“Perfect Storm” For UN Gun Control Agenda

The folks at United Nations headquarters in New York City, and our “allies” at Number 10 Downing Street in London, must be rubbing their hands with glee. Gun control groups here and abroad likewise are at last quietly cheering. Why? After a decade and a half of pushing unsuccessfully to secure America’s support for a legally-binding, international instrument to regulate the marketing, transfer and brokering in firearms, they are now on the brink of success. The process of formally negotiating an Arms Trade Treaty (“ATT”) now has Washington’s seal of approval; announced October 14th by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

It was not always thus.

In the summer of 2001, the UN formally launched its multi-year effort to institutionalize its role as regulator of international transfers of firearms; something it had coveted openly since the mid-1990s. In July 2001, John Bolton had been serving as President George W. Bush’s undersecretary of state for arms control and international security affairs for barely two months. It is this office at the state department that is responsible for issues ranging from nuclear disarmament to land mine eradication. When the UN began its foray into “small arms and light weapons” (a term that incorporates virtually every type, size and model of firearm) in the mid-90s, the issue fell into the lap of whoever occupied that office.

In one of his first public addresses after being sworn in as undersecretary, Bolton delivered the opening statement for the United States at the UN arms conference on July 9, 2001. His blunt words shocked many of the delegates present. The message he delivered made crystal clear, with reference to our constitutionally-guaranteed “right to keep and bear arms,” that the US would not be a party to any international effort that would directly or indirectly infringe that fundamental right.

Over the next five years, in meeting after meeting, the US was true to the words Bolton delivered in 2001. Refusing to bow to intense pressure from many of our “allies,” including most notably the UK, the US opposed and even vetoed numerous efforts to afford the UN any legally-binding power to regulate the “international” trafficking in firearms. The Bush Administration realized that doing so would tie US policy makers’ hands in supporting certain arms transfers in our own national security interests. Moreover, and more relevant for Second Amendment purposes, a legally-binding instrument purporting to regulate illicit international transfers of firearms, would necessarily touch domestic activities. For example, in order to know and regulate international transfers, the UN folks would have to know what firearms were being manufactured, stocked, and purported to be transferred within each country.

The playing field now has changed dramatically. We have a president, a secretary of state, and an undersecretary philosophically in synch with the UN and its member nations who have been clamoring for the US to join the march to an ATT. In her statement of October 14th announcing Washington’s reversal on this issue, Clinton made not even passing or indirect reference to the Constitution, much less the Second Amendment; a position so clearly and forcefully employed by Bolton when defending our interests against the international “community.”

The irony in all this is that the US maintains the most rigorous and consistent legal controls on the export and import of firearms of any nation. If those nations pushing for an international arms trade treaty were sincerely concerned with tightening such controls internationally, all they would have to do would be to adopt regulations and laws as we have in the US already. But that’s not their true agenda.

The real agenda of these folks at the UN, and in London, Tokyo, Brasilia, and the other capitals around the world of nations pushing the US to “come on board,” is not international regulation, but limiting the freedom we enjoy within the United States to keep and bear arms.

124 comments Add your comment

Voice of Reason

October 26th, 2009
5:15 pm

Many of you people seem to think that just because someone is a liberal, they are a gun hater. I am a liberal and I own guns, I enjoy shooting ranges and hunting, and I would not hesitate to blow someone away should they break into my house or threaten my loved-ones. Try opening your minds for a change. Some of you might become a hell of a lot more likable.

Robb

October 26th, 2009
5:49 pm

Reason,
Your line of reason is based on so many assumptions that are just plain wrong. Occam’s razor may help in very simple logic problems, but it fails completely when faced with the Machiavellian workings of politicians. While you may believe that all the treaty wants to do is stop international arms dealings, you must research the backgrounds of the people who are pushing this treaty. It’s like a Who’s Who of the anti-gun movement. While it sounds reasonable to believe that the Second Amendment would protect U.S. citizens from disarmament, you must also read in the Constitution Article VI, paragraph two, where all treaties “shall be the supreme Law of the Land”. The founding fathers knew that governments are inherently evil and tried to write a constitution that would keep government in check. Unfortunately, this requires us to NEVER trust our government. A perfect example of government chicanery: In the recent Supreme court ruling of the Heller case, the dissenting opinion written of the four justices used about 30 pages of sophistry to explain why “the right of the people” and “shall not be infringed” didn’t really mean what it said. Before you label me a right winger or some other tacky reference, I am a hardcore liberal. Not a Democrat, for the Democrats are the closest thing we have to a fascist regime, but a true liberal. I want the government to do what it is expressly allowed to do under the constitution, and NO more.

Reason

October 26th, 2009
6:03 pm

“the founding fathers knew that governments are inherently evil and tried to write a constitution that would keep government in check.”

lol…and you accuse ME of making outrageous assumptions.

Hard Right Hook

October 26th, 2009
6:10 pm

atlwolf

October 26th, 2009
5:06 pm
“Funny, I haven’t heard one word from the mouths of Obama or his administration that would lead me to believe that he is aiming to ban all firearms,….”

Google the Holt Firearms Act of 2009 & tell me what you find.

Schwarznager has signed the Ammunition Accountability Act into law in Looney Tunes California.

The President is the Nations chief law enforcement officer, is he not?

clyde

October 26th, 2009
6:36 pm

Reason @ 2:34,

I think we already have enough firearm’s laws on the books to satisfy anyone’s desire for reasonable control over same.Apparently I’m wrong in my thinking,which leads me to conclude that some further restrictions are being planned by named and unnamed persons.It’s difficult to blame me if I sometimes think that these people won’t be satisfied until all guns are banned.

Reason

October 26th, 2009
6:38 pm

So…you object to licensing requirements to own a gun? And you think that requiring people to secure their guns so that children can’t get to them is unreasonable? Really? And…even more “Really”…you believe that these requirements represent an attempt to ban all guns? Really? Honestly, this is why reactionaries like you aren’t taken seriously by many. This bill does NOT seek to ban guns. It seeks to place those “reasonable restrictions” on ownership which you mocked earlier. Is there something wrong with requiring a license to own a handgun? You people are so far-right that you think that a 10-year-old should be able to waltz into Wal-mart and emerge armed to the teeth.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/blairholt.asp

Read it. It discusses the ACTUAL bill, removing the various false rumors that histrionic e-mail chains inevitably create.

As for the other points – Did Obama introduce this bill? No. Does Obama have control over California state law? No. We live in this complex political system will all sorts of checks and balances and rules and differing kinds of laws…I realize this may be too complicated for you to understand, but if a bill is introduced in Congress, you can’t blame the President for it unless he had a hand in its introduction. Similarly, you can’t blame the President if a state passes a law that affects that state only.

Did you actually take civics in high school, assuming you actually went?

Reason

October 26th, 2009
6:41 pm

“It’s difficult to blame me if I sometimes think that these people won’t be satisfied until all guns are banned.”

No, it’s actually not. Irrational conclusions and paranoia aren’t legitimate reasons for making assumptions about motivations. You’ve decided that A) there are enough gun control laws and B) that others are trying to make MORE gun control laws, therefore C) those who are trying to make more gun control laws have motives other than gun control. That’s not a legitimate conclusion, it’s one that’s motivated by emotion rather than logic. So, yes…I can blame you.

jconservative

October 26th, 2009
6:56 pm

Apparently some folks want to believe what they believe is true so bad that they make up reasons that make their beliefs true.

DustoneGT

October 26th, 2009
7:06 pm

Enter your comments here

Reason

October 26th, 2009
7:09 pm

That’s an awfully ambiguous statement, jcon…care to be more specific? I’ve found you to be a generally reasonable and thoughtful person in your past postings…such ambiguity is beneath you.

Ben

October 26th, 2009
7:26 pm

They can have my guns after they take the bullets first and I keep several thousand rounds stocked in my storage shed underground.

Hard Right Hook

October 26th, 2009
7:48 pm

I never said Obama intorduced the bill. Congress writes legislation and the executive branch signs it into law. Civics 101.

My point is that Obama has not said anything about the Constitutionality of the bill (or its potential repercussions), and he taught Constitutional law at that second rate communist manufacturing plant in Cambridge, MA. Which probably explains it.

PS: Your two “reasonable controls” listed are just that: very reasonable. I am licenced to carry, and I am the oldest son of a career Military officer who drummed firearm safety into our heads for years. Securing any weapon (Including an ice pick or claw hammer) from children is perfectly reasonable. I think common sense concludes that, not a bunch of lurid, drunken lawyers in Washington, DC.

TnGelding

October 26th, 2009
8:19 pm

Fix-It

October 26th, 2009
2:12 pm

“The new figures indicate that in the year 2007-8 there were some 277 deaths from stabbings in England & Wales alone (the highest recorded figure for 30 years). This represents an average death toll as a direct result of stabbings of over 5 for every week of the year!”

TnGelding

October 26th, 2009
8:23 pm

Hard Right Hook

October 26th, 2009
6:10 pm

Only if he’s a Democrat. The Republicans delegate authority to the point it becomes dereliction of duty.

TnGelding

October 26th, 2009
8:26 pm

Hard Right Hook

October 26th, 2009
4:02 pm

We have a pofessional militia. No need to arm citizens to form one. If they are needed the equipment is provided.

