Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
Posted on 06/27/2006 9:00:25 AM PDT by jmc813
The United Nations is holding a conference beginning this week in New York that ironically coincides with our national 4th of July holiday. It’s ironic because those attending the conference want to do away with one of our most fundamental constitutional freedoms—the right to bear arms.
The stated goal of the conference is to eliminate trading in small arms, but the real goal is to advance a worldwide gun control movement that ultimately supercedes national laws, including our own 2nd Amendment. Many UN observers believe the conference will set the stage in coming years for an international gun control treaty.
Fortunately, U.S. gun owners have responded with an avalanche of letters to the American delegation to the conference, asking that none of our tax dollars be used to further UN anti-gun proposals. But we cannot discount the growing power of international law, whether through the UN, the World Trade Organization, or the NAFTA and CAFTA treaties. Gun rights advocates must understand that the forces behind globalism are hostile toward our Constitution and national sovereignty in general. Our 2nd Amendment means nothing to UN officials.
Domestically, the gun control movement has lost momentum in recent years. The Democratic Party has been conspicuously silent on the issue in recent elections because they know it’s a political loser. In the midst of declining public support for new gun laws, more and more states have adopted concealed-carry programs. The September 11th terrorist attacks and last summer’s hurricanes only made matters worse for gun control proponents, as millions of Americans were starkly reminded that we cannot rely on government to protect us from criminals.
So it makes sense that perhaps the biggest threat to gun rights in America today comes not from domestic lawmakers, but from abroad.
For more than a decade the United Nations has waged a campaign to undermine Second Amendment rights in America. UN Secretary General Kofi Annan has called on members of the Security Council to address the “easy availability” of small arms and light weapons, by which he means all privately owned firearms. In response, the Security Council released a report calling for a comprehensive program of worldwide gun control, a report that admonishes the U.S. and praises the restrictive gun laws of Red China and France!
It’s no surprise that UN officials dislike what they view as our gun culture. After all, these are the people who placed a huge anti-gun statue on American soil at UN headquarters in New York. The statue depicts a pistol with the barrel tied into a knot, a not-too-subtle message aimed squarely at the U.S.
They believe in global government, and armed people could stand in the way of their goals. They certainly don’t care about our Constitution or the Second Amendment. But the conflict between the UN position on private ownership of firearms and our Second Amendment cannot be reconciled. How can we as a nation justify our membership in an organization that is actively hostile to one of our most fundamental constitutional rights? What if the UN decided that free speech was too inflammatory and should be restricted? Would we discard the First Amendment to comply with the UN agenda?
The UN claims to serve human freedom and dignity, but gun control often serves as a gateway to tyranny. Tyrants from Hitler to Mao to Stalin have sought to disarm their own citizens, for the simple reason that unarmed people are easier to control. Our Founders, having just expelled the British army, knew that the right to bear arms serves as the guardian of every other right. This is the principle so often ignored by both sides in the gun control debate. Only armed citizens can resist tyrannical government.
ping
The UN cannot be trusted, as they are no different than any other group of liberals.
Ron Paul is one of a kind...
Canada has even figured out registration doesn't work, but these guys KNOW better!
As I've suggested before, we need a constitutional amendment prohibiting congress from appropriating money to any organization or entity that is not under the jurisdiction of the constitution.
Amen to that. A great patriot. A throwback to an earlier era... like the late 18th century!
Let's go for it.
Time to resurrect HR 1146
Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
I agree, but wonder how many others would really support this. I'm pretty sure that Ron means this to include EPA, Social Security, DEA, BATFE, Dept. of Education, Homeland Security, NSA, CIA, FBI, etc. since all of these took on extra-constitutional powers without any formal amendment process...
Only if they have the will to take up those arms every now and then to stem those very abuses.
We don't have that kind of will power any more. American Idol is on and we were going to go to the Mall this weekend.
Read Article VI for what it really says:
This Constitution [shall be the supreme Law of the Land], and [only] the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made [in Pursuance thereof], or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, [only they] shall be the supreme Law of the Land; ---
In other words, treaties or 'laws' not "made in Pursuance thereof", have no authority equal to the Constitution.
-- No amendment is needed, we just need to force our 'lawmakers' to comply with the Constitution as it is written.
I've never seen that statue as anti-American but rather simplistic.
The bible speaks of beating swords into plowshears - i.e. converting that energy of violence into a positive outlet.
In 1959 the U.N. put a more sophisiticated statue based on the bible at the headquarters. I take the 1980 gun statue to just be an over simplification - "just say no to guns" as if that solves the problems.
Here is the older statue
and a link if anybody wants to see the rest of the U.N. statues.
http://www.un.org/av/photo/subjects/art.htm
Yes, this is exactly what needs to change. Note, ... and all Treaties....
That means it is possible for a President and 51 Senators to sign on to a Treaty that would take away our rights and it would be "...the Supreme law of the land"
What needs to be CLEAR is that no law, treaty or anything else is superior to the Constitution and that any such law or treaty is NOT enforceable.
We The People don't seem to be too fired up about the existing parts of the Constitution being ignored by our Governemnt. I don't see how giving them one more amendment to ignore will help.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.