Or the lack thereof from their point of view. I've been thinking about this, and I feel a mix of despair, rage and '#!**% you' toward the clowns in that organization, and the equally vile people in the EU and wherever else who push this crap.
I can't remember if this is someone else's wording or my own, I know I've read the same sentiment elsewhere: the ONLY reason for a govenment to take away the right to arms is because said government
A. Doesn't think you have the brains to own one,
B. Doesn't think anyone 'needs' to have arms(by the bureaucrats' definition),
C. Is planning on doing things the people won't like, and doesn't want them to have a serious means to resist, or
D. All of the above.
That's it. When you boil down all the bullshit wording in that UN document referenced in the previous post, that's all it is. "You cannot be trusted with arms, you don't need arms, you're so stupid you might resist our actions(which are for your own good if you were smart enough to understand that); therefore you cannot be allowed the ownership of arms".
The sad fact is that we've seen firsthand how the most basic rights can be eroded. 4th Amendment rights torn badly in the War On Drugs, for instance. In the case of the 2nd, originally most of the founders didn't think it even needed to be mentioned in the Bill of Rights; it was seen as such a basic and important right of free people that it need not be listed. Two or three states(can't remember offhand and I'm short of time) insisted that it MUST be listed, and if it wasn't they wouldn't sign onto the Constitution. Thank God for their stubbornness or we might be in the same position as Britain; a once accepted right of free people taken away by steps.
Maybe wouldn't have been as bad here; a combination of factors(the 'gun culture' John Ross writes of far more widespread, more hunters & target shooters, our frontier days a lot more recent) would have made it more difficult, especially in some states. But can anyone doubt that places now referred to as the People's Republics of Maryland and California and New York would have the same situation as Britain, or a total ban, if that inconvenient 2nd Amendment wasn't in the way? That sorry hypocrite Sen. Diane Feinstein has said flatly that if she thought there was enough support she'd present a bill banning handguns entirely(it may have been 'firearms' entirely). People like Chuck Schumer would do the same without a moments hesitation. And considering the way things work in D.C., especially with all those self-annointed 'elites' in the Senate, I think we would be in almost exactly the same situation as the Brits.
There was a series of books written about the Man-Kzin Wars(yeah, sci-fi). Start of the whole thing was that for generations the UN had been the world government and total disarmament of citazens had been accomplished. And in keeping with the 'peace at any cost' philosophy history had been edited. Drastically. War was not taught in any school except a few highly-restricted military ones; any kind of aggression, whether in play by kids or games for adults was forbidden and would get you 'treated' to fix your psychological problems; posession of restricted historical materials(books, video, anything of a pre-edited nature that showed non-approved history) would get you sent away to a camp; challenging the official version of things would get you sent away, the whole works. You would not be allowed in any way to challenge the Official History Of Man. Does anyone seriously doubt that, given the chance, that is not what the UN would do?
I would argue that this report is further evidence of that.
One of the finest examples of the mindset of the UN is the various genocides in Africa. In Rwanda the UN commander saw what was starting and said 'give me 2000 troops and authority to act and I can stop this'; and Kofi God-cursed Annan yanked out all but 200 of the troops he did have and forbade him to act. And hundreds of thousands died. In Darfur you have:
Evil moslem government
Evil proxies for the government
Unarmed people being raped, tortured, enslaved, murdered
And the UN talks. And talks. And does nothing. Apparently there's no kickbacks or bribes available so they don't want to get their damn hands messy with actually trying to DO SOMETHING.
Know what I'd love to see? Buy up a few thousand of the M/N 91/30's, M38's, SKS's, whatever that's on the market and a buttload of ammo. Hire a few trainers, send it all over to the people being attacked and set them up to kill the evil bastards attacking them. Along with the trainers hire a few people with some Stingers or SA7 missiles to kill the government aircraft that show up. Upside: people armed and able to protect themselves instead of hoping the God-cursed bureaucrats will finally do something, and lots of dead slavers. Downside: ?. I can't think of one. The UN would see armed peasants who won't take orders and won't wait to be saved as a horrible thing, the Sudan government would have purple kittens with pink spots and the peace-at-any-price people would be screaming themselves into strokes; personally, I'd say those belong in the 'upside' column.
To quote WILLisms:The UN's notion that there is "inadequate legal support" for the idea that self-defense is a human right is an agenda-driven wilful misreading of texts on the issue. 'Wilful misreading' is the right wording, I'd say, and it feeds directly into the UN drive for more and more power and control.
I just went over to Kevin's place and found this. Just a few choice bits:
The large increase has alarmed anti-gun charity International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA), which called for tighter checks on those seeking permission to possess large numbers of guns.
The spokesman for IANSA has called on the Government to bring forward the creation of a national register listing the details of all those who own a gun.
These little bastards are not going to be content until the actually have the world the Man-Kzin Wars started in. And I'm sick to death of them.