Hard Right Hook

October 26th, 2009
8:29 pm

We have a pofessional militia. No need to arm citizens to form one. If they are needed the equipment is provided.

Wrong. We have a professional militia (the best) AND we have an armed populace, if they so choose to be. I will decide if I’m armed or not; not control-happy Congressmen at the Federal level.

mpercy

October 26th, 2009
8:30 pm

Reason,

If you support “reasonable restrictions” like licensing (presumably a test is involved) before one can exercise a right strongly and explicitly defended in the Bill of Rights, then do you similarly support reasonable restrictions and licensing (after passing a test) before exercising other rights? To wit, why are any and all efforts to validate a persons right to vote met with screams? Certainly a simple civics test or at least validation of citizenship is reasonable? How about a law that prohibits voting while intoxicated? Or one that requires an 8 hour “voting safety” course, at your own cost, before you can be allowed to then buy a license, again at your own cost, for each election?

Reason

October 26th, 2009
8:49 pm

“My point is that Obama has not said anything about the Constitutionality of the bill (or its potential repercussions), and he taught Constitutional law at that second rate communist manufacturing plant in Cambridge, MA. Which probably explains it.”

And…where in the Constitution does it say that the President should pre-empt the legislative process? Nowhere? Oh…right. We have the legislative process for a reason, your insane and probably uneducated hysteria notwithstanding.

And this is why you are not a rational person. Communist manufacturing plant? Really? Evidence, please? Or…are you simply parroting ideology. No…you are yet another anti-intellectual right-wing ideologue who doesn’t really have any idea what he’s talking about. I suspect you can’t even DEFINE communism, much less point to where it’s being “manufactured” by highly respected institutions of higher learning.

And the two “reasonable controls” I mentioned are the core precepts of the Blair-Holt bill. So..again…you’re exposed as an uninformed ideologue.

mpercy – I suggest you do a little research into the various laws that affect free speech. While the Constitution says that “Congress shall make no laws”…Congress has, indeed, made such laws, and they continue to be upheld by the Supreme Court. Frankly, I consider free speech to be a far, far greater right than that of people to own weapons. So…if speech has controls placed upon it, for the greater good, then so should the 2nd amendment. There is no clear and present danger associated with voting…but there might be with gun ownership. So…fail.

atlwolf

October 26th, 2009
9:58 pm

The Holt Firearms Act would simply enact tougher laws for purchasing and possessing weapons, not ban them entirely. I know I’m wasting my breath, though, because people like you will only see what you want to see and you will only listen to those voices that agree with you. Too bad one of those voices isn’t that of reason.

Edwin Burgh

October 26th, 2009
10:09 pm

Yup, atlwolf…the NRA fringers believe that ANY attempt to control the ownership of weapons of any sort represents a violation of the 2nd amendment. We should all be allowed to own fully automatic rifles (which exist only to kill other humans in large numbers) or RPGs or mortars or grenade launchers…any legislation that dares to control the ownership of weapons, even if those weapons are designed solely for the purpose of killing people en masse is a conspiracy by the left to remove all weapons. The far-right NRA fringers can’t see the difference between a handgun and a rocket launcher. And, God help us, they are all poised to rebel against the duly elected government of the nation they claim to respect (as long as that nation reflects their own personal prejudices). If Obama makes it through his Presidency with these would-be-murderers working themselves up into a frenzy of anti-government hatred, I’ll be amazed.

StJ

October 26th, 2009
10:34 pm

“Nothing says ‘get the hell lost’ better to murderers, thieves and communists than the Second Amendment. Long live the Constitution.”

I have two words to add:

Amen, brother.

Peter

October 26th, 2009
11:28 pm

There is not a day that goes by in Atlanta where someone is NOT gunned down…….Sounds like a NRA party to me !

Alphecca » The U.N. and Gun Control

October 27th, 2009
4:00 am

[...] A warning from Bob Barr. [...]

Mike Settles

October 27th, 2009
5:14 am

Reason: You make the usual leftist arguments for “Gun Control”. Sadly, those “Reasonable Laws” amount to creeping legislation which effectively end with nutering our 2A right.
Gun registration, followed by licensing, followed by confiscation, is the model which has been used in Canada, Australia, and Great Britain. The danger IS real.
The “militia”, according to the Framers who wrote the Bill of Rights, is the “Unorganized Militia”, which includes every citizen over age 17 – and they are expected to show up armed. The National Guard is a “Select Militia”, formed by Congress under the Dick Act, by virtue of their War Powers.

