>>60
"You are talking about those nations, incidentally. Iran, Syria et al. were not allowed to be a part of the board on human rights, among other things."
Assuming the 'board on human rights' isn't the 'Human Rights Comission, you might be right. (lol)
http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1991
"And America is what nowadays?"
A hell of a lot better than Cuba.
"America does not have the right to use terrorist tactics against civilians (Cuba) because they have the temerity to do things differently, and if it think it does then it needs to be taught many lessons."
Cuba shouldn't be elevated to the level of a free state in people's minds. I frankly don't give a fuck whether or not these actions are taken against tyrannical oppressive governments around the world. Overthrowing tyranny is not a bad cause.
"You have used terrorist tactics, abstaining from any claim of decency and moral superiority."
To overthrow tyranny. Explain to me what is wrong with overthrowing tyranny. We help to spread freedom and liberty around the globe.
"The endurance of Cuba throughout the decades is comparable to that of Israel."
The U.N. seems pretty opposed to Israel too.
"America has voided its right to complain about sovereignty."
What the hell? ..... We have every right to complain about sovereignty.
"Also, IANSA has these objectives: research the health and social impact of guns, educate the public on the risks of firearm ownership,
promote policies to prevent criminal and youth access to guns,
apply consumer product regulations to the gun industry,
support international efforts to curb the proliferation of small arms."
Right, and if you'll take note, any patriotic freedom loving american who cares about the Bill of Rights should have qualms with, at the very least, these: 'research the health and social impact of guns, educate the public on the risks of firearm ownership,
promote policies to prevent criminal and youth access to guns,
apply consumer product regulations to the gun industry,
support international efforts to curb the proliferation of small arms.'
All of these amount to attacks on our Bill of Rights. Incidentally, this is everything you managed to mention IANSA does.
"These objectives are not anti-gun per se"
Yes they are.
"and would have no effect on the average consumer."
Yes they would.
"These proliferated guns reach soldiers in Africa who are doing nothing but taking their chance to rape, extort and pillage everything in sight, destabilizing an entire continent."
This isn't true. Many of those prohibited from firearms ownership in Africa are prohibited from doing so thanks to oppressive governments. Many of these arms are reaching legitimate rebels who fight for a good cause - liberty. Many of these same government enact many racist gun controls prohibiting black people from owning firearms enabling them to defend themselves from Muslim aggressors and governments. The U.N. might label these folks 'criminals', LOL.
"Just because they have guns and don't own homes doesn't mean they are fighting nasty brits and communists"
Right, and just because they own guns doesn't mean they are raping young women, pillaging villages, or extorting things. Yes, some of their actions might 'destabilize' things there, but you should keep in mind that 'stabilize' means control by oppressive dictators and monstrous governments who violate human rights at every turn.
"This is a new millenium, and guns doesn't automatically provide a cornucopia wherever they appear."
Nor do they automatically provide a hell whenever they appear. The U.N.'s regulations, if implimented as they wanted, would restrict us from arming freedom fighters and good-rebels. I think its funny; if enacted, they'd have prevented us from arming the French resistance against the Nazis.
"A horrible double standard, Agreed."
Good. Fuck the U.N.
"Another double standard is how all the G8 countries do jack shit to slow the export of small arms to human rights-abusing nations"
Sounds exactly where they are needed most - where all the freedom fighting will be occurring. The U.S. should not be prohibited from arming rebels that work to promote freedom and destabilize tyrannical governments and authoritarian regimes.
"(freedom- and liberty-loving America do the most black small arms trading of course,"
Aka supporting the 'illegal' sale of guns to freedom fighters and rebels fighting tyrannical anti-freedom governments.
"and use terrorism against Cuba"
Cuba is an authoritarian communist regime.
"where without a doubt inpoverished mothers use them to hunt, learn about freedom and defend their daughters from gang-raping bands of grown men armed with these very same guns, in larger numbers."
You act like if we actually did something to stop it, it would stop, which is bullshit. Don't believe me? Look at the drug situation in the USA. We've been trying to restrict drug trafficking in the USA for YEARS, spending enormous sums of money on it, and the result? Just about anyone can just walk down to the street corner, ask the right questions, and get their hands on various illicit drugs.
Furthermore, if we cut off sale of arms entirely, those people you are talking about wouldn't be able to use them in self-defense. I firmly believe in self-defense and guns as a crime and violence deterrant.
"and limiting these exports will harm gun consumers inside the US, without a doubt."
That isn't what I'm talking about. We shouldn't restrict or infringe upon the sale of arms to freedom fighters who work to promote freedom in their countries, and oppose tyrannical governments. Of course, these folks get referred to as 'nasty criminals and evil terrorist organizations' by the U.N.
"I also am pro-2nd amendment, and I think that the US has no business in the UN. G'wan, git."
The U.N. is about as 'pro-gun' as the democrats, if not less. They support organizations and essentially fund the otherwise un-funded gun-control anti-freedom anti-gun agenda that would otherwise be practically non-existent.
I would LOVE to see the USA withdraw from the U.N.