Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

UN Arms Trade Treaty Calls for Disarmament of Persons 55 and Older

Posted by   + Show Post
What are your thoughts?


http://www.guns.com/2013/04/01/un-arms-trade-treaty-calls-for-disarmament-of-persons-55-and-older/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=un-arms-trade-treaty-calls-for-disarmament-of-persons-55-and-older


UN Arms Trade Treaty Calls for Disarmament of Persons 55 and Older

Individuals 55 and older would lose their right to keep and bear arms under a provision that’s expected to be included as part of a comprehensive United Nations Global Arms Trade Treaty.

UN Secretary Gen. Ban Ki-moon spoke about the impetus behind the controversial measure at a press conference over the weekend in New York City, the site of the final negotiations between the 193 Member States.

“Regulating the international transfers of both weapons and ammunition is a key component of a robust arms trade treaty, as is limiting civilian access to small arms and munitions,” said Ban Ki-moon.


PFC Agnes Agnieszka, 23, mans a machine gun next to a truck.

“There’s an emerging consensus that certain groups should be restricted from possessing conventional arms, certainly those who fuel conflict, arm criminals or violations of international humanitarian or human rights law are at the top of the list,” Ban Ki-moon continued.

“But also, the international community believes segments of the population that present a danger to themselves and others, chiefly individuals deemed or adjudicated mentally defective and persons with attenuating cerebral faculties, should be added to that list.”

While Ban Ki-moon did not elaborate on what he meant by persons with “attenuating cerebral faculties,” a UN liaison with Amnesty International spelled it out in an interview with the Washington Post.

“Simply put, the UN believes guns don’t belong in the hands of the elderly,” said H. Michael Chase, an attorney for the human rights watchdog group.

“Pools of research show that a significant majority of gun-related suicides, accidental shootings, non-fatal negligent discharges are perpetrated by persons 55 and over,” Chase said.

“Along with the mentally ill, preventing those who are advancing in age from gaining easy access to firearms is a common sense way to save lives,” concluded Chase.

Dr. Michael Betti from the John Hopkins Center for Public Health Preparedness embraced the UN’s call to disarm senior citizens.

“Science tells us that we grow old,” said Dr. Betti, a neurologist who specializes in evaluating and treating patients with memory disorders. “And as we do, our reflexes diminish, our senses become impaired and our cognitive skills weaken … Therefore, as we enter our twilight years – clinically speaking, age 50 and above [Global life expectancy is only 67 years] – science tells us that we are in no shape to be handling or using a deadly weapon.”

In lieu of firearms, Dr. Betti suggests that seniors find other, non-violent and non-lethal options for self-defense.

“The optimal self-defense posture for seniors would include such items as a rape whistle or high-decibel air horn, quick-strike road flares, an electronic medical alert system, a cellular telephone with a large display, morphine injections, neon or glow-in-the-dark armbands, a mesh vest, a pith helmet with flashing headgear and a solar-powered radio,” said Dr. Betti.

Thus far, the White House has not offered a specific comment on the arms trade agreement or its call to disarm seniors, but to echo a recent statement issued by Secretary of State John Kerry, “The United States is steadfast in its commitment to achieve a strong and effective Arms Trade Treaty.”

As for the constitutionality of revoking an elderly person’s Second Amendment rights here in the U.S., at least one gun control advocate said, “That’s not a problem.”

“Look, Justice Scalia already ruled that the Second Amendment had ‘reasonable limitations,’” said William Kirchmeyer of the Coalition to Prevent Mass Shootings, in an interview with the Washington Post. “What can be more reasonable than taking guns away from people who are essentially ticking time bombs?”

What are your thoughts? Should we hang em up after a certain age?
Posted on the NEW CafeMom Mobile
by on Apr. 1, 2013 at 10:16 PM
Replies (81-81):
Farmlady09
by Silver Member on Apr. 5, 2013 at 11:23 PM
1 mom liked this

A better question is why are idiots allowed to vote? Smart people don't vote for idiots.


Quoting Carpy:

Wasn't that one a real skull scratcher?  i could not believe that.  Then her spokesperson tried to say she mispoke and meant to say clips.  OMG, how do these idiots get elected?

Quoting Farmlady09:

I've read a few articles on this as well. Your sheriffs must be related to ours, because ours have said the same thing. I love our OKs.

Did you catch this little jewel? I cannot believe that anyone so utterly lacking in knowledge is allowed to write or vote on laws (on any topic, but particularly gun control). >>Asked how a ban on magazines holding more than 15 rounds would be effective in reducing gun violence, DeGette said:

“I will tell you these are ammunition, they’re bullets, so the people who have those now they’re going to shoot them, so if you ban them in the future, the number of these high capacity magazines is going to decrease dramatically over time because the bullets will have been shot and there won’t be any more available.”<<

She apparently doesn't know that magazines can be reloaded ~ or that only the very first ones made were 'disposable'. But she hates and fears guns and by doogey she's gonna use the power invested in her by her constituents to control those magazines. Sigh.

 

Quoting DSamuels:

I read an article today where they are trying to set up something with the secret service to arrest and remove from office every sheriff who refuses to uphold the laws passed. I know our sherriffs, and the one in our neighboring county have announced they won't enforce laws that infringe on 2nd amendment rights.

