One World Government to Take Away America’s Guns
Uh oh, a bunch of two-bit furriners taking over America, and the Death of the Second Amendment. Two of the Right’s worst nightmares, rolled into one. OOOOOHHHHH!!!!!
Actually, it’s nowhere near that drastic or sensational. But check out this column by Neal Peirce.
There was a meeting in Chicago of a hundred mayors from around the world. Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley said the message he got from the meeting was:
“We're tired of your guns, America. ... Why are you shipping your guns to our country? Why are you marketing guns today ... not with hunting, but guns that are supposed to kill people? ... Why are you doing this to Africa, the Caribbean, Mexico, the rest of the world?”
Mexico City’s mayor said Mexico’s drug gangs are getting 85% of their weapons from the U.S.
The mayors approved a resolution to “seek redress against the gun industry through the courts of the world — including local, state and federal courts, and international courts — for damages caused to our countries, cities and communities by global trafficking of illegal guns.”
Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter said, “Politicians are so deadly afraid of the NRA that they can't make the right decisions for their constituents.” Nutter wants to bring this issue to the World Court. This could open the door to international lawsuits against American gun manufacturers based on the damage caused by their products.
The mayor of Paris, Bertrand Delanoe, said:
“Both national governments and journalists should get used to mayors having strong positions and expressing them.” He mentioned the global conference in Copenhagen on climate change and how ineffective it was: “But national governments did not listen to what we said. Copenhagen was a failure whereas it is in the cities where this fight can be won.”
Delanoe is president of United Cities and Local Governments, an organization representing 1,000 municipalities and 112 city organizations in 136 countries.
Neal Peirce says: “The right moment for mayors and city governments to rise as global policy players may have arrived…Mayors around the world are in increasing personal contact with each other. Rising numbers of city delegations, business and public, are matching ideas and strategies on worldwide visits. As opposed to nations' political wars, cities' agendas tend to be overwhelmingly practical, not ideological — one recalls the legendary New York Mayor Fiorello La Guardia's observation: ‘There is no Democratic or Republican way of cleaning the streets.’”
Like it or not, globalization is here. The world is shrinking. Nations are becoming less and less self-contained, and all six billion of us (or whatever the number is up to now) are becoming more connected and interdependent.
Peirce’s column ends with:
“Could we have a worldwide urban voice taking that practical approach about restraining guns, or acting on carbon issues before cities are either flooded or victimized by extreme heat? Let's hope.”
Labels: Bertrand Delanoe, Michael Nutter, Neal Peirce, Richard M. Daley, United Cities and Local Governments
posted by Tom Harper @ 8:27 PM
37 Comments:
But if Guns are outlawed, only Mexican Outlaws will...wait..How does that go?
Erik
Now I got it!
Guns don't kill people, it's the bullets!
Right?
Erik
Interesting, Tom, but I see problems ahead if mayors begin conducting foreign relations on their own, even if that's not their intention.
The gun thing poses a potential nightmare for right-wing pols. They dare not get on the wrong side of the NRA and arms industry. But what if siding with the gun crowd puts them at odds with globalized big corporations? What if a bunch of foreign governments start imposing trade sanctions against the U.S. because of guns and other arms? Big corporations won't want any part of that because it will hurt their business (rackets) and profits.
Like I said, interesting.
Seems if there's a way to screw with the rest of the world, we'll find it.
Hard to believe we are that greedy that we can't see what were doing is permanent damage to our relations with the world. Yes an Mexico is pissed at all the guns being sold south of the boarder. I've heard one official exclaim, we'll control our people crossing north as soon as you control guns going south. Seems fair to me...
S.W. has a great point. When corporate America,ahem, sets its sights on guns, then it will all hit the fan.
Delanoe is also a big gay homersexual. You gonna trust a big gay homersexual frog?
The only way to eliminate gun violence is to do it one block at a time. Get to know your neighbors and their kids and their kids friends.
That's my two cents anyway.
The whole argument should be a theoretical exercise ONLY since individual states (and thereby assuming the mayors of the cities of those states) are constitutionally forbidden as per article 1, section 10 of the Constitution from engaging with international bodies in such endeavors.
That section of the constitution states, "No state shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation" and further will not "enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power".
Now I understand that our Constitution has not been followed by members of either party for some time; however, this would be a hugely egregious and pernicious violation that would be aggressively fought in the courts were these asinine mayors to persue this beyond their foolish rhetoric.
Why do we not punish the hell out of the criminals that use guns instead of desiring to remove our individual Constitutional right to keep and bear arms for all law-abiding citizens?
