Top

UN Gun Ban Conference – Day Three

June 29, 2006

UN Secretary General Kofi Annan keeps saying that the UN isn’t interested in denying lawful citizens the right to own firearms, yet we are hearing from different countries asking for support, including financial, to help them disarm all of their citizenry.

Cam Edwards at TownHall.com is covering the conference and files a report on day three’s activities. Here are some of the highlights of his report.

Hearing Angola and Cambodia detail their plans for rounding up all the guns owned by civilians is kind of like hearing that the Dixie Chicks are writing a song about America. You just know something bad’s going to happen in the end. And yet, that’s exactly what we heard on day 3 of the UN’s summit on small arms (Angola and Cambodia, not the Dixie Chicks. They haven’t been granted a seat on the Security Council… yet).

Angola, a country devastated by 24 years of civil war, is now in the process of making sure that citizens can never again revolt against the government. Minister of Justice Manuel Miguel da Costa Aragão told the assembled nations the, “disarmament process is being carried out in a systematic manner and on the basis of information provided by the population.” Even better, Angola wants other countries to help pay for the disarming of its citizens. The Justice Minister also said, “we seize this opportunity to ask for the support of the international community in the difficult task of disarming the civilian population.”

And in Cambodia, pretty much the same thing.

Also speaking on Wednesday morning was Cambodian Undersecretary of State Sieng Lapresse. Cambodia, where over a million civilians lost their lives in a genocide, has banned the civilian possession of firearms. The fact that the Khmer Rouge were able to rule the country with an iron fist in part because of the strict gun control laws in place has been lost on the United Nations. I’m pretty sure the Cambodian government understands, however.

The State Department says the Cambodian government’s human rights record got worse in 2005, not better. “Contrary to past years,” it says, “there were no reports of politically motivated killings… however, extrajudicial killings occurred.” So the government killing civilians wasn’t political in nature. Well, that’s a relief.

The Cambodian genocide took place just a generation ago. Yet already the Cambodian government is disarming its citizens, with the approval and help of the United Nations and its disarmament program. In a perfect world, the United Nations would be holding an armament program for the people of Cambodia. It would understand the right of self-protection. It would understand that the State isn’t always the good guy.

The only way that the United Nations can gain world dominance is by controlling every government in countries globally. History shows us that this is accomplished by disarming the citizens. Call this a domino affect or whatever, but if the UN is allowed to continue its interference, no matter to what degree, they eventually will succeed.

They can whittle away at the United States Constitution and succeed as well, although it may take more time. They understand that there are already those in this country working toward the same goals as the UN. The gun grabbers in this country refuse to understand the importance of the 2nd Amendment when drafted by our founding fathers. They knew that without an armed citizenry the country would soon fail.

The UN needs to but out of our business and those of other countries. Intelligent people know that the UN is a corrupt and useless organization in which American taxpayers contribute way too much money. The U.S. should in protest, stop making payments to the UN and withdraw its membership.

Tom Remington

Written by Steve · Filed Under Guns/Gun Rights 

Comments

  • http://twitter.com/whitedevil1612 archibald somers

    And 6 years later, I’m supposing your paranoid predictions were true? I’m supposing there’s UN troops marching through Dallas, and UN ships moored off Charleston?

    Go back to taking your Prozac; there’s a good redneck.

    Oh, and Cambodia’s gun ban was in 1999; however, Cambodia shares a border with Thailand and so, in much the same way as Afghanistan has a ban on guns though guns are easy enough to get, in Cambodia, even after the confiscation, you can get an AK47 just for under £100.

    Kinda defeats your argument about gun control leading to people being defenceless; when I went to Cambodia, even I as a UK tourist could have armed the whole tour group to the teeth.

    Stick to them guns, y’all varmints!
    Stupid American redneck.

    On a side note, I bet you’ve never even left your own country, have you? A lot of the stupid, paranoid, delusional, LibertarDian, nutters have not.

    Oh, and on another side note: Cambodia is lovely. There’s none of that fake have a nice day crap

    • TRemington

      Little of what you say is intelligent and you often contradict yourself. In addition, as most uninformed people do, you find the need to resort to name calling.

      Are your name calls and rants addressed at Cam Edwards at Townhall, or me? Either way, it sounds as though you would be much happier living in Cambodia.

