« The Real Deal: The Story of Finn Aagaard, Part II | Main | The Guns I Own: The .30/06 Springfield Model 1903 A3 »

May 22, 2006

This page has been moved to http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/gun-nut

If your browser doesn’t redirect you to the new location, please visit The Gun Nut at its new location: www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/gun-nut.

U.N.: We're in Charge of Guns, Everywhere on Earth

Quick: Name an organization that is even more inept, ineffectual, and hopelessly corrupt than Congress. That’s right, it’s the United Nations, and later this month it will convene to consider its Report on the Implementation of the United Nations Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat, and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons. And now I must quote from The Shooting Wire, whence this info came:

“That UN Programme, if ratified, would give the UN control over all weapons production, distribution, and ownership globally. That control would put the United Nations in charge of all weapons, including those of law enforcement, setting strict limits on the types—and quantities of weapons police departments could own.”

Now if this is a joke, and I’m not getting it, I apologize, but the Shooting Wire seems to be in earnest.  Can you imagine U.N. enforcers in their little sky-blue berets marching into an LAPD armory and demanding all the really neat stuff that the LAPD uses to kill people who cross it? They’d be clubbed to death in the street. Or New York? “Make it worth my while, pal,” the NYPD armorer would say.

If Secretary General Annan would like to bring a little law and order to the world, he could start with his own delegates, eighty-three percent of which are scofflaws, and collectively owe their host city $18 million in parking fines.

Personally, I’ve always thought that the UN headquarters would make an excellent highrise apartment building, and failing that, it could simply be cleared away for a parking lot. We need parking space in New York City.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference U.N.: We're in Charge of Guns, Everywhere on Earth:


Annoyed American

Given the makeup and total ineffectuality of the U.N. (I maintain the initials stand for 'Useless Natterers'), I feel they have no business whatsoever trying to tell anyone that they have any authority, legal or moral, to regulate the world firearms industry.

I further feel that if the nimrods ever actually try to pass such nonbinding legislation, which is clearly targeted at the United States, we having the largest armed civilian population in the world; and whose absolute right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution; that we immediately round up every diplomat and staffer accredited to the organization, march them to Kennedy Airport and put them on the first plane out of the country. The City of New York should then seize the UN Building and sell it off to the highest bidder, with the first $18 million going to pay off the accumulated parking fines those diplomats owe. At that point, consideration to withdrawing our country from the organization should be given.

It would be sweetly ironic if it were private citizens with their personal firearms who did this modern equivalent of riding the Usless Natterers out of town on a rail; but realistically the job should be done by the Armed Forces with the cooperation of the NYPD if and when the UN goes that far. If, after expulsion from the United States, the UN wished to continue its activities against personal freedom, I believe there are a bunch of buildings by Lake Geneva that belonged to its predecessor organization that are not being used...


Totally worthless.




Who do we complain to/vote for to keep these people from getting their way?

Mike Diehl

Look on the bright side. If the UN has its way they'll bureacratize the process so thoroughly and in such convoluted ways that they'll be completely paralyzed. It's not like they exist other than as an abject lesson in the ways that administrative "friction" can destroy any budget and derail any management plan.

Ah well. The DemoP's affection for the UN is another reason why this former Democratic Party voter has broken ranks.


Gee...to think they might serve the world better to concentrate on stuff like nuclear proliferation, famine, poverty, Hillary, genocide, global warming and bio-warfare. I'd like to think that the UN would worry more about the really big stuff!
The crap these people come up with. I do agree with Mike Diehl though, they've got themselves pretty well paralyzed on all of these issues so whats one more mess.

Greg Russell

Even as I read the tongue-in-cheek comments, I hope everyone realizes that the threat, even though remote, is REAL. Should we have a US President, (and skick willie was interested) and a Congress to ratify such a treaty, it would supercede the Second Amendment, and become binding US law.
As Jefferson said, "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
Join and support NRA.


I would not hesitate any UN soldier coming to seize my weapons, if he was under command of a UN officer, or obeying an unlawful order from an American officer.

The right to bear arms is too essential to give up without using them in the process.


I say screw the U.N. What good has it done anyway. Annan doesnt even care about his own people in Africa. And he sure as heck doesnt care about our rights as Americans to bear arms handguns included. I say we leave the U.N. unless it fixes its policies fast And if anyone comes and tries to take my guns (U.N. or criminal alike)theyll have a tough time leaving

Pete the Wolfman

One of the rare times I can quote my father: "You can have too much money. You can have too many women. But you can never have too much ammo."

Good luck coming to collect my guns, though every one be registered here in the People's Republic of Illinois. I am a law-abiding citizen, a proud member of the NRA, and someone whose freedoms will not be suspended or removed by the actions of diminutive minds.

I believe Jefferson also said something like: There will be no need for a Second Amendment until someone tries to take it away.

Greg Russell

You`re correct, Jefferson was credited with stating: "The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."
I also appreciate this quote attributed to John Quincy Adams: “Duty is ours, results are God's.”.

My all time favorite quote is also from Jefferson, as he stated: Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep forever.

Peter Griffin

I would be more worried about the Democrats re-taking control of congress in the november election and taking away gun rights than the U.N.