Check out GunCite.com: They do a good job of consolidating pro, con, law, statistics, and even debunk myth (Geo. Washington’s “Teeth of Liberty” quote).

By the way, every time some legislative body writes a preemptive law concerning Free Speech, a court knocks it down, because preemption is unconstitutional. It is NOT unconstitutional to have consequences for ABUSE of a fundamental right. Thus, while it IS legal to yell “Fire” in a theater, it IS NOT legal to cause harm by creating a panic when there is no fire.
Among the US Bill of Rights, we only allow preemption on the right to self-defense (and defense against government tyranny), which is what 2A was written to obviate.
I hold with training, and with personal responsibility:
there is a necessity for training/competency with firearms, just as with any potentially dangerous tool: A home-handyman who tries to build a bird house using power tools may cut off a hand, waste lots of wood, and construct something out of the Twilight Zone, if he has no competency with his tools. Same with firearms.
Yet to limit power tools, or firearms, only to those who have passed a competency test is nanny government (with respect to construction tools), and (for firearms) infringes on our fundamental right guaranteed by 2A. Personal responsibility is paramount: Be smart – when you buy the circular saw, get someone to show you how to use it. Likewise, if you have never before been competent with firearms, take a class. The NRA has great resources for this purpose.

You can’t legislate away stupidly hurting yourself, but you can punish irresponsibly causing harm to an innocent.

I will go along with licensing firearms ownership, when YOU go along with being licensed to post on this forum.

(With respect to your argument that the potential to cause harm with a gun is greater than that from mere words: Who was it who said “The pen is mightier than the sword”?)

And finally: How do YOU know the motivation behind those who constantly push for the abrogation of our 2A right? Best look at their personal/political histories. President Obama, Sec Clinton, et al fail the test. For example, while in the Illinois and US Senate, BHO never saw an anti-gun measure he didn’t like, espoused bans, and voted for same. He changed his tune ONLY when it became apparent that he could not get elected to the White House by continuing to spout the same drivel.
He is, after all, a Chicago politician.

Juan Rebell

October 27th, 2009
5:27 am

They’re not taking my guns away. Let them try.

Mike Settles

October 27th, 2009
5:45 am

And I have read HR 45 at Thomas.gov: It is an infringement, created by Rep Bobby Rush – another Chicago politician, who is also a former Black Panther. The bill will go no where: It has languished in committee since January and has no cosponsors.
What does that tell you about the mood of the Congress, and the American People, with respect to further abrogating our right to keep and bear arms?

Mike Settles

October 27th, 2009
7:00 am

That registration/licensing -> confiscation scheme: California did it in the ’90s (their “Assault Weapons” ban). – 2% of violent crimes involving a firearm involve a semi-automatic rifle which resembles an assault rifle (selective-fire, can’t be owned by civilians without a Federal license), but they look “evil” to the hoplophobes so “no one should have one”.

Turd Ferguson

October 27th, 2009
8:14 am

The UN is full of nothing more than liars, cheats, beggars, theives and uneducated double-talking miscreants.

JohnH

October 27th, 2009
8:33 am

Reason, concerning the Blair Holt bill, please explain to me just why the Attorney General of the United States should know what guns are in my closet? Just how is that any of their business? Why should I think the AG knowing that is reasonable? Is there anything you can tell me that would shed light on just how the AG knowing what guns are in my closet is going to do to have an effect on the crime rates? Why should I think that even if Blair Holt passed people would comply? Some 98% of owners of “assault weapons” in California havce yet to comply with a law requiring their registration. That law was passed in 1989 IIRC. what is the AG going to do, send some 4000 ATF agents around the country to knock on every door nad search every closet? That won’t last long…

Gun control is not about controling guns it is about controling people, and one needs only look at DC and Chicago to see what a massive failure “gun control” is at combatting crime.

We do agree on the point that anyone who believes that the men in the blue helmets are coming to our shores to take our guns away are tin foil hatters drinking koolaid from a tinfoil cup. At the ssame time that doesn’t mean that I don’t think that many contries wold be more than happy to see our right to arms hobbled. Mexico is the closet example of this.

Rich

October 27th, 2009
8:56 am

Well if the benelli’s Beretta’s, Para Ordanance’s, Glock’s, and many others made outside the USA can be stopped by this treaty we are all in serious trouble from the gun grabbers.