      Not that it matters much but this “redneck” you seem to be most interested in hating on, has probably seen more of the world than you have so don’t act so blaming ignorant.

      It’s fine if you think governments, both foreign and domestic, should steal away your God-given rights. Simply because someone else doesn’t see things the way you do isn’t call for such vitriolic bile.

      • http://twitter.com/whitedevil1612 archibald somers

        God given? There is no God, moron.

        And ill informed? HA. Most of you people believe that guns cause less crime, and then when the inevitable spree killings occur, declare that they were perpetrated by the New World Order, as an attempt to steal your guns.

        The only armed to the teeth society which has some semblance of safety is Switzerland, and those guns are not private weapons- they are given by the State, which most of you lunatics believe is evil communism fascist new world order satanism by the shapeshifting lizards from the cheese moon.

        Also, you posted this in 2006; have the UN taken your guns away? No. Interestingly, your communist fascist atheist Muslim Jewish satanic new world order puppet president has LOOSENED your gun laws- students can now take guns on campus, and Illinois and Maryland are having to rethink their restrictive laws.

        And, yes, there are crimes in Cambodia. However, there have been crimes in Iceland and Japan, and neither of those countries run the risk of being shot as the USA.
        On a side note, the most gun crimes and spree killings in Europe are carried out in Finland and Germany; there has been one in the English countryside, and one in Norway.

        • RattlerRider

          “Humanism is not new. It is, in fact, man’s second oldest faith. Its promise was whispered in the first days of Creation under the Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil: ‘Ye shall be as gods.’” (Qutd. in Baker 206)

          Indeed, the only logical conclusion that a secular humanist can arrive at is that man is becoming god. It is interesting to note that Diderot, who was ostensibly an atheist, would select religious personages such as Lucifer to adorn his “compendium of human knowledge.” Diderot’s appropriation of the “symbol of light and rebellion” as a core icon for the title page of Encyclopedia suggests a conception of human knowledge that parallels the fallen angel’s hubristic belief that he would make himself “like the Most High” (Isaiah 14:14). Atheism provides the philosophical segue for the enthronement of man as the Most High. This enthronement begins with the recognition of a logical contradiction inherent to atheism. Christian apologist Ravi Zacharias delineates the logical contradiction of atheism:

          [Atheism] is not saying, “I do not think there is a God.” It is not even saying, “I do not believe there is a God.” It is affirming the nonexistence of God. It affirms a negative. It affirms the nonexistence of God… anyone with an introductory course in philosophy recognizes that it is a logical contradiction. How can you affirm a negative in the absolute? It would be like me saying to you, “There is no such thing as a white stone with black dots anywhere in all of the galaxies of this universe.” The only way I can affirm that is if I have unlimited knowledge of this universe. So, to affirm an absolute negative is self-defeating because what you are saying is, “I have infinite knowledge in order to say to you, ‘There is nobody with infinite knowledge.’” (“Why I am Not an Atheist, Part one,” Let My People Think)

          The only way to affirm the nonexistence of God is to lay claim to one of his core attributes: omniscience. Philosophically and conceptually, the claimant is already on a slippery slope towards to the belief in self-deification. Ron Carlson and Ed Decker reiterate:

          It is philosophically impossible to be an atheist, since to be an atheist you must have infinite knowledge in order to know absolutely that there is no God. But to have infinite knowledge, you would have to be God yourself. It’s hard to be God yourself and an atheist at the same time!

          Indeed, to conclude with all certainty that there is no transcendent God outside the ontological plane of the physical universe, one must first claim omniscience. However, omniscience is a trait reserved exclusively for deities. Therefore, the claimant must conclude that he or she is a god. In this sense, atheism is not the rejection of a deity. Atheism is but a philosophical segue for the ontological relocation of God within man himself. Herein is the occult conception of man as an emergent deity.

          Ascendency of the Scientific Dictatorship brought forth by the Royal Society of London, A Great Tribulation in the making..

  • Matty

    So, you believe that carrying a gun has only the purpose of self-defence?
    Think again, Tom.
    Guns will not bring safety to anyone. Your beliefs towards guns are the same of “fucking for virginity”; the violence increased by guns will, eventually destroy a society.
    People with guns kill others, and that’s inevitable. Hell, the “simple” fact of carrying a gun promotes violence.
    Look at your country for a second. Even kids can get guns, goddamn it. Look at what happened in Columbine. Look at what’s happening right now. People are getting killed because of those guns. Because of people like you that believe that oh, guns will bring us protection and safety. In your country, in your very fucked up country (because of, obviously, people who have the same mentality as you), you can get shot by another redneck (sorry, but I have to agree with Archibald here, you do sound like a redneck), with absolutely no experience or training, or even self-defence purpose of carrying a weapon.
    You think that the UN’s attempt of disarming other countries is an attempt of gaining world dominance?
    Think again, Tom. (I’m starting to doubt your ability, but ya know what they say, don’t lose your hope too soon)
    What the UN is doing, is preventing those killing sprees. Preventing that violence that guns trigger. The UN is trying to bring peace.
    Now, just because your country is fucked up, doesn’t mean others have to be it as well.
    Don’t even think of bringing the argument: “It’s a God’s given right.” That’s not even an argument.
    I see no god. I see people getting killed daily. People getting shot. Mothers, kids, friends. People who die because some loony has a gun. And why does he have a gun? Because someone believes that it would bring him protection from some evil conspiracy force.
    I’m more than okay with you believing in a giant man, who lives in the sky, and loves you no matter what (except if you break his 10 rules. If you do, that man who loves you, will send you to a place full of fire and torturing, so you can live in pain for the rest of eternity). If believing in god brings your mind some peace, go ahead, Tom.
    Just don’t force others to swallow your (stupid) ideas, like priests force kids to swallow semen.

    P.S.: “Call this a domino affect or whatever”. It’s not “affect”. It’s “effect”.

    • alrem

      Matty, a sure way to keep oneself from knowledge is the assumption that one already has knowledge. A barrier to knowledge is assuming you have knowledge.
      Today’s educational system’s roots are from the places you deny exist. When you read what has been written about yourself and your inability to govern yourself, while desiring to tell others what you think they ought to be doing, those words should shed light on your present condition but only by reading those words written against you (and I).
      Your age is evidence not in your favor for finding the things out that have affected your current thinking. It’s good that the mind is a difficult thing to change quickly or man would be off on every whim, chasing rainbows, so to speak. Time will manage your thoughts, provided nothing is hidden.
      Where nothing is hidden, it is called truth.

      I propose that if I believe there is no God and there really is, I will have lost everything. If I take the side of belief and there is a God, I have gained eternity. It’s better that one believe in God. The heavens (skies) declare His glory while “education” dictates the impossibilities of evolution.

      Challenging the Myths of Science is important, in that it defines a highly ordered universe in the microcosm and the macrocosm.

      I’ve posted a link to an hour and 45 minutes video from Chuck Missler, an information specialist, that I hope you enjoy.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvDqrSTCcmA&feature=related

    • RattlerRider

      People of governments and the U.N. with guns, while all they’ve disarmed is the problem. Because like you said, people with guns kill others, most often others who have no guns, and that’s inevitable. Hell, the “simple” fact of carrying a gun by some, promotes genocidal violence, against others attempting to live in peace. The U.N. and other governmental man made agencies, will never achieve peace. So in the end, your own words, you’re willing to trust someone with guns, who wishes they were the only ones holding those guns. You’re very foolish.

    • RattlerRider

      “Just don’t force others to swallow your (stupid) ideas, like {Anti-Christos} priests force kids to swallow semen.”

      Seems your U.N. likes those Babylonian Priests; You go ahead and trust what you do not understand..

      Kings of the Earth
      http://www.seawaves.us/na/koe/kings.html

      Visit of His Holiness Pope Paul VI to the United Nations
      http://www.unmultimedia.org/photo/detail.jsp?id=104/104059&key=31&query=category:%22General%20Assembly%22&sf=score

      His {UN}Holiness {Anti Christos} Pope John Paul II at the United Nations
      http://www.un.org/News/Papal/photos.html

  • Matty

    And that photo is me, very sad. About to cry.
    With what?
    Your stupidity.

    • RattlerRider

      People with clubs, spears, knives, rocks, poisons, government madmen, have killed others, for centuries, it’s just history. Some mad men will go to any lengths to achieve there version of peace, a disarming of the global citizens is coming, and when it happens, it will seem nice at first, and then you will witness the most evil bloodletting of others ever in the history of the world. A Great Tribulation will be upon mankind. The U.N creates a lifeless desert, and calls it peace.

Bookshelf 2.0 developed by revood.com

Bottom