After all- when has the U.N. ever enforced any of its "laws"? Furthermore, when it attempts to, when has said enforcement ever been effective?

This "law" can't take effect in the U.S. unless congress ratifies it- which again brings me back to my original point- I am more worried about democrats controlling congress in 2006 than what Kofi "Thouroughly Corrupt" Anan says or does.

Ralph the Rifleman

Hot button issue, for sure. The UN needs to stick with "board room" politics, and we Americans need to join together in protecting our liberties. I agree that a highrise, or parking lot, would change the NY skyline very nicely.Maybe a memorial park for our lost, but not forgotten, service members would be nice?

Mark Spisak

Sad but true, this global disarmament movement is being pushed by some very wealthy people. Equally troubling is the fact that someone like a president Hillary could sign it and it would become the law of the land without the consent of congress.

Mark W.

From my cold, dead hands....

Nelson Allen

The United Nations problem will cease to be a problem when they are thrown out of the country and the United states resigns its membership. If we remain a part of it then the funding the United States provides should determine the the weight of its vote in all matters.

Mike Diehl

The UN "bites," metaphorically speaking, but sometimes it bites literally. Resigning from the UN is not a good move for the US, as China discovered in 1950. If the US drops out, then we can't veto the Latest Trendy Stupid Idea.

Richard A. Smith

Mike is right, resigning from the UN is not a good move for the US. We need to maintain some control there to temper the wackos. And, as much as I would like to kick the whole lot of those misfits out of New York, it would also be to our detriment. As the saying goes, "Keep your friends close, but keep your enemies closer."

I think that the idea of the UN is probably a good one, it just has one problem: the UN Charter is not the US Constitution. It does not guarantee the freedoms that the Constitution does.

What we need is a UN Ambassador, President and Congress with enough cajones to say, "If you want our money and this bit of land in New York City, then you need to do these things: (1) implement true reform, eliminate and be completely intolerant of any corruption and any abuses of human rights, (2) implement rules to protect human rights, including the right to bear arms, and (3) realize that you are NOT a world government, simply a group of ambassadors, and that you are essentially powerless when compared to the governments of the nations (particularly the United States!), in other words, get off the power trip."

The UN is in serious need of some serious reform. The original purpose of the UN was to prevent war. However, there has been constant war in some part of the world ever since the UN was created in 1945, much of it instigated or complicated by the UN itself.

Ideally, the UN should be dissolved and another organization created in it's place with a charter based on the United States constitution.



We have a UN Ambassador, John Bolton.
Remember the contentious confirmation debates a few months ago? President Bush ended up appointing him during Congress's recess because the Democrats and a Republican, Senator Voinovich, kept obstructing the hearings. Mr. Bolton's mission is to essentially push the points you outlined, with the exception of disillusion, in your posting.


It goes without saying that the UN has, historically, fouled up everything they touch. That's what happens when you have an organization comprised of multiple political entities who have often wildly divergent goals. On the whole, I'd be more worried about being anally probed by space aliens than I would by the prospect of the UN successfully confiscating so much as a Super Soaker.
Like many bad ideas, though, this one has a tiny germ of truth at its center. It was suggested that the UN should be worrying about chemical weapons, nukes, and other WMD's. The thing is that genocide is almost always carried out with small arms and stavation. If the UN pulled off a miracle and managed to snatch all the WMD's in the world, it wouldn't slow the bloodshed by a single drop.


I would just roll my eyes and laugh if it wasn't for the fact that my tax money supports these clowns. Personally I would love to see a UN disarmerment squad goose-stepping down my street. Finally get to see what a 7.62 round could do to one of those powder-blue helmets.

P.S. Dave, I recently saw your cameo on one of the History Channel's fine productions. Not too shaby. Could a break-out to TV be next?

John Elliott

I may be wrong, but I feel that the U.N. [usless nemwits] are afraid of our superpower. They know they can't just march in and take our rights away, or guns, if we the people are armed to the T.
I'm afraid of all the liberals and democrats that are playing the marksium game. [You know the
old every body is equal, we the government tell you what to do, who you can talk to, what religion you can be ect.]
Those IDIOTS!!! Will be doing their best to take away our rights, so they the IDIOTS can come into POWER over us, I mean the nerve of We The People telling Them, the IDIOTS what to do, after all they know whats better for us then we do. We need to march in the streets, not buy gas or go to work for a week, shut this country down , then maybe the Idiots in Washington will see that we are pissed and tired of getting screwed. Well just a suggestion, the Illegal mexicans seem to be getting herd ok.
Thanks for listening

Troy Stone

Whatever happened to the sovereignty of nations? By their own charter, the UN does not have rights here. This is ridiculous...It's about time that the UN (nay, even the gun control advocates here at home) start looking at solving the problems that make people turn to armed conflict to solve their problems in the first place!

If the UN were looking for a way to start alienating the US and other nations, this would be the way to do it...

George Pascual

I am sure that if the UN ever got its way in this matter, the reaction would be so violent that we would be sure to elect a candidate that would repudiate the treaty and then resign our membership from the UN.

Our Blogs