Subjective Observer

October 27th, 2009
9:41 am

In essence, the debate over the ‘right of the people to keep and bear arms’ contains two entirely dissimilar aspects. The first being the purely humanly-contrived philosophical idea associated with the word ‘rights’ and the second being actual physical object(s), associated with the word ‘arms.’
While debates over the IIA to the Constitution of the United States not only involve the philosophical idea of ‘rights’ and the tangible object(s) ‘arms’– in addition to the authors’ assertion that a ‘well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state’ is the expression of a written law entered into a legally binding contract between government and the governed. The law as written via the second amendment specifies the keeping and bearing of ‘arms’ as a ‘right of the people’ and states in no uncertain terms that said ‘right of the people’ ( Freemen at the time written–slaves were not considered people) ‘shall not be infringed’.
In terms of a law specifying the limits of what can legally be done according to the terms and conditions as specified in the constitutional contract, the word ’infringed’ as combined with the words ’right’ and ’shall not be’ is as powerful a statement as can be made.
For the purpose of simplistic clarity, the second amendment is a law written into a legally binding contract stating that the ’right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed’…that’s ’shall not be infringed’ by any person within or acting on behalf of the federal government.
For any doubting the validity of the previous statements, peruse as you may the following in the words of those who wrote and ratified the initial amendments themselves.
The First 10 Amendments to the Constitution as Ratified by the States December 15, 1791
PREAMBLE Congress OF THE United States.
“THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution..”

Amendment II “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.”

[http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html]

The self-evident fact that the federal government has been in direct violation of the law written via the IIA, specifically prohibiting any act which could in any manner be construed as even an infringement on the right of the people to keep and bear arms since the 1930’s–is irrefutable proof that no law, regardless of how thoughtfully conceived or clearly written ever actually prohibited any person committed to do so from violating any law.

As for the philosophical idea associated with the word ‘right(s)’ most people can’t even define the word itself, let alone provide a clear context by which the meaning and significance of the idea can be successfully apprehended.
“ Like the word ’time’, everyone knows exactly what the word ‘rights’ means–that is until challenged to define the word, exactly.”

Oh, the U.N.? A communist organization from its very inception.
Anyone thinking otherwise might do well to research the origins before tying the barrel of your gun into a knot or pounding your arms into plowshares.

Any questions?

El Jefe

October 27th, 2009
9:46 am

It seems to me, that there are some who are selective in their education concerning the Bill of Rights.

The Bill of Rights, the first 10 Amendments as limitations on what the Federal Government can do. They restrict the Feds.

It also seems that some feel a few of the first 10 are not as important as the others.

How many would be offended if the 4th Amendment did not exist? or the 6th. Can you imagine the wailing and whining coming from the left if those restrictions were done away with?

Already the left has damaged and ripped apart the first amendment and the so-called Press is okay with it. The President sends out the message and almost all news papers will print it without checking the facts. I guess this is why the circulation is dropping in so many cities, even the AJC is shrinking and no longer investigating news, just echoing what someone else wrote. As with the recent ACORN scandals, the AJC just printed the New York Times article instead of doing local interviews or investigations – I guess it wasn’t a big story.

While the left feels some rights are better than others, they feel they can discount some and marginalize others. This shows not only ignorance, but tunnel vision and plain stupidity.

Take a look at the 2nd. How would we defend the US if it was invaded. Would we sit by and say, let the military handle it, or would we feel the need to help out, offer our services. The free state they are talking about defending is by a well equipped militia, the common folks. It would be a shame that a group like that would be ignorant of firearms and how to use them.

bandofotters

October 27th, 2009
11:54 am

RE” Just look at the IL gun laws and in Chicago over 300 school children shot.”

Have you noticed that anytime that a child is shot in Chicago the adjective “school” is used to enhanse the story? School child, school children. It doesn’t make any difference whether the shooting took place at a school or not (most have not). I consider it a plus when the media goes so far as to inform us that the shooting took place within blocks of a local school. DUH!

SaveTheGuns.com

October 27th, 2009
12:21 pm

The U.N. Small Arms Treaty still needs the approval of the United States Senate as well as the signature of President Obama, unless I can be proven wrong… There is no more important time to get back in contact with your two (2) U.S. Senators and confirm with them your steadfast and stalwart support of the United States 2nd Amendment.

I’m ashamed that only 5% of America’s firearm owners are members of the National Rifle Association. I’ve recruited 936 NRA members in the last five years. What have you done today?

Olderman

October 27th, 2009
3:32 pm

US Constitution Article VI: Debts, Supremacy, Oaths: “… This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding…”

Tradition. historical senate practice holds that treaties negotiated by the administration can and will be amended by the senate, many times after the treaty has been signed. Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton are not going to have the last word…

Hard Right Hook

October 27th, 2009
4:12 pm

“And…where in the Constitution does it say that the President should pre-empt the legislative process? Nowhere? Oh…right. We have the legislative process for a reason, your insane and probably uneducated hysteria notwithstanding.”

When did I suggest that the Prersident pre-empt the process, Reason, you blithering dolt? You suggested I never took Civics. Exactly where did you graduate with a JD? You employ a classic Liberal/MoveOn.org tactic; change the subject and assassinate the messenger.

You live in your pristine world and I’ll live in reality. Many comments ago, all I asked was someone to explain to me what “reasonable control” meant. Except for the two examples previously cited, no one has yet to do that.

Jarhead1982

October 27th, 2009
4:25 pm

Yep, we see all the effective common sense regulation there is in the US today, for example the Brady Background Check. But unfortunately for that poster child of gun control laws, it is an abysmal failure.

USDOJ Background & Firearm Transfer Report 2008, since 1994 99 million checks, 1.67 million valid rejections of purchases from a licensed source, of which 58% were known felons. Since 1994 the number of felons attempting to purchase from a licensed source has dropped 68%.

The same USDOJ performed a survey in 1997 to find where felons bought their firearms, 80% street or private sales, 12% retail stores, 2% gun shows/flea markets. So a 68% reduction times 14% licnesed sources means a 9.52% increase in private or street buys. How is that so?

Well, since the same 2008 report also shows that between 2000-2008 only 13,024 were prosecuted of that 1.67 million rejections, or less than 1%. So does anyone really believe that any additional common sense laws will make a difference, ROTFLMFAO! This trend is consistent throughout our oh so effective law system. Who here can prove those 1.66 plus million rejected persons didnt then go on to buy a firearm from an unlicensed source?

Speaking of effective, anyone here know of Project Exile, tested in Richmond Virginia, over 100k population in 1997-1998. Every criminal case that had a firearm involved was sent to the Fed’s who then pursued the prosecution, no plea bargains, increased sentences. Yeah that near 40% reduction in violent crime involving a firearm in Richmond in one year doesnt represent magnitudes of effectivesness compared to all those common sense laws combined, yet one never hears of this project being implemented nationwide.

Results

Within the first year (1997-1998) Project Exile resulted in:

372 persons indicted for Federal gun violations.
440 illegally possessed guns seized.
300 persons arrested or held in State custody.
222 arrestees (more than 74 percent) held without bond.
247 persons convicted.
196 persons sentenced to an average of 55 months of imprisonment.
An extensive public outreach and media campaign to educate citizens about lengthy Federal prison sentences for gun crimes and to maximize deterrence was also a critical component of Project Exile.

Project Exile, which was confined to Richmond and surrounding areas, has since been supplanted by Virginia Exile, the Commonwealth’s statewide program which carries bail restrictions and imposes a mandatory minimum sentence of five years in a Virginia prison for those who:

have a prior conviction for a violent felony and are convicted of possessing a firearm;
are convicted of possessing a firearm on school property with the intent to use it, or displaying it in a threatening manner;
are convicted of possessing a firearm and Schedule I or II drugs such as cocaine or heroin, or convicted of possessing more than a pound of marijuana with the intent to sell.

Oh thats right, this was an actual program the NRA & Brady Campaign agreed on, but never reached much farther as it had something to do with the opposition calling this program which didnt add new laws to infringe on the law abiding, as a rascist policy, lol.

It was also mentioned that the overall total crime rate didnt fall anymore than Norfolk Virginia that year which didnt have Project Exile. LOL, all that proves is that gun control laws dont prevent violence. But then again, if Project Exile were allowed to continue since most shootings are related to criminal activites, more criminals off the streets over a time period means less shootings.

Since the government doesnt have any appearances or disposition to actually address those things that develop violent tendencies in children (like they can), then the best in the short term is for those in opposition should rethink this program as based on the evidence, it has more potential than all those other “common sense” laws!

Brad

October 27th, 2009
4:37 pm

Just look at the statistics. Ban guns, crime goes up. Not a myth, FACT. Proven in other countries as well as jurisdictions in the U.S.

Hard Right Hook

October 27th, 2009
4:54 pm

Jarhead1982:

Well stated. Hard to argue with “Government oversight.” It rarely if ever works.

Fraternae Eternis, Semper Fidelis.

