NRA just phoned. Evidently the UN is about to impose worldwide gun control?

[Mister Ed]

Am I mistaken, or is this just a load of hooey? And if it is, then isn't it time for gun-rights advocates to find better representation?

It was Mrs. Ed who answered the phone. She says the guy from the National Rifle Association who asked for me was pretty rude right off the bat.

When I took the phone, the guy asked me a big, long, loaded, push-poll question - the gist of which was, "Are you at all troubled by the efforts of the dictatorial president Obama to confiscate the guns of all Americans in violation of their Second Amendment rights?" The list of anti-Obama adjectives was much longer and nastier than that, though. I asked him, "Uhh, could you repeat that question?"

Instead, he played me a recorded message from Wayne LaPierre, Vice President of the NRA. What Mr. LaPierre had to say was that there was a UN initiative in progress to confiscate weapons from gun owners worldwide. Once such a resolution was ratified, it would have the full force of law in the U.S., as the U.S. Constitution clearly states, and the government would begin confiscating guns.

Then, a Ms. Wagner came on line to talk with me. When I asked for more information about that UN business, she eventually allowed as to how they didn't really think anything would come of it. But she said the real question for me to ask myself was, "Do you want foreign dictators and Hillary Clinton determining whether Americans can own guns?"

When I told Ms. Wagner that I couldn't see my way clear to send $75 or $100 just now, I missed out on getting a ball cap (signed by Mr. LaPierre, I think), and she quickly ended our discussion.

I haven't been able find any information from reliable news sources about UN gun control efforts. However, World Net Daily has this to report:

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50671

The U.N. Small Arms Review Conference will meet in New York City June 26 to July 7 to discuss illegal trafficking in arms, "ineffective national controls" and related issues.

The U.N.'s disarmament effort features a program in which it buys back weapons in nations torn by civil strife. But National Rifle Association Vice President Wayne LaPierre insists the U.N. is concerned about more than illicit arms in African hot spots. He says the global body wants the firearms of American citizens – and much more.

"So, after we are disarmed, the U.N. wants us demobilized and reintegrated," says the NRA's executive vice president, Wayne LaPierre, according to the Economist magazine. "I can hear it now: 'Step right this way for your reprogramming, sir. Once we confiscate your guns, we can demobilize your aggressive instincts and reintegrate you into civil society.' No thanks."

Sheesh.

This all leads me to wonder: why should this greedy, monolithic, and monumentally dishonest organization be the only game in town when it comes to representing gun owners? Isn't it time for the millions of gun owners who are neither crazy, nor dishonest, nor right-wing extremists to have an organization that better represents them?

[spanone]

1. bwahahahaaa...

[BOSSHOG]

2. Its good for the likes of NRA that conservatives are so easily scared

[gratuitous]

8. While the call to Mister Ed went awry

I'm sure that the NRA will contact thousands of willing folks who will send in their meager coin to Mr. LaPierre and his organization. They know their constituents.

[BlooInBloo]

3. No-one is quite as fearful as gun people.

[Don Caballero]

4. I would welcome this

Although I do not buy the premise this would be a great idea. If only armies and police forces were armed worldwide, we could raise the quality of life for everyone.

[anonymous171]

6. That's a joke right? nt

[Don Caballero]

11. No joke

Which part would you think would be a joke? If no one was armed except the police and army, civilians would have to go to great lengths to kill one another. I am not a supporter of the Second Amendment, never have been never will be.

[anonymous171]

13. There's always knives. Look at the UK nt

[Don Caballero]

16. Much harder to kill a person with a knife

With a gun one or two shots can kill someone from a distance. With a knife you must be up close to the person and look at them as you kill them. Comparing guns and knives is silly.

[immoderate]

44. To kill a person with a gun, you have to look at them too.

Otherwise you waste ammunition, which is expensive. But knives are reusable.

Now that I think about it, a bullet, at most, could kill one person, but a knife can kill thousands. And it's silent! No warnings!

First you compare the gun to the knife, then you say it's silly.

Silly goes a long way here. Welcome to DU.

--imm

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

56. Knives are silent, ambiguous, and the wounds are often far more serious.

The blood-loss from a knife wound is stunning. Not to mention often immediately debilitating. Nerves, tendons, muscles... a knives stops victims in their tracks when in the hands of a skilled user. The open wound area is often several times larger than something like a pistol round causes - think of a cut several inches long and a few inches deep versus a hole.Seeing as a vast majority of criminal and self defense shootings happen at very close distance, outlawing guns would not stop skilled determined criminals from having a gross advantage over their weaponless victims. The only advantage knife victims claim over gun victims is the ability to flee more easily... which does not favor people of limited physical fitness.

The only firearm I'd consider more dangerous than a knife at any range would be something shooting a rifle cartridge. The wounding characteristics include a temporal cavity of destruction (high energy dissipation) that is several inches in diameter despite the size of the much smaller wound channel. Said otherwise, tissues surrounding the wound are turned to jello from the hydrostatic shockwave.

[liberalhistorian]

43. Dude, have you never heard

the term "black market?" Do you REALLY think that there wouldn't be civilians who would find ways to get guns? And do you really think that criminals wouldn't find ways to get guns illegally, just like they do now? I'm not in any way a fan of the NRA, never have been and never will be, but law-abiding civilians DO have the right to own guns and they SHOULD have the right to own guns. The police cannot be everywhere at once and cannot often be there right when you need them. People have the right to defend themselves. And when you live in a rural area, like I do, with the police few and far between, you should especially have that right. Unless you're mentally ill, have a felony criminal record, and/or have a domestic violence conviction or there's a legitimate protection order against you, you should have the right to own a gun if you want to. Not everyone will, of course, but they have that right. How do you think we won the revolution, after all? Not by just our armies alone, but by ordinary farmers and country people with their own guns.

What you are saying is as bad the other way as the all-guns-all-the-time-everywhere-and-for-everyone paranoid fear-mongering militancy of the NRA. It must be nice for you living on Planet Pat Simplicity.

[Euromutt]

48. And the police and army would have a much easier time killing citizens

I'm sure I don't have to rattle off a list of historical and current examples of repressive regimes that would greatly prefer their citizens to be completely unarmed.

And as has been pointed out by other posters, criminals--especially organized criminals--have a way of getting their hands on firearms if they feel they need them. And they'll get them off the government if there's no source. For example, a fair amount of the firepower in the hands of the Mexican cartels, particularly the military-grade stuff, was acquired from military and state police armorers who were, ahem, "supplementing their income." The fact that the Mexican government felt the need to announce that it was instituting a tight chain of custody system on the new FX-05 army rifle, so that if one turns up in the hands of a narcotraficante, it can be traced to the last person to have authorized custody over it, is a good indication that theft of government property is a continuing problem.

Closer to home, even prior to the National Firearms Act of 1934, Dillinger's gang were acquiring their automatic weapons (Thompson sub-machine guns and Browning Automatic Rifles) by stealing them from police and National Guard armories.

I suspect your problem is that you labor under the misapprehension that an overwhelming majority of firearm crimes are committed impulsively by "regular folks," and everything would have been fine if only they hadn't had a firearm available. Think again. Criminological research indicates that an overwhelming majority of violent crime in any given society is committed by a very small subset of the population. Apparently, the California Depts. of Justice and Corrections & Rehabilitation crunched some numbers and found that ~4% of the male population (so ~2% of the overall population) was responsible for 50% of violent offenses, with the remaining violent offenses being committed by a segment of the population that wasn't all that much larger. Some 90% of U.S. homicides are committed by people who already had a fairly extensive criminal history as adults, with multiple arrests and often convictions for non-lethal violent offenses (much of the remaining 10% are committed by people who only have juvenile criminal records, or are mentally ill). Basically, the overwhelming majority of the population, gun owners included, go their entire lives without committing a single violent offense. Hampering such people from possessing firearms will not have an appreciable effect on violent crime rates.

[PavePusher]

54. "If no one was armed except the police and army,

civilians would have to go to great lengths to kill one another."

They already do so.

They would also have to go to great lengths to defend themselves if unlawfully attacked. Got a plan for that? What if the police and military started to abuse their powers?

[Treo]

55. Don't you know

You couldn't win anyway so you should just give up your guns now

[Treo]

42. Because that worked so well in germany and Russia? NT

Typo

[Tejas]

59. and Kenya, and Argentina, and........