---------
Colorado, and apparently Texas (next) are being targeted with an attempt to set up a federal authority framework that will enable Secret Service agents (not just those guarding the president), and others of the U.S. Secret Service including uniformed division officers, physical security technicians and specialists, and other ‘special officers’, to arrest and remove an elected sheriff for refusing to enforce the law (or anyone breaking the law).
The bills being introduced defines law as including any rule, regulation, executive order, court order, statute or constitutional provision.
Why are they doing this? Here’s why…
It would establish federal authority police powers in a State, enabling an enforcement arm reporting directly to the president (Secret Service).
It would enable the president / executive branch to theoretically override the actions and preventative measures that are now being taken by many States throughout the country who are trying to preserve 2nd Amendment gun rights and who are prohibiting the enforcement of unconstitutional law passed by Congress or pushed by executive order.
As some of you may know, a growing list of sheriffs (more than 340 so far) across the country have expressed that they will not enforce a Washington mandate that clearly violates the Second Amendment.
Many State laws to preserve gun rights are gaining momentum. States include Montana, Ohio, Kentucky, Idaho, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Texas, Arizona, Michigan, Utah, and New Mexico.
However, in Colorado, Senate Bill SB-13-013 has evidently just passed, and is now ready to be signed by the governor, giving police powers and arrest authority to the federal/executive branch of government (Secret Service) within the State. In Texas a similar bill has just been introduced in the State legislature.
The president and vice-president Biden have been actively pursuing state legislatures and pushing for passage of the bills. Obama is scheduled to visit Colorado in just a few days. “Colorado is a pawn for the Obama-Biden plan,” and then on to the next… at least those that won’t fall into line.
It is a full court press by the federal government to empower themselves even further by inserting themselves as police authority within the state, to eliminate opposition.


Quoting Farmlady09:

There was no leap. Every gun control law infringes on rights ~ and there are already too many of them that are not enforced, along with too few controls on those who actually need them. I'm not the lunatic who wants to toss my rights in the trashcan ~ or toss other other citizens' rights in a trash can. If you don't want a gun, don't get one. If 'you' (generic and to be applied to anyone who is in favor of gun control from either the US or the flippin UN) want any of mine, you had better be ready to put forth the same effort I am and/or have your affairs in order. And, if you want to delude yourself into thinking there is only a 'fringe' element that thinks this way, have at it. Your silly thought won't change the reality.


Since there is now an amendment  (this should be a liberal enough rag for any on the left ~ and is written from a liberal perspective) being introduced to officially withdraw the US from the UN (and one that points out that the money saved would be far greater than the sequester figures ~ along with the number of US citizens (including elected sheriffs) that are flat out stating that they WILL not comply with any of the laws, your silly pipe dreams may get their reality check sooner rather than later. Going by what you've posted here (and on other threads), it will most likely be one of the larger ones.





 


 


Quoting Kate_Momof3:


 How in the world did you make that leap in logic?


I said nothing about rights.


No rights are being infringed upon despite what those who have benefited financially since 12/14 are leading you to believe.


I find the whole "they're taking my guns!" response to any kind of attempt at reasonable discussion really pathetic. If you're willing to act like a fringe lunatic, you're going to be treated like one.


Quoting Farmlady09:


I find the whole 'Rights are just gifts from the government' attitude a bit pathetic. If you are willing to give them up, you don't deserve them.


 


Quoting Kate_Momof3:


 You must have missed the sarcasm font.


I find the whole "They're gonna take yer guns!!!" hysteria a bit manufactured.


Quoting Farmlady09:


It may not be convenient, but it's done more to dump cash into the economy than anything O has come up with so far.


 


Quoting Kate_Momof3:


 Yeah...all that fear-mongering about losing your rights is really raking in the cash for guns and ammo manufacturers and retailers.


There's nothing remotely convenient about that at all.


Quoting kcangel63:

I actually wish gun sales would slow down for a while. I can't buy what I want if they can't keep them on the shelves. Can't buy ammo either.
:(



Quoting Kate_Momof3:


 It was poorly written and clearly had an agenda. Of course it's not what it was made out to be in the article. It's a pro-gun site that has one motive: keep up the gun sales.



The fact that people keep falling for this crap makes me think that our society is made up of a bunch of knuckleheads.



Quoting Clairwil:



Quoting kcangel63:



“Regulating the international transfers of both weapons and ammunition is a key component of a robust arms trade treaty, as is limiting civilian access to small arms and munitions,” said Ban Ki-moon.


“There’s an emerging consensus that certain groups should be restricted from possessing conventional arms, certainly those who fuel conflict, arm criminals or violations of international humanitarian or human rights law are at the top of the list,” Ban Ki-moon continued.

“But also, the international community believes segments of the population that present a danger to themselves and others, chiefly individuals deemed or adjudicated mentally defective and persons with attenuating cerebral faculties, should be added to that list.”



What are your thoughts?


My thought is that the journalists who wrote this article had no interest in truth, just in alarmism.



If you read the actual text of the treaty then it is clear that implementation details (such as who has sufficiently poor cerebral faculties that they're a danger to themselves, and whether this group should be picked by age or instead by some better mechanism, such as a medical test, such as is used for driving licenses) are left up to each particular country, who have a responsibility to not implement the treaty in a way that contravenes their existing anti-discrimination legislation.



 



Never trust journalists on science or legislation.   Always go back to the original source.



 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

 

 



 

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)