And saying guns cause crime is the same as saying pencils cause mispellings. HOLD the criminals accountable! Don't remove the ability of the American people to protect themselves from those same criminals that will not relinquish their arms simply because we citizens were forced to do so. To where has our common sense fled?
Further, you would think with all of the emails that were discovered from East Anglia (and the debunking of An Inconvenient Fable) etc that pretty much stated how they falsified data and threw out conflicting data that you hard core global warming advocates would at least look into the possibility that you were duped by this false science.
It would seem Al Gore invented global warming right after he invented the internet....
Demeur makes a good point that would go a long way to helping solve the problem.
Erik: I think we need to declare a War on Drugs. That'll solve everything.
SW: Trade sanctions against the U.S.; well, stranger things have happened. This whole globalization thingie is definitely going to make things "interesting."
Tim: "We'll control our people crossing north as soon as you control guns going south." Yup, that works for me too.
Dave: That might be what it takes.
Randal: "a big gay homersexual frog" -- uh oh, Steeerike Four!
Demeur: But then somebody from an unfamiliar neighborhood might come in and mow you all down :)
TP: I don't see how our Constitution would prevent mayors from other countries from making resolutions and pushing for lawsuits.
As far as the whole gun thing goes, I'm pretty much in between. I don't have a gun but my wife does. I'm in favor of the Second Amendment, but I don't think it shields gun manufacturers from lawsuits. I know they're protected in the U.S. from lawsuits, but that's based on NRA clout, not the Second Amendment IMHO.
Most gun crime, the shooter knows who he/she just shot, if we could eliminate friends killing friends and family killing family . . .
I'm like you Tom, in between. Hubby has a gun, with a conceal carry permit I know how to shoot, but I don't want to carry one EVER.
I cannot see the cities being allowed to do this at all by the feds. Plus we don't want to be like the French, all cheese eating surrender monkeys you know. We would have to rename French fries and French toast, oh wait.. we did that already. Carry on.
Former Chief Justice Warren Burger was on TV on day, and he was asked "if you could rewrite the Constitution what amendment would you change?"
I sat up to take notice waiting for the Conservative Hit List of Amendments like the 5th, the 1st , the 14th and maybe even the 15th. But he said "The 2nd, the meaning has been so hijacked by the NRA and the gun lobby It odes not say you have the right to carry a gun as they interpret it!"
Another problem I have is when the NRA talks about their "God Given" right to carry a Gun.
Can anybody tell me where in the bible it says I can carry a Gun?
Erik
I have a great idea, let's punish responsible people for the actions of the careless and irresponsible. But why stop with guns? Alcohol causes people to drive drunk and kill people, why not ban alcohol and cars as well? Texting while driving also causes deaths, why not ban cell phones as well?
It's very convenient for these mayors to put all their problems on the doorstep of gun manufacturers, but the truth is most crime is created by economic conditions and environment. Perhaps these mayors should work on those arenas before they start frivolous lawsuits.
I sincerely doubt that if the founding fathers knew what a ballsup mess that little tiny line in the 2nd amendment would cause 200 years later, they never would have let it go in.
I'm personally all for other countries taking the US to the world court. Maybe then someone might be forced to look at the gun control issue rationally for a change, rather than this "my rats!" bullshit we hear constantly.
Scannon, your most recent comment was dead on correct, sir. I applaud you whole-heartedly.
Erik, Warren Burger's asinine comments aside, the 2nd amendment to keep and bear arms is indeed an INDVIDUAL right of the people's as was clarified again by the Supreme Court not long ago.
Further, look at the Bill of Rights. Those first ten amendments tell what INDIVIDUAL rights are afforded to the PEOPLE and thereby protected under Constitutional law.
It is not stating some right of the government's further powers. Those are all listed in the previous articles of the Constitution.
The historical record from our Founders overwhelmingly supports the fact that they meant for individual citizens to be able to own and carry firearms.
Further, there absolutely is a God given right to self defense. A firearm used in a responsible manner is a tool to ensure that right, sir.
Beekeeper, I would submit to you that it is the CRIMINAL element that is at fault with gun crime. Those criminals caught having used a firearm in commission of a crime should be punished with extreme prejudice.
By taking away guns, all you have done is to effectively disarmed potential targets for these criminals. They are not going to give up their guns simply because it is a law now. By definition they are criminals and don't follow the damned law.
TP,
You are so right. "Further, look at the Bill of Rights. Those first ten amendments tell what INDIVIDUAL rights are afforded to the PEOPLE and thereby protected under Constitutional law."
Rights are indeed for the individual person. Except in the new "conservative" sense of corporations' limitless "free speech" in the form of campaign and lobby money through artificial "personhood".
Free speech is now for those who can afford it. As in the days of slavery, there are the free, and the less free. As Orwell put it in Animal Farm, "All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others".
