United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs

IDK..perhaps I missed something Rocky.
I only own small arms, and pretty much all are registered.(unfortunately?)
Anyways started reading and thought what a bunch of BS.
Someday..but hopefully not, I might be `labeled` an insurgent I guess.
huh.gif
unsure.gif
 
While those in Washington, DC repeatedly assert that the law does not apply to the US Citizen, I fail to see anything excluding us, and see a great of reference to military grade small arms. Which of course the AR 15 and numerous other assault weapons defined under the liberals guidelines would meet that criteria.

And, all it takes to label you an insurgent is for the government to say... "Hey! He owns a gun! He's an insurgent!!"
 
When I read this my first thought was if the next presidential candidate ran his campaign on the promise of leaving the UN I'd vote for him regardless of Dem or Rep status. Leaving the UN would go a long way to reducing our enormous debt.
 
Originally Posted By: TnslimWhen I read this my first thought was if the next presidential candidate ran his campaign on the promise of leaving the UN I'd vote for him regardless of Dem or Rep status. Leaving the UN would go a long way to reducing our enormous debt.

+1

According to the NRA release below, Quote:In addition, Haq said, "there is no such body as a 'Civilian Weapons Confiscation Study Group.' Nor does the United Nations involve itself in confiscating weapons from member states."

I do NOT trust the UN, but do trust the NRA to keep abreast of the situation and keep us informed of the facts.


Quote:Rumor Control: U.N. "Disarmament" Memo
Posted on August 16, 2013

Print Share on print Email Share on email Share More Sharing ServicesShare on facebookShare on twitter
As attacks on our Second Amendment rights continue, there is typically a corresponding uptick in the number of internet rumors concerning firearms, ammunition, and gun-control measures.

The latest rumor involves the United Nations, a group that indeed poses an ongoing potential threat to our Second Amendment rights. However, this rumor was highly suspect right from the start.

Pictures of the alleged document show that it originated in the very ominous sounding "United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs." The document is on official looking letterhead and includes a bar code and QR code. The equally ominous sounding title of the article reads: "Disarmament Commission -- Civilian Weapons Confiscation Study Group."

As reported in The Examiner, the August 5th document says its distribution is "restricted," and outlines a seven‑stage strategy for making civilian possession of "military grade weapons" illegal, progressing down to outlawing all firearms and ammunition, and ultimately establishing "a United Nations Police Taskforce with the specific mission of assisting member nations with the collection of weapons from civilian hands."

The document states: "The issue of military grade weaponry in the hands of civilians looms ever larger in the face of the global implementation of 22/Agenda 21 by member nations. In particular, the United States of America has an estimated 500 million weapons in the hands of its civilian population. This is not just a static problem, it is a massive dynamic problem for the process of confiscation as there will be those who refuse to surrender their firearms.
"The conclusion of discussions by the CWCSG led to the adoption of a proposed agenda to begin the process for introducing to member nations a framework by which they can begin codification of national laws to disarm civilians within their borders through a graduated process.

Now, the good news: According to a PolitiFact article, a U.N. spokesman has declared the document a fake.

"I checked the document number on our internal document system, and the reply I got back now was simply, 'There is no document matching your request,' said Farhan Haq, associate spokesperson for the Secretary-General. "The document number (A/CN.11/L.72) doesn't conform to our standard system, in any case."

In addition, Haq said, "there is no such body as a 'Civilian Weapons Confiscation Study Group.' Nor does the United Nations involve itself in confiscating weapons from member states."

Finally, Haq said, "the use of blue ink, some of the type font and the scanner icon in the bottom right-hand corner are not found in real U.N. documents. So, in several different ways, this document is fake."

Whether or not you trust PolitiFact's findings, we do know that in the past, U.N. delegates have diligently tried to draft documents that conceal the U.N.'s anti-gun agenda. That being the case, the extremely overt nature of this latest document makes it all the more implausible.

As we've pointed out before, a degree of skepticism regarding these sorts of rumors is healthy and necessary. Gun owners should resist the urge to forward, and thereby propagate, these rumors before verifying their authenticity. As always, the truth should be our standard. Today, more than ever, there are more than enough actual threats to the Second Amendment to keep gun owners actively engaged in the fight for our rights.

http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/articles/2013/8/rumor-control-un-disarmament-memo.aspx


Regards,
hm
 
The e-mail therein referenced was what lead me to the UN's website and the findings above hm. And, in investigating the e-mail I came to the same conclusion of invalidity.

In looking at this letter, it seems to have a few more issues than haq points out…

First and foremost, the file number top right corner of the page cannot be found on the website as the letter suggests.

However, the file number top right corner and the QR code bottom right corner should read the same. Joys of hi-tech gadgets and gizmos, I have a code scanner on my cell phone, and the codes bottom of the page don't jive. The barcode bottom left is same as the numbers immediately above it, which somehow reference the individual page. The QR code on the right, should read the same as the file number top right of the page, and give you the document URL, which it doesn’t. When I run it through my scanner it comes up with the following URL.

http://undocs.org/A/CN.10/L.70

Which will take you to this redirected URL…

http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/CN.10/L.70


Which isn’t that document, it deals with the disarmament of Nuclear Weapons. Again, if you look at the file number top right of the page, and look at the URL, you will note the URL depicts the UN file number. SOOOOO… I plugged the 11/L72 file number back into the URL, both of those above in fact, and both gave me an unrecognized filename error.

I’d say they simply hid the file, as the e-mail suggested, except both of the codes on the bottom of the letter I received in e-mail, are identical to those found on the document at the above referenced URL. Both should change on the file I received, and correlate with the file number top of the page, and page number. And, I would think they would do so at entry of the file number top right, which I’m relatively certain is database driven, and therefore automatically assigned by the computer software. It couldn’t possibly vary top to bottom of the page, unless altered outside the program.

So if any of the rest of you guys have received said e-mail, it is NOT a legitimate document.
 
Back
Top