[DonP]

67. Ummm, we call that a police state. That's what you really want? Ntxt

[anonymous171]

5. The UN has no power. I wouldn't worry. nt

[rfranklin]

7. Somebody needs to cap that guy...

That is just satire and comedy and not a threat.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

9. I got the same kind of phone call

It was from a very polite and soft-spoken lady who identified herself as a member of the NRA. She asked me to listen to a taped statement of Wayne LaPierre in which he described a behind-the scenes, closed-door effort taking place right now by the United Nations to take away gun rights of U.S. citizens.

I told her that I supported the 2nd amendment and gun rights (which I do) but I thought this was a lot of crazy conspiracy talk and an alarmist and phoney scheme to try to drum up support for the NRA. I told her that the UN had no ability to call a Constitutional Convention to change or remove the 2nd amendment from the Constitution. I told her that this type of nutso talk could only affect the credibility of the NRA and bring it disrepute. I asked her where the moderates in the NRA might be hiding, ones who can think for themselves and not let themselves be led by the nose by this insane kind of Glenn Beckery. I was amazed at how quiet the lady was on the other end of the phone while I went off and I thought she had hung up. She thanked me for my opinion and we said good-bye. Although she identified herself as a member of the NRA, I think she was probably a minimum wage phone-bank person who didn't really care.

[asdjrocky]

10. How many members does the NRA have?

I always figured we should all join the NRA, take over, then vote it out of existence.

[anonymous171]

12. Nah, we should just merge it with the ACLU

That way everyone wins.

[asdjrocky]

14. You're idea is one better than mine. Maybe even two better! lol

[Euromutt]

45. They have four million or so

Also, you don't get voting rights unless you've been an annual member for five years, or are a life member. Also, after a couple of coup attempts back in the 1980s, the NRA by-laws were re-written to make it extremely difficult to seize control of the organization in one go. Members vote for the board, and the election of the board is staggered; that is, only 1/3 of the board's members are up for election every year. So even if you manage to pull of an unexpected coup one year and dominate the voting, you'll only have 1/3 of the board, not enough to seize control. You'd have to pull off the same stunt the next year, and LaPierre's faction will be prepared.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

57. Performing a coup of a firearms rights interest group...

not the wisest of choices at face value.

[greennina]

15. I wish she was right!

The UN has talked about small arms bans, but it has never followed through with them in this country.

[Edweird]

17. Reason #345346234 why I am not now, nor will ever be a member.

That's nuts.

[TheCowsCameHome]

18. "NRA calling" - That's all I'd have to hear before the phone met a terrible end.

It wouldn't know what hit it.

[divideandconquer]

19. The NRA does represent the vast majority of gun owners, the americanTaliban

I'm sure the Gungeon crowd will soon be here saying the UN is racist:sarcasm:

[Treo]

20. The UN is racist NT

[Gabi Hayes]

23. how did you pile up so many posts?

can't believe you're still here

anybody who wonders what I'm talking about, check its posts

sheesh. see:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4067910#4068118

[Canuckistanian]

27. Link?

Who are you, anyways?

[Treo]

29. Who is she or who am I ?

The reason I am still here is because I obey the rules and try not to be a prick to people.

ETA
To answer your question I'm a gun owner and a Member of the NRA ( and yes they go waaaaaaay overboard)

I tend to piss of the serious grabbers here so I normally confine myself to the "gungeon" and fire arms related topics. I get called FREEPER at least once a week.
Anything else you want to know/

[Canuckistanian]

35. Where's your link on the UN being racist?

And I'll even accept the broadest definition of "racism", never mind your reason for believing it so.

[Treo]

41. Did you read the post I was responding to?

I'm sure the Gungeon crowd will soon be here saying the UN is racist

I don't think the UN is racist (I also don't think the UN is relevant) I was meeting D&C's expectations on gun owners

[petronius]

21. Really? Why would you say that?

I don't see race mentioned in the OP or thread - do you have a particular reason for thinking that gun-owning DUers (or DUers in general) would inject race willy-nilly? It's a bit a RW canard, don't you think?

[Violet_Crumble]

22. That's not what they said...

They didn't say that about gun-owning DUers (or DUers in general), they specifically said the Gungeon crowd....

[Gabi Hayes]

24. heh...one of them already crawled out of the woodwork

[Taitertots]

25. Have you been to DU for long?

Not a week goes by where the surge in gun purchases isn't blamed on racism.

[friendly_iconoclast]

31. Nope. About 5% of gun owners, as last tallied. Also, Wayne LaPierre is full of shit

NRA membership: 4 million or so.
US gun owners: 80 million or so.

