference, Ambassador Kariyawasam, for his leadership and effort in setting the stage for what should be a successful Review Conference. We look forward to constructive engagement with all. States present today to build upon this work . The United States believes it is important for all of us to speak with one voice concerning the grave matter of the international illicit trade in small arms and light weapons . To do so, we should start with a full and focused review of our progress, and document that review in a manner that strengthens our collective commitment to effective action .

As a first step, we must make our positions clear . So let me be very clear : the United States believes it is critical to our collective interests that we act to stem the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons .

The United States believes strongly in the agreed Program of Action and is committed to its implementation . We will put forth detailed plans that we think the Review Conference should adopt, including advancing the effectiveness of export controls, the destruction of excess, loosely secured or otherwise atrisk stockpiles of small arms and light weapons, and implementing the marking and tracing instrument .

My delegation is here today with a positive agenda -- an agenda for effective action to address the illicit trafficking in small arms and light weapons, covering military style arms such as Shoulder-fired missiles and rocket systems, light mortars, machine guns and automatic rifles .

But, with the goal of making an effective contribution to stopping the international illicit trade in small arms aid light weapons, I will be equally clear about those actions we will not accept .

In this regard, we agree with the remarks made by the . Secretary General to this conference yesterday, namely that the Program of Action is not "intended to deny law-abiding citizens their right to bear arms in accordance with their national traditions" and that our efforts should be "directed toward illegal weapons and not legal ones ."

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 . Many millions of American citizens enjoy hunting and the full . range of firearm ,sports, and our work will not affect their rights and opportunities . As a~ officer of the Executive Branch of my government, 1 took an oath to protect the Constitution -- a duty that is an honor to uphold .

The long established U .S . positions on two other topics also remain unchanged . First, we are resolute in our belief that regulating ammunition is beyond the mandate of this body amid would be ineffective, prohibitively costly, and is best addressed elsewhere - - if at all . And second, while we will of course continue to oppose the acquisition of arms by terrorist groups, we recognize the rights of the oppressed to defend themselves .against tyrannical and genocidal regimes and oppose a blanket ban on non-state actors .

We believe lengthy debates on these topics will only serve to distract us from our areas of agreement and dilute the collective will required to combat the international illicit trade in small arms and light weapons .

Finally, we will not agree to a document that obfuscates the main problem, namely that of "illicit trade," or which seeks to substitute an expansive and unworkable set of international regulations for specific and targeted actions of proven worth .

We must strive to take effective action . It is critical to our collective interests that we act here and elsewhere to stem illicit weapons flows across national borders or acquisition efforts by rogue regimes or by States that are known to support terrorist- organizations . The key to achieving this goal lies not in creating new textual language, but in overcoming the political impediments to implement what has already been agreed upon and having the courage to take meaningful, bud sometimes difficult, actions today that will prevent serious adverse consequences tomorrow .

The United States enters these proceedings with the strong desire, backed up by demonstrated accomplishments, to conduct a serious review of the progress that has been made in implementing the original Program of Action . To that end, the United States supports : aggressive steps to implement the recently concluded agreement on the marking and tracing of weapons ; effective controls on weapons transfers - both import and export - as well as robust end-user certification ; strengthening controls over international brokers ; effective stockpile management of weapons under state control ; and the destruction of government-declared surplus and illicit weapons . And, while we will not accept formal negotiations or a formal agreement on transfer controls, we are willing to consider text that encourages the adoption of a set of principles on arms transfers . These steps, taken collectively, will reduce the international illicit trade in small arms and light weapons .

Not only is the United States prepared to endorse language to this effect in this conference, but more importantly and without regard to conference outcomes, the United States will continue, to implement the actions noted above through enforcement of robust export controls and end-user certification processes, as well as through our cooperation with others . By our analysis, the United States is one of less than a dozes countries that have shown progress in implementing all aspects of the Program of Action .

The U .S . commitment to implementation of the Program of Action can be seen in our arms export control structures, our law enforcement efforts, and our significant programs of cooperation and assistance .

The United States has a robust and transparent system of laws and regulations governing national holdings, manufacture and the international movement of small arms and light weapons . All firearms, by law, are marked at the time of manufacture and import . In addition, we have some of the strongest laws of any State concerning third-party transfers of weapons . The United States is also one of only a handful of countries to assert universal jurisdiction on all U .S . weapons or citizens involved in the arms trade, no mater where they are located . A robust end-use monitoring system and a tough legal framework for enforcement support this export control regime .

In terms of cooperation and assistance, since agreement on the Program of Action, the United Stats has allocated over $37 million to destroy 900,000 small arms and light weapons, as well as over 18,600 MANPADS in 25 countries around the world . Just this month, I endorsed plans to start new programs in four African States, as well as initiating what we expect- to be a long and productive relationship with the Nairobi-based Regional Center for Small Arms . Moreover, we have a long track record of helping others enhance the security o~ their national stockpiles and improving the border controls and customs services so important to stopping illicit trade of all types .

Additionally, the U .S . Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), works effectively in our country to enforce our firearms laws . Internationally, ATF offers a variety of training courses related to firearms and ballistic identification and firearms tracing for international law enforcement professionals . ATF also cooperates in more than 20,000 foreign tracing requests per year for o?r foreign law enforcement partners .

We are particularly pleased with the progress that has been made on this issue in various regional bodies such as the OAS, OSCE and NATO . Based on the documented success of these bodies, success measured in terms of working agreements and on-the-ground results, we feel that these are the most vital venues for meaningful newt steps .

There should be no debate regarding the serious and disturbing collateral effects caused by the illicit international trade in small arms and light weapons .

Indeed, the deleterious and disproportionate effects they have on innocent civilians, underdeveloped nations, and those states trying to recover from the ravages of war and conflict are beyond dispute . It is for this reason that this Review Conference - must remain focused on the issue at hand -- illicit trad? . We must focus on substance and not process . Accordingly, the United States will not commit to another Review Conference . We will only consider proposals regarding follow-on actions that are focused, practical, and to intended to strengthen the implementation of the Program of Action .

The United States is proud of its commitment to the tenets of the Program of Action and of our demonstrated achievements in its implementation . Mr . President, we look forward to working with you and all States present to identify and overcome th?se obstacles that remain to expanding and strengthening implementation of what we all agreed in 2001 .

Thank you .