Ted

October 27th, 2009
6:01 pm

It’s not about you idiots owning your guns, it’s about controlling the international trade of SALW’s. The ATT won’t take your stupid gun away it will just better control how you acquire it. Morons.

peter

October 27th, 2009
7:35 pm

The UK has enacted a law making the ownership of large kitchen knives illegal. The Brit police now carry guns.The ban,suprise, suprise, was ignored by the bad guys! Violent deaths have not declined in the UK since they enacted their ban on firearms. Because someone has an AK-47 or any other such weapon in his gun collection, it in no way means it will be used in an unlawful manor. I owned a car capable of speeds in excess of 140 mph. I never drove it that fast because it is illegal.How long will it be before axes, hammers kitchen knives will be regulated here? Fully automatic weapons have been strictly regulated for many years. This has not stopped the bad guys from using them!!

peter

October 27th, 2009
7:49 pm

If the control of illegal use of firearms is truely the reason for regulation, then make it mandarory that if an individual is conviced of using a firearm in the commission of a crime, in addition to the sentence of the crime itself, a sentence of say 25 years be imposed. Example: armed robbery is defined (in most states) as a robbery comitted with any dangerous or deadly weapon or if one is implied. The sentence is generally 5 to10 yrs in prison. Add 25 years to that if a gun is shown and you might just have a deterant to rmany robberies.

CLARENCE LEE CLINE

October 27th, 2009
8:55 pm

I am sorry for you Ted. I highly resent being called an Idiot and a Moron by someone who spends more time playing with himself than in educating himself as to truth. Much more time. The treaty with the UN involves much more than guns. It involves our very existance as a soveriegn state. As a minion of the UN we will be required to follow UN rules such as gun bans and loss of freedoms. Our country will have to pay trillions of dollars in fines to the Un for screwing up the worlds climate. And you know what? Global warming as expressed by the traitors we have elected to be our employees is a myth. The truth is out there and if you can leave your gonads alone for a few minutes go on the internet and learn the truth. The truth is out there. some of us have found it but we were more busy hunting the truth than lopeing our mules and chokeing chickens. This from one very tiked off old Sheepdog. Google On Sheep, Wolves and Sheepdogs by Dave Grossman. and learn a bit for starters. With love.

Bunck

October 27th, 2009
9:15 pm

Ted
Guns now, under current federal laws could not be sent to another country. If I put the gun i purchase at a gun store here in the US into a container and it was conficated in another country, I would be committing a felony. Only the federal government can approve the sale of firearms outside the US; a FFL dealer doesn’t have that authority.

This treaty when passed would allow the UN to dictate what small arms the US gun manufacturer can produce for the US citizen not what type of gun they have aright to. All has to happen is one semi-auto AR15 gun turns up in the hands of a Mexican cartel for the country of Mexico to complian of gun trafficking. The US is then forced to comply with the treaty by restricting the manufacture of AR15’s. Another country finds a handful of 45 cal. 1911’s, recentely produced in the US, found smuggled into the England. The British gov. claims there’s trafficking from the US. In order to stop the trafficking the US has to stop production of 1911’s.

This is already being field tested in Mexico. A group only known by the Brady Campaign composed of Mexican and US citizens ( Pacific Group) who have influence with both governments have proposed the reinstatement of the 1994 Clinton Assault Weapons Ban. The reason they put fort is that some semi-auto AR15 guns have been illegally smuggled into Mexico.

Hard Right Hook

October 27th, 2009
9:22 pm

Hey, Teddy:

KMFA you blivet.

EatonWhite

October 27th, 2009
10:55 pm

While I don’t find gun ownership the least problematic, I do find the obsession with guns that so many of you have displayed disturbing. A gun – in this context, since we aren’t really talking about hunting – has a single purpose. To kill. While that killing may take place in defense of one’s life, or the life of others, it’s still killing. The purpose of a gun is to kill. Plain and simple.

As a society that often describes itself as “Christian”, we should not be glorifying the killing of other human beings. Yet, that’s what I see from so many of you. You worship guns in the way that many people worship religion. More – because your reactions to perceived threats against your guns are far more extreme than reactions to perceived threats against your religion.

What’s wrong with you people? A gun should be viewed as the last possible option, an unfortunate one that is used when there is no other choice. Most of you talk as if the chance to kill a fellow human being with your beloved gun is something that you dream of. In the dichotomy of Sacred/Profane as defined by Belk, et al., you place your guns firmly in the sacred category.

Personally…I don’t care if you own a gun, but I do care that you seem to love and respect your gun more than you respect human life. There is something wrong with a person who worships a weapon.

Lugar Gaboom

October 28th, 2009
12:46 am

The Obama socialists will never find the guns honest, self-defending Americans have mysteriously “lost”….”had stolen”….
“forgot where they put it”……..etc, etc. Take a hike socialists……….Americans have a constitutional right to bear arms.

Jarhead1982

October 28th, 2009
5:36 am

Leopards cant change their spots at will, and oh so many of this current administrations Czar’s are veterans of the most anti-gun administrations in recent history. That and if one just tallied all the anti-gun legislation in a chronological history, state and federal, one just cant help but see that in order to eat the elephant that is the majoirty and power of the US Constitution, one must do so in numerous little bites! The anti forces just dont seem to quit nibbling on the elephant, do they?