The NRA has several parts: The gun safety part, which is good- and the fund-raising part, which could give lessons
on moneygrubbing to shady TV preachers...

[Mister Ed]

33. Which was the real point of my OP. Where's the representation for the other 76 million owners?

I'm thinking the NRA has power that is far out of proportion to its membership. If all those non-NRA gun owners had another organization to turn to, one that better represented them, then maybe the NRA would be rendered irrelevant.

[divideandconquer]

36. Maybe there aren't so many gun owners

and maybe the NRA really does represent the majority of gun owners even though they don't pay dues or buy the magazine, they just drink the KOOL-aid.

[Euromutt]

49. An ounce of evidence beats a ton of speculation

Since you don't have any evidence for that surmise, only speculation based on your own prejudices, you'll excuse me if I don't take you seriously.

[Tejas]

60. Who is this "American Taliban" you speak of? nt

[sendero]

26. As someone who would ...

... be characterized by many here as a "gun nut" because I own many firearms, let me be the 14th to say "what a load of bullshit".

The UN can hardly wipe it's own nose, they are the last people on the planet that I worry about.

What is happening here is that the "Obama is going to take your guns" horseshit that the NRA and gun shops whipped up a year ago is wearing off and they need a new boogeyman.

[Canuckistanian]

28. The UN can't agree on lunch

Let alone imposing domestic small arms bans on the mighty US of A.

Hell, they can't even agree on language for a 'strongly-worded letter'.

And since WHEN has the UN EVER "imposed" anything that wasn't agreed on in triplicate by ANY country?

[Euromutt]

46. It's called "national sovereignty" and the UN is bound to respect it

If the recognized government of a country doesn't want something--e.g. election observers, cease-fire monitors, a peace-keeping force--the UN has no way to impose it. The exception is if the Security Council authorizes use of force under Chapter VII, which has IIRC happened twice: in response to the North Korean invasion of South Korea (1950), and in response to the Iraqi annexation of Kuwait (1990). Note that both those cases involved the violation of the territorial integrity of a sovereign UN member state.

Since the US has a veto in the Security Council, it is practically impossible for the UNSC to impose anything on the US (or any of the other four Permanent Members, for that matter). There is actually a provision that in the regs that allows the General Assembly to override a single veto, but that requires either 2/3 or 3/4 (I don't recall off the top of my head) of the UNGA to comply.

[harmonicon]

30. some people will fall for anything (nt)

[bridgit]

32. I would think every quixotic campaign should come with it's own magic wand just in case

[treestar]

34. The UN doesn't have the ability to impose anything

This is a scare tactic that works well on that part of the batshit insane right that fears "world government."

[Politicalboi]

37. Go sell some medicine bitches

http://www.snotr.com/video/93

Black Bush.

[aikoaiko]

38. Heck, I'm a member of the NRA and I never get these wacko calls. What a rip?

:rofl:

[nadinbrzezinski]

39. Will the UN send the black helicopters already?

The only reason I won't laugh is that some folks will eat this one fully

[The Straight Story]

40. I am all for us giving up guns to the UN/etc. The only ones that be trusted with weapons are our

leaders.

Time and again they have shown that they are the ones we can trust....


:rofl:

[Euromutt]

47. Cripes, are we back to this bollocks again?

It's hardly new; the NRA was already pushing this crap three years ago or so. I think there's decent parallels to be drawn between the NRA and the BSA, in that they both do good work teaching useful skills and have many decent members at the grass-roots level, but the leadership consists for the most part of people I wouldn't piss on if they were on fire. And I say that as a fricking member of the NRA! I would love to see a gun rights organization that is just about preserving private firearms ownership without a load of right-wing baggage strapped on. I'd join it like a shot (pardon the pun).

The problem is that the NRA as a political organization rests on a very strong foundation of its training and competition activities, and few people are willing to undermine that just because LaPierre and Cox are being assholes again.

