Posted on 11/19/2023 10:32:38 AM PST by DoodleBob
…It’s time for a new approach. That’s why we are bringing the “Lawsuit for Survival” before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. It’s the first suit to demand that the United States uphold the human right to live, free from gun violence. It’s part of a broader global Campaign for Survival to reframe the gun debate by ensuring that all nations, including the United States, recognize and protect our most fundamental right.
…Our suit asks the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, which has jurisdiction over the United States as part of the Organization of the American States, to affirm that international law requires nations to protect people from gun violence, and that by enabling and tolerating ubiquitous shootings, the United States violated its obligations under human rights laws…
…
The obligation to protect life under human rights laws is consistent with America’s founding principles. “America’s First Freedom” is not a right to guns, as the National Rifle Association claims; the first right the Founders enshrined in the Declaration of Independence was the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Guns weren’t mentioned. When the Framers later addressed “arms” in the Second Amendment, it is our view that they intended to protect state military units (“a well-regulated militia”), not individual gun rights. Nor did they intend that gun-toting individuals, rather than government entities, should defend fundamental rights.
The right to live outweighs the right to own guns….Even the most avid gun owners should agree that the right of children to live deserves more protection than gun ownership. The gun violence epidemic in the United States will never end until the federal government recognizes that its most basic obligation, morally as well as legally, is to protect Americans’ right to live and not be shot.
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...
Trump banned more guns than Obama did.
I hope the next meeting of these commie trash heads is in NYC and all of them are attacked by bums imported from across our southern border.
"Nor did they [the Founders] intend that gun-toting individuals, rather than government entities, should defend fundamental rights."
Lock up all black males age 15 to 35 if they are serious about stopping gun violence. After all, everyone should agree that the rights of a child to live is more important than the freedom of young black males who have committed no crime. Right?
Maybe some of the people who support the lawsuit can move to Alaska and start training the bears and wolves there to leave people alone.
Wink, wink, you wouldn't mean places like Chicago, (Illinois) L.A. (Los Angeles, Cal.) city of Angels and the city of brotherly love: Philadelphia.
If I recall, by removing these area's the United States would fall to something like 39th world wide in gun deaths.
All area's controlled by democRATS.
What could possibly go wrong with the democRATS in charge? wink, wink
I won’t be happy until I get a phased plasma rifle in the 40 watt range.
Boston Globe and MSM join up to attack their enemies.
Guns or bump stocks?
Guess who else disarmed their countries?! Adolf Hitler, Mao Zedong and Josef Stalin.
The stock is a part of a rifle.
So if you built your AR-15 platform rifle with a bump stock, Trump's ban made this weapon illegal. You either had to turn it in or spend money out of pocket to make it compliant.
Obama never did this.
Trump is no friend to the Second Amendment.
The Boston Glob strikes again.
“...start training the bears and wolves there to leave people alone.”
Might as well train them to be law enforcement and put them on the southern border of the US. It won’t be guns and they will get some respect after a few illegals are eaten.
Besides getting the people who do nothing but complain and come up with idiotic ideas like this lawsuit constitutes having to do some work.
This lawsuit was filed by the international court of human rights based in San Jose, Costa Rica. A real metropolis of third world country. So who are they covering here, the innocents trying to protect their people and property or the guilty trying to get across the border and into trouble? Always seems to be an ulterior motive, doesn’t there? And if a common citizen like me can see it, where are the politicians that are supposed to defend our rights? Right about here:
wy69
Here’s a scenario I can all too easily imagine. The so-called Commission on Human Rights rules against gun ownership in the U.S. A democrat President orders that no appeal or argument be made against it. (Reminds me of how California refused to defend its constitutional amendment outlawing gay marriage). Only a change or two in SCOTUS and the 2nd Amendment could be history.
Yes, I know that the Constitution does not allow treaties to overrule it. But dems don’t seem to care about things like that as illustrated in this article.
Crummy paper read by 2000 Massholes, big deal.
OAS need only look at Mexico and Israel to see how well gun control has worked. There are plenty of other examples right within the OAS states for further proof.
“..uphold the human right to live, free from gun violence.”
There is no such thing. You do however have a right to protect yourself and loved ones from gun violence or violence of any kind.
So, the founding fathers were thinking of something like Cambodia under Pol Pot?
Any elected government official complying or assisting with this organization, needs gone immediately. That is the true treason.
Yup! Returning to the actual meaning of the 2nd amendment without infringements by local, state or federal impediments would be awesome. That is gun policy I can stand behind. To the international lawsuit......FOAD! 🖕
🙏🇺🇸🇮🇱👍
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.