Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: The UN and the impact of international treaties on our Second Amendment freedom.

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Macomb County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,865

    Post imported post

    The UN And International Treaties

    Wednesday, November 25, 2009

    Over the last few weeks, we have received many inquiries regarding the UN and the impact of international treaties on our Second Amendment freedom.

    The NRA has been engaged at the United Nations and elsewhere internationally in response to anti-small arms initiatives for over 14 years. In most cases, agendas for the elimination of private ownership of firearms are disguised as calls for international arms control to stem the flow of illicit military weapons. These instruments are generally promoted by a small group of nations and a large number of Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) working in conjunction with departmental bureaucracies in multi-national institutions such as the UN and European Union.

    The new U.S. administration, to no one’s surprise, has changed direction in the UN with respect to international small arms control initiatives that were resisted by the previous administration.

    The current issue under discussion, the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), is in the early stages of the negotiation process. There is no actual draft text at this time. Work on the ATT is scheduled to continue by a consensus process between now and 2012. It should be noted that any treaty must be approved by two thirds of the U.S. Senate for ratification.

    Attempts to thwart our freedoms should be no surprise, given the anti-gun climate of the international community in general, and the current U.S. administration in particular.

    More generally, the NRA does not concern itself with foreign policy or arms control initiatives—except to the extent they would directly or indirectly affect Second Amendment rights.

    We have been actively opposing transnational efforts that would limit Second Amendment freedoms. For many years, NRA has been monitoring and actively fighting any credible attempts on the part of the UN to restrict our sovereignty and gun rights. As a recognized Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) at the United Nations since 1997, NRA gives gun owners a strong voice in the UN’s debate over global “gun control.” As one of over 2,000 NGOs representing everyone from religious groups to the banking industry, NRA has access to UN meetings that are closed to the general public, and is able to distribute informational materials to participants in UN activities.

    Most importantly, NRA’s status as an NGO allows us to monitor more closely the internal UN debate over firearm issues and report back to our members. The role NRA plays within the UN as an NGO is almost identical to the role our registered lobbyists play every day on Capitol Hill and in state capitals across the nation—educating and informing decision-makers of the facts behind the debate, and working to protect the interests of American gun owners and NRA members.

    Due to our NGO status, NRA was able to take an active role in thwarting the absurdly titled “UN Conference to Review Progress Made in the Implementation of the Programme of Action to Prevent and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects” in 2006, and the previous meeting, the “UN Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons” in the summer of 2001.

    The UN Small Arms Conference ended in deadlock with no formal conclusions or recommendations, due in large part to the NRA. In the final analysis, the complexity of the issue and the concerns of hunters, sport shooters and firearm owners world-wide prevailed. The failure of the program was total; no recommendations on ammunition, civilian possession or future UN meetings, or for that matter any other subjects, were adopted.

    In addition to its UN activities, NRA is a founding member of the World Forum on the Future of Sport Shooting Activities (WFSA). The WFSA is an association of hunting, shooting, and industry organizations that was founded in 1996. The WFSA includes over 35 national and international organizations, and represents over 100 million sport shooters worldwide.

    NRA members may rest assured that we are actively engaged in international matters. We have never hesitated, nor will we hesitate, to use the political and other resources available to us to resist any international agreement that could in any way affect our Second Amendment rights.

    http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Fe...d.aspx?id=5224

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Near Lapeer (Hadley), Michigan, USA
    Posts
    932

    Post imported post

    extremely unlikely that a treaty has the power to take away inalienable rights bestowed upon us by our creator.

    molon labe




    Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (who will watch the watchmen?)

    I am not a lawyer. Nothing in any of posts should be construed as legal advice.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Holt, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    43

    Post imported post

    lapeer20m wrote:
    extremely unlikely that a treaty has the power to take away inalienable rights bestowed upon us by our creator.

    molon labe



    +1000

  4. #4
    Regular Member Generaldet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    President, CLSD, Inc., Oxford, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,073

    Post imported post

    lechwe wrote:
    lapeer20m wrote:
    extremely unlikely that a treaty has the power to take away inalienable rights bestowed upon us by our creator.

    molon labe



    +1000
    I never understood the phrase "God given rights" God, did not give us these rights.

    Do you mean that it is unlikely that the rights we were guaranteed, by men, in our constitution would be taken away?

    By the way, completely agree with molon labe. Well put.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Near Lapeer (Hadley), Michigan, USA
    Posts
    932

    Post imported post

    i agree, "God given rights" is improper terminology.

    they are in fact rights that we all have and the government is not allowed to take away.....at least that's how it is supposed to be.





    Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (who will watch the watchmen?)

    I am not a lawyer. Nothing in any of posts should be construed as legal advice.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Northern lower & Keweenaw area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    667

    Post imported post

    The Declaration of Independence is not factual then?

    "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,..."
    Just saying, I believe.springerdave.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Generaldet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    President, CLSD, Inc., Oxford, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,073

    Post imported post

    springerdave wrote:
    The Declaration of Independence is not factual then?

    "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,..."
    Just saying, I believe.springerdave.
    Well if it is factual it raises another issue. That would mean that God created Americans with those rights? Then why wouldn't God create all men and women in other countries with those rights? Does God only favor Americans? Did God tell the founding fathers that all men were created equal? If so why would he only tell that to the writers of the declaration? Not saying I believe those things merely pointing out that God didn't give us those rights, men did.

    I believe the intent was that the men who wrote that were religious and believed what they were saying. However, that is not fact. Besides, it didn't really mean all men because of the whole, you know, slavery thing and the genocide being committed against Native Americans.

  8. #8
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Generaldet wrote:
    springerdave wrote:
    The Declaration of Independence is not factual then?

    "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,..."
    Just saying, I believe.springerdave.
    Well if it is factual it raises another issue. That would mean that God created Americans with those rights? Then why wouldn't God create all men and women in other countries with those rights? Does God only favor Americans? Did God tell the founding fathers that all men were created equal? If so why would he only tell that to the writers of the declaration? Not saying I believe those things merely pointing out that God didn't give us those rights, men did.

    I believe the intent was that the men who wrote that were religious and believed what they were saying. However, that is not fact. Besides, it didn't really mean all men because of the whole, you know, slavery thing and the genocide being committed against Native Americans.
    What you have to watch out for is equating Creator with God.

    The word God carries certain connotations, especially omniscience (all knowing) and omnipotent (having all powers, whichincludestheability to createby will alone).

    The word Creator canencompass whateverthe original causation for the existence of the things that are aware of themselves--us.

    Either way, it is merely agrammatical construct acknowledging the idea that there must have been anoriginal causation orsource forthe existence of the thingsthat are aware of themselves.

    The focus should not bethe source of the rights, since the nature of theoriginal causation (source)is arguable.

    The focus should be that the existence of rightsis self-evident. I wouldn't open the door to further argument by saying rights are God-given, even if I believed they were. I would say they exist, period. Knowing how they came to exist is not necessary to recognizing that they do exist.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •