Alan Gottlieb on the United Nations: Q&A

[Paladin]

http://saf.org/default.asp?p=gottlieb_interview

"Alan Gottlieb on the United Nations: Q&A
Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation and chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, recently attended the United Nations conference on small arms.

He was interviewed by Gun Week.

GunWeek: What was your initial impression of the United Nations?

Alan Gottlieb: Not good. When you get to the main entrance you are greeted by a sculpture of a revolver with a barrel tied in a knot. Not very gun rights friendly to say the least.

GW: What bothers you most about the UN?

AG: In a word, hypocrisy. What stuck in my throat the most was when the delegate from Iran gave a speech about the evil of small arms possession and the need for the United Nations Program of Action to get rid of firearms while his country is building nuclear weapons.

GW: Isn’t it true that this conference was not about global gun control at all, and all the UN really wants is to stem the flow of illicit guns to criminal organizations and rogue governments?

AG: No. That claim is false. While it is true that this UN conference did deal with other matters like victims of violence and how they are treated in the third world, and the need for better medical treatment for trauma victims as well as illicit trafficking in weapons, the bias against private civilian gun ownership could be seen everywhere you looked.

The walls were lined with ban handgun posters from Africa, South America, Japan and Europe. I attended a session titled, “Targeting Ammunition� that was opened with the statement, “If you get rid of the ammunition all guns are useless.� It took less than five minutes to see the ultimate goal of global gun control which really means a ban on guns and ammunition. If they had their way all guns would be “illicit.�

GW: Explain how the Second Amendment Foundation was able to attend the session.

AG: The Second Amendment Foundation has been proposed for membership in the World Forum on the Future of Sport Shooting Activities (WFSA). The World Forum is a registered non governmental organization (NGO) with the United Nations. They have about forty member organizations worldwide. As a WFSA member we are be part of the biggest international NGO fighting the gun banners at the UN. I attended most of the conference with their credentials. Part of the conference I attended with press credentials representing Gun Week. That allowed be double flexibility to be in more places and see how the international media was talking in private about the conference.

GW: After your experience, are you more or less convinced that the UN is out to end private gun ownership in the United States?

AG: The UN is all about disarmament. I knew going in that almost all the UN non government organizations that deal with disarmament hate the right of individual own ownership in the United States. Add to that the a number of countries controlled by despots and dictators or socialist governments who do not want their subjects armed because they might resist tyranny and you get a melting pot of freedom haters. And who do freedom haters hate most? Americans.

GW: What’s stopping them?

AG: The UN works by consensus not majority rule. If you threaten to take your marbles and your money home they tend to take a step back. The United States stood firm in defense of our gun rights. It made a big difference. If Bill or Hillary Clinton were in the White House instead of George Bush the outcome of this UN conference would have been very different. Our UN Ambassador and delegation were in our corner.

GW: Is this just a temporary setback, or do the anti-gunners in the UN now understand that American gun rights are not up for grabs?

AG: They know it was a setback. It started with the defeat of the gun ban referendum in Brazil. They had hoped to use a victory there to help create international support for a gun ban at this UN conference. They know that the last bastion of firearms freedom is the United States and we won’t give in to their gun control schemes without a fight. But, if they get a gun control friendly administration elected here their chance of victory goes way up. This battle is far from over.

GW: What can American gun owners do to prevent a UN gun grab?

AG: Make sure that we elect the right people to run our government and support gun rights groups like NRA, Second Amendment Foundation and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Also, read publications like Gun Week to stay informed. The large amount of protest mail the UN received from American gun owners really helped.

GW: Days before the conference, SAF called on Congress to re-examine America’s financial commitment to the UN. Did attending this conference convince you that the UN is indifferent or hostile to America’s interests, particularly individual liberty?

AG: The UN is really an umbrella for member nation states. Many of them are hostile to the United States and individual freedom or are at best indifferent. In my opinion, the biggest problem is the NGO groups. Most of them are so left wing that they make Fidel Castro look like a Republican. Funding the UN and these NGO groups that use the UN for cover to attack our rights and freedom is not in our best interests.

GW: Why are UN anti-gunners so interested in ammunition controls?

AG: In their own words, “If you get rid of the ammunition, guns are useless.� They held a session to push ammunition control in the final report. Their plan is to get the next UN conference to be “Small arms, light weapons and ammunition.� NGO groups based in the European Union well funded by their governments, private foundations and billionaires like George Soros have this at the top of their agenda.

GW: What is IANSA, and why should American gun owners keep an eye on their activities?

