U.N. Summit for Global Gun Ban

For those of you that don't know, the United Nations is holding a summit from June 26 to July 7 to further the U.N.'s plan for global civilian disarmament. This summit ironically coincides with our Independence Day. I wonder how our boys would've done in 1776 fighting Britain with rocks.

It has been given the catchy title: "United Nations Conference to Review Progress Made in the Implementation of the Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat, and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects."

I will only focus on one point at this time and ignore the bigger picture of how the U.N. has no right to preach to the USA about gun control considering their current disarmament policies continue to enable corruption, sex scandals, and genocide. I also won't discuss the fact that basically every Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) that is participating in this summit operates solely with anti-gun agendas. (See... not even a mention.)

All I wanted to discuss is the feeble attempts by Kofi Annan and other summit leaders to try and dupe us by saying their intent is not for a global gun ban or to prohibit civilian ownership of firearms.

Hilarious.

I could quote several statements and point you to various hypocrocies, but perhaps my sources would be called into question. Let's see what the U.N.'s official website concerning this summit has to say.

The conference's official FAQ webpage lists:

Q:Is there an official definition of small arms and light weapons?

A: ...“small arms and light weapons” mean any man-portable lethal weapon that expels or launches, is designed to expel or launch, or may be readily converted to expel or launch a shot, bullet or projectile by the action of an explosive.

“Small arms” are, broadly speaking, weapons designed for individual use. They include, inter alia, revolvers and self-loading pistols, rifles and carbines, sub-machine guns, assault rifles and light machine guns.

Wow. I guess they're not at all concerned with firearms that civilians would own, just the small number of guns that are designed to expel or launch bullets.

Further, how does the summit define "illicit trade?" A delegate from Indonesia defines it by saying:

“We believe that no armed group outside of the State should be allowed to bear weapons. We also believe that regulating civilian possession of Small Arms/Light Weapons will enhance our efforts to prevent its misuse. In our view, the issue of ammunition should also be addressed in the context of the Program of Action because in the absence of ammunition, small arms and light weapons pose no danger.”

How can they claim they're not concerning themselves with civilian ownership when their official website and own delegates say otherwise? No matter how you feel about firearms, this is a very dangerous time considering what happens to other civilian populations that the U.N. has disarmed. Think Rwanda, Bosnia, Sudan, etc, etc.