Holte: You're right about that, and that complicates things a little. Gun advocates tell us there are two distinct types of people -- criminals and law abiding citizens. But a lot of murders are committed by a law-abiding citizen who flew into a rage and grabbed that gun he'd bought for self defense only.
Jess: LOL, time to dust off the old "Freedom Fries" signs.
Lew: As I was saying in an earlier comment, I'm in-between about guns. But with globalization, the "global village" or whatever you want to call it, these kinds of international legal campaigns will probably get a lot more common, whether we like it or not.
Bee: Shouldn't that be "mah rats" :)
I don't think the Constitution protects American companies from international legal action. We'll see where the chips fall...
Dave: Uh oh, then this means corporations can own guns too :)
Erik wrote: "God Given" right to carry a Gun."
It doesn't have to be in the Bible or Constitution. It's a matter of faith. You just have to believe.
You know, the way people once believed slavery was just another business or put their faith in the Maginot Line.
What I say to those who crow about their individual rights to carry around an Uzi under their jacket:
I have the individual right to not be the innocent bystander who gets shot when your dumb ass drops that gun out of your fruit-of-the-looms, or fires into the sky and misses when highly exuberant, or who thinks they might be the big bad hero when the shit goes down again in the local McD's or college campus and misses the bad guy and shoots me or mine instead.
How 'bout those rights??
Guns don't bother me one bit. It's the asshole behind the trigger who thinks he/she is a crack shot and has delusions of being a hero nestled firmly in their minds - that's what bothers me.
Dubya, you are correct about corporations being granted free speech and I would absolutely be for legislating against this, as long as it was done against unions also.
It is grossly unfair for workers of companies via powerful unions to have the right to free speech but not for the people that run and own the companies they work for to also have that same right, sir.
Frankly, free speech rights should, as you implied, be reserved to the INDIVIDUAL citizens alone. If they wish to group together to form a PAC, then that is fine, but you should not be able to say one group of citizens (unions) have a right to free speech while other groups (business owners) are not entitled to that same right.
Beekeeper, why aren't you just as concerned or more with the idiot that is starting the rampage shooting innocent people at the McD's or college campus?
If I am at a place with my family and some idiot starts shooting the place up, I have no problem taking him out. Further, a vast majority of people that go to the trouble of getting a concealed carry permit typically know how to safely use a firearm and are usually pretty proficient with it.
Just a few years back in Salt Lake City, some idiot went into the Trolley Square mall downtown and started shooting people. (despite signs on the outer doors of the mall saying that no weapons were allowed in the mall; imagine his audacity!)
An off-duty officer that was eating in the mall with his family had his off-duty pistol with him and managed to pin the criminal down until other police arrived.
Had this officer not been there, no other ordinary citizens would have legally been able to carry a weapon in the mall and this idiot might have killed a lot more people than what he already did.
I absolutely respect your right if you don't want anything to do with guns, but nobody has the right in this country to prevent me from defending my family, especially when that is a specific right enumerated in our Constitution.
In my opinion, you should worry more about the criminal rather than the law-abiding concealed-carrying citizen.
TP, because one crazy person is always going to pop up and cause mayhem somewhere. That's the unfortunate side effect of crazy people.
However, when 15 (arguably) sane people want to arm themselves in places where me and my family happen to be, and think (so very misguided thoughts) that they will be the big hero when the shit goes down, I'll take my chances with the one crazy person, thank you very much.
Fact, known from personal experience and observation: Most people couldn't hit the side of the barn shooting point blank. And that's with a so-called 2 hour "training course."
You can live in lala land about everyone else's ability to handle guns, but again: I'll take my chances with the one crazy person, thank you very much.
Bee, that is your right, and I honestly support it.
I, however, will choose to watch over my ownself and family though.
When seconds count, the police are just minutes away....
I guess one could always appeal to the killer's humanity and compassion though...
Perhaps one could ask him to sit down and just talk without any pre-conditions. After all this has made the world so much safer on a macro scale.
TP,
It's nice to see we agree on some things. It's not a right, if it's not afforded exclusively to individuals. Artificial entities, whether Unions or corporations are NOT persons under our Bill of Rights.
If this concept was put into law, democracy could very well be revived.
I must admit I'm probably in close agreement with you on the Second Amendment as well.
However, I must decline your offer of your climate koolade. A small circle of misrepresented emails does not contradict the evidence.
Too many glaciers ARE disappearing. Have you been to Glacier National Park? There are photos, even of the Himalayas. The Arctic ice is receding. The permafrost is melting.
I will admit volcanic activity can re-roll the dice on global climate, though.
Cheers.
