Saturday, July 08, 2006

An Alliance Member with Expertise on the RTKBA Should Blog on This

If you read this piece from BBC you would think that something terrible happened:

Deal eludes small arms conference
A UN conference on tackling the global illegal trade in small arms has ended without consensus on future action.

The WSJ Journal cuts through the crap (requires subscription):
The UN Wants Your Gun

It would be very helpful if someone more versed in this would walk us through what the UN is trying to do to us, and how.

This is yet another reminder of why we should be thankful John Bolton is at the UN, because he is not tolerating this.

2 comments:

Joab said...

Heh.
http://tinyurl.com/jczeq

In this case we can be glad that the UN is ineffectual and idiotic.

Oldsmoblogger said...

Among other things:

They wanted to ban transfer of small arms to "nonstate actors." Of course, this simply means that states disinclined to abide the law will continue to transfer arms to nonstate actors (like, say, Janjaweed militia), while the refugees in Darfur won't be able to "perpetuate the cycle of violence."

The UN also wished to establish a strong registration regime, the better to later confiscate weapons from the hands of private citizens, and to drastically limit/eliminate the "illicit trade in small arms." A close reading of their position papers makes clear that they pretty much consider any arms sales to private individuals illicit. Considering that most member governments have a considerable lot to fear from their people, should they ever be in a position to get even, I'm not surprised.

Even if they don't succeed in getting their way in the legal arena, their pet NGOs (including Soros and the Joyce Foundation) may have enough money and clout to persuade some of the Gaston Glocks of the world to take "voluntary, proactive, responsible action," which will merely drive up price by reducing the supply of available small arms. Who will be hurt most? The poor, who tend to be more vulnerable to crime and who will be even less able to afford to defend themselves.

This last parallels some of the first U.S. gun control laws, which were Jim Crow laws that outlawed the sale of guns other than those made by Winchester, Remington, and the like. Recently-freed poor blacks couldn't afford the name-brand stuff. No, it wasn't a coincidence.