It also amazes me that people cant accept facts and are in open denial of how government oversight never works in any controlling situation and without the inevitable “unintended consequences”.

How many here remember why oh so many curio and collectors made the effort to sign up for a type 1 FFL before the Mc Clure Volkner Act 1986? It was because the ATF was succesfully prosecuting people for selling more than a couple firearms a year without being a licensed dealer. So many then got the type 1 FFL’s so they couldnt be prosecuted, becoming a kitchen table business in most instances.

Now comes 1994, the height of the gun banners power when they blindly rammed useless legislation down our throats (see AWB 1994-2004) as well as changes to the ATF requirements for havning an FFL. Lets see, 40 times increase in licensing fee’s, agree to random anytime searches of the business premises at the ATF’s, discretion, along with hard stringent reporting requirements that essentially if you have a typo, off to prison, your a felon.

Most of the reduction of a 70% drop in licensed FFL holders over the first 5 years after these changes were due to type 1 FFL holders letting their licenses lapse. What is utterly moronic about this, well everyone knows how bad and awful that gun show loophole is, yeah less than 2% in 1997 is such a horrendous issue, less than that today unfortunately for the anti’s. Yet here they drove how many hundreds of thousands of licensed dealers out of being licensed. Yep, all those now “private” or street sales, not recorded, not tracked, not controlled. All because the government wanted to affect more CONTROLS, ROTFLMFAO, guess that makes the government the morons.

As for those who state we worship our firearms, naw, just isnt true. To claim that, one must prove that a firearm, an inanimate object is imbued with supernatural powers, that in laymans terms is a “Fetish”. Then the person that believes such things, gradually progresses down the mental illness slope to actually inferring that these inanimate objects are imbued with these supernatural powers enableing them to speak, convince and control people, that one who owns a firearm must certainly be hearing voices, and therefore automatically becoming a drooling, loathsome, guaranteed killer. Yep, anyone here recognise these classic symptoms of schizophrenia by those who claim we worship weapons? They believe we hear voices, and they call us nuts, ROTFLMFAO!

Unfortunately for the anti’s, the individuals rights and access to firearms is what unltimately secured our sovereign rights, and will forever define our independence, ability, and willingness to never subject to oppressive tyranny, or unwelcomed attacks on ourselves no matter how small the steps. We worship our freedom of choice, our ability to defend ourselves, and our independence from needing a granny state to take care of us 24/7. As it takes a firearm, the best tool available to guarantee said freedoms, so be it, but we dont hear voices from an inanimate object, that is just silly.

Of course we see all the evidence that gun ownership equates to mass killings and a desire to kill, just because we own a firearm (see Fetish & schizphrenia notes above). Nope, we dont.

Such rhetoric of “prying the gun from my dead hands” is just that, a verbal warning. Or would you anti’s just prefer to continue to prod those who have drawn a line in the sand into action first?

You anti’s should be thankful those who are called the 3 percenters, those who demand you “pry their gun from their cold dead hands” will be among the first to physically fight back are still talking. Cause when they quit talking, one must only logically assume they already have their “own” lists formed, just like our government does, only shorter.

One always has a few nuts in any group, that is reality, but the massive majority of gun owners will wait until they are attacked, before reacting, prove otherwise! React by talk or react by force, that choice is solely in the hands of the policitians, hope they realize that before it really is too late!

My old Gunny used to say, when I hear ya bit$hin, I know I am doing my job keeping you boys busy and in control. When it gets quiet though, I get real worried, lol!

My previous “government” supplied evidence of the failure of so called common sense laws gun control laws and constraints and a common sense solution stand on their own merits. Either provide real solutions that reduce violence and only affects the criminals, which unenforceable legislation never does, or get real worried when those 3 percenters get REAL QUIET!

Hard Right Hook

October 28th, 2009
9:22 am

Eaton White:
“What’s wrong with you people? A gun should be viewed as the last possible option, an unfortunate one that is used when there is no other choice. Most of you talk as if the chance to kill a fellow human being with your beloved gun is something that you dream of. In the dichotomy of Sacred/Profane as defined by Belk, et al., you place your guns firmly in the sacred category.

Personally…I don’t care if you own a gun, but I do care that you seem to love and respect your gun more than you respect human life. There is something wrong with a person who worships a weapon.”

Shouldn’t you have this translated into Arabic and Farsi, and lecture the Peace Loving Muslims first?

Perhaps you should get a soapbox and preach this to the Bloods and Crips in Chicago and LA.

I repsect all life, and the most special human life. But I would gladly and willingly risk mine to save yours. And overwhelming firepower helps.