Ok, from what I can tell this is simply an initiation by the UN to get country's to talk about this. I haven't checked the NRA website because I generally take most of what they say with a grain of salt ( sorry guys ) I did do a little bit of research on the UN website, so let me post these links, then I'll start with some points.

http://www.un.org/events/smallarms2006/faq.html

" 'Small arms' are, broadly speaking, weapons designed for individual use. They include, inter alia, revolvers and self-loading pistols, rifles and carbines, sub-machine guns, assault rifles and light machine guns."

I'm not sure I like this definition. I may go into this later, but I have a headache and am having a hard time formulating a decent thought.

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs//2006/gadis3335.doc.htm

Just some more info in that one, I'm not sure that I like the way we are voting %100 of the time.

http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/3649

"First, the UN will likely adopt a resolution clearing the way for a landmark arms trade treaty. It will set common international standards on the import, export, and transfer of conventional arms including not only small arms, but heavy weapons such as tanks. A UN-appointed panel of experts will determine the details of the legally-binding treaty that will be put to a vote in 2008. The United States, Russia, and China—the world's leading arms exporters—all oppose the treaty. When the vote recently took place in the UN General Assembly, several countries abstained but only one voted no: the United States. U.S. opposition is hard to square with its professed concern about terrorism and failed states, since arms proliferation in the hands of non-state actors is a primary facilitator of both. A policy change on behalf of this new treaty would be an excellent first step toward reengagement with the long list of existing treaties the Bush administration has rejected since taking office."

This part, "arms proliferation in the hands of non-state actors" is what kind of gets at me. I can't seem to find a whole lot of documentation about what ideas are being passed. I'm thinking it's still early so no states have nailed down any ideas concretely. Unfortunately in this country, with the definition of "small arms" as stated above, we have arms in the hands of "non-state actors". Perhaps I'm reading that wrong though.

  I understand that there are many conflicts going on worldwide, and disarming those conflicts would be a good idea. If we do that though don't we have to be transparent and disarm the folks in our country who could possibly cause a conflict? Are we only leaving arms within stated governments? What happens when it's a warlord who is essentially the "government" of a country and there is nobody to oppose him?

Perhaps I'm reading this wrong, maybe it's only the trade, but then I have to wonder, "does that mean that the U.S. can no longer import "small arms" ie my glock ( made in austria ) unless it is to supply a governmental force? I could certainly see a lot of foreign arms makers putting a small shop in the U.S. That would make the UN happy but Sarah Brady would have a stroke.

Also we seem to be a large exporter of arms. I'm not sure which companies ( maybe it's all government ) are doing all of the exporting but I suppose they'll lose business.

All in all I suppose I'm pretty confused by all of this. Lots of different angles to think of, a lot of decisions that haven't been made yet. I can say that I'm not real happy with the idea that our country supplies arms to an area full of genocide though.

So no comment on this issue.

The UN needs to keep their business out of this country's business, not only on guns, but things like how you raise our children, etc.

"The strongest reason to retain the right to keep and bear arms is to protect against tyranny in government." Thomas Jefferson.