Dave,
Does the New York Times Co. have the right to endorse candidates for elections? Or even print articles critical of the government or its officials?
Michael,
Of course the NY Times has the right. A free press is in the First Amendment.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
What is NOT in the Bill of Rights is the "right" of Corporate money (from a non-person) buying elections under the premise of free speech intended for the press and individual persons.
Corporations are not persons. Money is not free speech. Those are artificial constructions by conservative judges. Law can be passed to correct this. What's to stop it? Corporate influence.
Dave,
Explain how elections are "bought" under the guise of freedom of the press.
Michael: I'm sure Dave will have a reply, but I'm gonna go ahead and chime in anyway.
Elections are bought when a huge corporation, or any powerful interest group, spends hundreds of millions of dollars on advertising campaigns and "campaign contributions" (this used to be called bribery) to certain politicians -- for the purpose of electing or defeating a certain candidate, or getting certain legislation passed or defeated.
Free speech means a person can say or write anything he/she wants. The First Amendment doesn't say anything about spending jillions of dollars to drown out the opposition. If there's a debate taking place in a public setting, an outsider wouldn't be allowed to come barging in with a gigantic bullhorn and start shouting everybody else down. And that's what happens when one side outspends the other by ten to one or 100 to one, during an election campaign.
About 80% of Americans disagree with the Supreme Court decision (Citizens United) that basically says "money is speech."
If money is speech, then the next time I get a traffic fine, I could say to the cop "I don't have any money, but how about if I just sit here and talk at you for a few hours, that would be OK, wouldn't it?"
Michael,
It is not the guise of free press, but the equating of money to free speech.
The campaign contributions to both parties increased by nearly TEN FOLD between 1990 and 2008. That's buying influence.
As Senator Durban said, "They own the place".
Here's a good article on just the financial sector's influence on our government.
http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/01/wall-street-big-finance-lobbyists
Let's not forget that corporations exist for one purpose, and only one purpose. Ok, two purposes.
1. Shareholder profits
2. taxes.
They are not "people." They are paper entities created and maintained for the above two reasons. "Free speech" applies to the humans who work for the corporation on individual basis'. It does NOT apply to the paper entity as a whole.
I would agree that direct funding of political campaigns should not be protected as freedom of speech. Neither Microsoft nor the New York Times Company should be allowed to fund political campaigns.
However, advertising should be protected. Advertising for political candidates is first and foremost speech. How is it different if Microsoft publishes an ad critical of the government than if the New York Times Company does it?
And the Supreme Court case in question did not involve for-profit corporations or direct funding of political campaigns. It involved a nonprofit making a documentary.
Michael,
CU v. FEC does entail corporate political spending. References of CU v. FEC are at Citizens United website. Links to Weekly Standard:
"In January, in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court held that under the First Amendment Congress may not limit corporate and union funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections. The Court overturned one of its own rulings and a provision of the McCain-Feingold legislation enacted in 2002. The decision has drawn impassioned and frequent rebukes from President Obama, who said the day it came down that it would empower "special interests and their lobbyists" at the expense of "average Americans who make small contributions to support their preferred candidates." He criticized Citizens United during his State of the Union speech, with most of the justices in attendance, and, when John Paul Stevens, who wrote a lengthy dissent in Citizens United, announced his retirement, Obama cited it as the kind of decision he didn't want the next justice to support."
And Politico:
"Solicitor Kagan's office, in the initial hearing, argued that it'd be okay to ban books," the Kentucky Republican said on NBC's "Meet the Press. Sunday. "And then when there was a re-hearing, Solicitor Kagan herself, in her first Supreme Court argument, suggested that it might be okay to ban pamphlets. I think that's very troubling."
McConnell was referring to the government's argument in the controversial Citizens United case, in which the Supreme Court ruled that corporate funding in campaigns can't be limited by the First Amendment.
Dave,
It addressed corporate political spending on independent political broadcasts . It did not address direct funding of political campaigns by corporations.
Michael,
While you say, "It did not address direct funding of political campaigns by corporations," it must be understood that political ads are what campaign money goes toward buying.
Who needs "campaign money" when your corporate backers put your ads up FOR you?
Is this more clear to you now?
Who needs "campaign money" when your corporate backers put your ads up FOR you?
You mean like endorsements from the New York Times and the Washington Post?
Or what about newspaper articles critical of elected officials? Do they not count as ads?
All right, Michael. If you really don't understand the differences between journalism, editorial endorsements, and campaign ads, there's nothing left for me to explain to you. It would be as ridiculous as explaining Beck's "Bush was a progressive" crap to to the koolade drinkers.
Thanks for letting me get some information out, though.
Happy trolling.
Post a Comment
<< Home