And this simply assholery; LaPierre is either amazingly ignorant or, more likely, is lying through his teeth. The Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects ("PoA" for short) is aimed--like the name says--at the illicit trade of man-portable weaponry, among other things to organized criminals, terrorists, and vile rebel groups like the Revolutionary United Front in Sierra Leone (they're the ones who cut off the limbs of tens of thousands of non-combatants during the civil war). There may be some aspects of the PoA that are questionable--there are probably quite a few repressive regimes who want to prevent bona fide freedom fighters from getting hold of weapons--but rejecting the entire PoA because of that is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

[jeepnstein]

50. I got one of those, too.

The telemarketer was confused when I started asking for the Rally Point and the Code Word. Then I started raving about how I could be to New York City in a matter of hours for a modern-day Battle of Concorde. She kept redirecting me and asking for money. I informed her that money wouldn't do us any good now and we had to make a stand. She finally hung up on me. Imagine that. I guess it wasn't that big of an emergency after all.

[rrneck]

53. LOL! Well played sir. nt

[Tejas]

61. You're probably on "that" list now

:rofl:

[jeepnstein]

63. I'm probably on a few.

[TheWraith]

51. The NRA's senior leadership got taken over by psycho wingnuts many years back.

It's fundamentally no longer the same organization that once honored JFK with a lifetime membership, which he proudly accepted.

Unfortunately, the way that gun rights issues have been handled over the last 30 years or so, the right wing has been able to infect what were previously advocacy organizations with political propaganda, while we got saddled with the political poison. It's going to take many years of effort by moderate and liberal gun owners to push back against this stuff.

It's improving gradually, though. The NRA's campaign contributions in 2008 included more to Democrats than ever before.

[Francis Marion]

52. The UN has, and does, destroy arms and ammunition

UN protocol for the collection and destruction of weapons and ammunition, among other means, thru the DDR (disarmament, demobilisation, reintegration) program implemented in war torn countries:
http://www.unddr.org/iddrs/04/

Additionally, many peaceable countries elect to have the UN destroy ammunition that they had formerly sold on the open market, including the US domestic surplus market. Other countries have treaty agreements or national policies that require them to allow the UN to destroy surplus ammunition, most recent high profile example being South Africa in 2006, IIRC. SA isn't a war zone, and their surplus ammunition is missed here by many shooters.

The UN has, and does, destroy weapons and ammunition and make arrangements for this purpose in former war zones and in any country that will host them. It's a policy consistent with UN values, but works to decrease the amount of ammunition available for sale here.

[Tejas]

58. Yep, speaking of South Africa,

I remember the news reports of some SA.mil getting caught selling under the table after the bargain struck with the UN. So much for $25 battle packs of 2 years ago, seen them as high as $110 in Feb/March this year.

[rd_kent]

62. You SURE it was the ACTUAL NRA????

Smells fishy......

[Mister Ed]

64. Pretty sure.

I asked Ms. Wagner where I could get more information, and she directed me to the NRA website. Also, the recorded spiel from LaPierre was consistent with the quotations from him that I found on World Net Daily afterward.

[Euromutt]

68. Are you not aware of this book?

The Global War on Your Guns: Inside the UN Plan To Destroy the Bill of Rights by Wayne LaPierre
http://www.amazon.com/Global-War-Your-Guns-Destroy/dp/1595550410
From the blurb:

If you think there's no way an armed U.N. platoon of blue helmets can knock on your door to take your guns, this book just became your next must-read.

As a former UN staff member, I'm filing this one under "shite unseen" (i.e. something you don't actually need to read to know it's crap).

The NRA has been working this line of inducing paranoia for a number of years already. I think they crank it up when there's nothing imminent at the federal level.

[old mark]

65. I agree with the OP - there should be a LIBERAL pro gun organization -

An obvious need waiting to be filled. The NRA used to be a great organization, but since LaPierre is a money generator and the good work it does has become lost in the political bullshit and lies.
The Dems have finally understood that a very large number of their membership own guns we need an organization to advocate for and educate liberal gun owners.

mark

[GreenStormCloud]

69. There are several.

Check out http://www.a2dems.net/

[Xela]

66. Thought it kinda wacky at first too...then I heard the wacko on the other side: Rebecca Peters/IANSA

When I heard Peters for the first time, then Wayne LaPierre didn't sound as crazy.

The Great UN Gun Debate, when watched UNEDITED by IANSA, is very good:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Great-UN-Gun-Debate/dp/B001E0XG4M/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=miscellaneous&qid=1254843979&sr=8-6

Xela

[forward assist]

70. i work for the governent

I work for the government/military and I own personal firearms and if they think they can force me to relenquish my firearms and to also take the firearms of my fellow Oklahomans then they have a rude awakening.