AG: IANSA stands for International Action Network on Small Arms. They are based in London and work closely with gun ban organizations world wide. Some of which include, International Alert, Saferworld, Dept. of Peace Studies at the University of Bradford, Graduate Institute of International Studies in Geneva, Amnesty International, Oxfam and smaller groups in Africa, Asia and South America. They are extremely well funded and connected to the UN as well as European Union nations. They are the heartbeat of the UN gun ban movement. Their budget dwarfs all the US anti-gun groups combined. When it comes to the international attack on gun rights, they are the “evil empire.�

GW: Where do global gun grabbers get their financial support?

AG: It may be hard to believe, but I discovered at this conference that some of their funding comes from the governments of Canada and Germany. With the liberals losing the last elections in those countries, I hope that will now change. IANSA gets funding from England. I am sure that the UN also provides funding but their accounting is hard to track. Other governments also provide funding and private foundations and wealthy corporations and individuals also fund their activities. Since much of their funding crosses national boundaries it is very difficult to track where the funds come from and where they are spent. It is as hard as tracking the cash flow of terrorist groups.

GW: What is the World Forum on the Future of Sport Shooting Activities?

AG: It is the premier NGO defending gun rights at both the UN and the European Union. About forty organizations worldwide make up the membership. In the United States the NRA, NSSF, SAAMI and the Safari Club are members. The Second Amendment Foundation will become a member at their next meeting in Berlin. Tom Mason is the North American Secretary and we all owe him a debt of thanks for all his hard work at this UN conference. Without the World Forum we would not have been successful in beating back the anti-gunners at the UN this year.

GW: Why is it important for SAF to be a member of this World Forum?

AG: The battle for gun rights transcends borders. The battle is now an international one. Anti-gun rights groups like IANSA, OXFAM and Amnesty International shift money and manpower from country to country depending on where they think that they can score a victory.

GW: During the week you spent at the UN, what activities were you involved in?

AG: I attended various sessions including one in the General Assembly. All the delegates of the World Forum which included groups like the British Shooting Sports Council, New Zealand Council of Licensed Firearms Owners, National Muzzle Loading Rifle Association, Sporting Shooters Association of Australia, National Firearms Association of Canada, Brazilian Coalition Pro-Legitimate Defense group and scores of others held a nightly meeting to go over the latest drafts of the UN conference report and to discuss contacts made with nation state delegates who cast the final vote on the UN Program of Action.

We also met with the U.S. delegates and nightly with former U.S Ambassador to Switzerland Faith Whittlesey who was on the U.S. delegation for this conference.

I spent time educating delegates from Ecuador and Columbia about firearms. Most of the member nation delegates know very little about firearms and legitimate gun owners.

I was also able to squeeze in some quest appearances on some national talk radio shows to get the word out about what was going on at the UN. The international contacts I made are invaluable in the battle against global gun control.

GW: Were American anti-gun organizations there, and what were they up to?

AG: Oh yes. But they kept a very low profile because they were afraid that we could use their statements at the UN to prove to more Americans that this event was a gun control conference. Michael Beard from the gun ban group Coalition Against Gun Violence which changed their name from the National Coalition to Ban Handguns to hide the intent of the group was there. So was the Brady Center’s Million Mom March branch. The Massachusetts based Physicians Against Nuclear War were there lobbying for a ban on handguns.

One of the Million Mom March leaders from California, unaware that I was in the room, asked some of the anti-gun NGO delegates from Germany and Switzerland at the “Targeting Ammunition� session for help to pass new laws regulating ammo marking and tracing, as well as to limit purchases in the United States. One of their recommendations was to push for a law that would issue ammunition purchase control cards to gun owners limiting the kind, type and quantity of ammo one could buy.

GW: What’s the next step?

AG: We need to take more than one. We need to work to cut off the funds these anti-gun rights NGOs get. I was amazed to learn that the German government funded anti-gun groups based in Switzerland and that the Canadian government funded anti-gun groups in the U.S. The United Kingdom funds IANSA which in turn funds groups on several continents. Some times the money changes hands several times across borders. They hide their finances the way terrorist groups do. There is very little transparency.

We also need to make sure U. S. taxpayer funds do not fund any of these anti-gun rights activities of the United Nations. I have reason to believe that many of these so-called NGO groups that work against our gun rights get UN financial assistance.

While we held them off this time, they will be back. They keep at it until they wear down the opposition. For them it is a full time paying career job.

This interview provided courtesy of The New Gun Week."

[Venus Pax]

Hm. Good article.