More on the UN 'Ban Guns From Anybody Except Governments' conference

I wrote on it here and here; in the second Noddy very kindly posted addresses in the comments. I remembered seeing something(ok, a lot of somethings) at The High Road, and tracked down this thread on the matter. Which includes a very interesting excerpt from the IANSA report recently issued.

In this article, it quotes Ambassador Prasad Kariyawasam of Sri Lanka, who's president-designate of the conference as saying "...the NRA campaign is totally misguided because the meeting is "not aimed at banning small arms or controlling weapons that are legally manufactured, purchased or traded in conformity with national laws". . Sounds good, right? Except that the excerpt has the following:

2. Regulation of civilian ownership of weapons

To maintain public safety, civilian gun possession must be
recognised as a privilege with associated responsibilities for
maintaining public safety. In most countries, in order to drive a car,
applicants must pass a test proving their fitness to drive before a
licence is issued. If a car crashes killing a pedestrian, the owner of
the car can be identified by checking the registration plate which
will be linked to the owner’s name. Guns are specifically designed
to kill. Yet the majority of countries do not have effective licensing or
registration systems for guns.
So it's a 'privilege', not a right. And 'privileges' can be taken away at any time, can't they?

Regulation of guns in civilian hands was omitted from the agreement in 2001 and thus did not form part of states’ obligations in the Programme of Action. Despite this, 70 per cent of governments have included information on controlling civilian possession in their reports to the UN since 2001. Governments clearly understand the importance of regulating civilian possession in order to prevent diversion; it is time for the UN small arms process to recognise it too.
"...the importance of regulating civilian possession in order to prevent diversion..." Because you can't have a bunch of uppity peasants able to defend themselves, now can you? And if the peasants have arms, there's not telling where they might get to.

Governments should agree to:
• Promote gun owner responsibility by requiring all firearms to be
registered. Individuals permitted to own guns and ammunition
must be held to account for their security, use and misuse.
Promote "...owner responsibility by requiring all firearms to be registered and Individuals permitted to own..." There's that 'permitted' thing again, and a UN-approved registration system of course; can you say 'nightmare'? I knew you could.

• Define minimum criteria for private ownership of guns with a national system of licensing. These should include proven capacity to handle a gun safely; knowledge of the relevant law; age limit; proof of valid reason; and a security screening based on criminal record or history of violence, including intimate partner violence. Licences should also be required for ammunition.
So you have to show 'proof of valid reason to have a firearm, and to buy ammo. And who decides what a 'valid reason' is, I wonder? Someone like Rebecca Peters, I'd guess. Who thinks there is no such thing as a 'valid reason' to own a gun.

• Prohibit civilian possession of military-style rifles, including semiautomatic rifles that can be converted to fully automatic fire and semi-automatic variants of military weapons.
So there goes your Garand, you M1 Carbine, your FAL, your AK, your anything. And, let's see, 'military-style rifles, including..." That means their list includes that 1903 Springfield, that 96 or 98 Mauser, that old S&W or Colt or Webley/Enfield or Nagant pistol or any other firearm they decide is 'military-style'. I wonder how many they'll decide don't fit the list?

• Block access to guns for people with a history of violence, particularly against intimate partners or family members.
Sounds not too bad, until you remember the crap the Lauterberg Amendment has caused. And you damn well know they'll count anything, including self-defense, as a 'history of violence'.

• Introduce safe storage requirements to prevent gun accidents, suicide, misuse and theft.
So you have to have a certified and approved safe(as expensive as possible) and let agents of the government into your home any hour of day or night to inspect. Uh-huh.

• Regulate manufacturers and dealers. A national register of all manufacturers and their distribution network, including firearm
dealers, would help prevent diversion to illicit use.
Now, we've already got all that. But just think of the layers of bureaucracy and cost these clowns could dream up to add to it.

And all this, according to the president-designate, is "not aimed at banning small arms or controlling weapons that are legally manufactured, purchased or traded in conformity with national laws"

My aching redneck ass it's not. Can you say 'lying, two-faced nanny-state socialist politician who hates our freedoms and liberty'?

I knew you could