Tag: UN

But I read it  on the Internet…

There’s no shortage of Internet rumors out there. The ‘net seems to churn out rumors and porn in equal volumes. The latest is a UN gun confiscation memo.

It’s bogus.

bogus UN doc

However, like satire, what makes for a really good Internet rumor is a kernel of truth. This same memo issued on Canadian Ministry of Tourism letterhead wouldn’t have been as nearly believable. In this case, the believability comes courtesy of the UN itself. The UN has a long and shameful history of hostility toward your 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

The latest chapter in the UN’s ongoing war against your civil rights is the UN Arms Trade Treaty (ATT). Now, UN and Obama Administration flacks may try to tell you that this treaty is about military arms, but the UN’s own website makes it clear that civilian arms are the real target of their treaty. They really do want to confiscate your guns. That’s right; they count American gun owners as morally equivalent to Somali pirates and Russian mobsters. If that weren’t the case, then why write a treaty that affects an American’s deer rifle as much as it does a Somali pirate’s RPG launcher?

So while this UN document is a fake, it doesn’t follow that US gun owners shouldn’t be paying attention to the UN. We must continue to tell our Senators to oppose the ATT.



From NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris Cox…

The Arms Trade Treaty directly threatens the Second Amendment rights and privacy of American gun owners. Article 12 of the treaty “encourages” signatory nations to compile “records” of all “end users” of firearms imported into their county — and to supply this sensitive personal information to the government of the exporting country.

In other words, if you bought a shotgun made by an Italian manufacturer, the U.S. government would keep a record of your purchase and provide your information to the Italian government. This is gun registration on an international level, plain and simple.



The vast majority of UN member states have always hated American freedom and prosperity. They’ve wanted to strip you of your right to keep and bear arms for decades; if only out of spite. Now is the time to let your Senators know that the UN cannot be allowed to dictate policy to the American People. They especially should not be allowed to do so in matters touching upon our Constitutional liberties.



Looks like the Obama administration is in damage control mode after skipping the big UN ATT signing party. Secretary of State John “Lurch” Kerry was sent out to say that Obama would sign the treaty, albeit symbolically, sometime “soon”.


While his signature on the treaty would have only been symbolic (That pesky Constitution leaves it up to the Senate to ratify treaties; even treaties The One approves of.), the Obama administration decided that it would be best to stay away from the signing party for the UN Arms Trade Treaty. The chances of the Senate ratifying the treaty anytime soon are slim to none given the President’s recent gun control failures in that body.

Click here for more information on the UN ATT and how it threatens your rights.




Posted on March 24, 2013

The National Rifle Association (NRA) would like to thank Sen. Inhofe (R-OK) for leading the effort to prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty (UN ATT).  Sen Inhofe’s amendment passed the full Senate 53-46 with bi-partisan support.

“For nearly 20 years, the NRA has fought tirelessly to oppose any United Nations effort to undermine the constitutional rights of law-abiding American gun owners. That fight has grown more intense lately, as the U.N. and global gun banners have moved to step up their attack on our Second Amendment freedoms by including civilian arms in the proposed Arms Trade Treaty.  Thanks to the efforts of Senator Inhofe, we are one step closer to ensuring the UN will not trample on the freedoms our Founding Fathers guaranteed to us,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director of NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action.

In 2009, at the behest of the Obama administration, the United States joined 152 other countries in endorsing a U.N. Arms Trade Treaty Resolution. The resolution established the international conference currently being held at which leaders from countries around the world—many of which have deplorable human rights records—are working to draw up an international treaty designed to severely restrict or even outright ban the right to sell, purchase, carry or own a firearm in America.  The NRA continues its work at the United Nations to ensure that civilian ownership of firearms will not be within the scope of this UN ATT.




Established in 1871, the National Rifle Association is America’s oldest civil rights and sportsmen’s group. More than four million members strong, NRA continues to uphold the Second Amendment and advocates enforcement of existing laws against violent offenders to reduce crime. The Association remains the nation’s leader in firearm education and training for law-abiding gun owners, law enforcement and the armed services. Be sure to follow the NRA on Facebook at www.facebook.com/NationalRifleAssociation and on Twitter @NRA.

Federal Legislation News Pro-gun

Well, OK. They never really stop.

The UN and the Obama administration are pushing another attempt at a “small arms” treaty. As most of you probably know, the UN and their anti-freedom minions carefully word such treaties to affect the American gun owner. Their public relations line of bull shit portrays the treaty as a means of stopping bush wars in the third world, but the it-can’t-be-an-accident clumsy wording makes sure that you are the real target and not some warlord hiding in a cave in Waziristan.

The NRA is well aware of the efforts of the UN and the Obama administration and is working to oppose them.

The National Rifle Association, which is battling a raft of gun control measures on Capitol Hill, also has an international fight on its hand as it gears up to oppose a U.N. treaty designed to restrict the flow of arms to conflict zones.

Negotiations open Monday in New York on the Arms Trade Treaty, which would require countries to determine whether weapons they sell would be used to commit serious human rights violations, terrorism or transnational organized crime.

The gun lobby fears that the treaty would be used to regulate civilian weapons. Human rights activists counter that it would reduce the trafficking of weapons, including small arms such as the ubiquitous AK-47 assault rifle, to outlaw regimes and rebel groups engaged in atrocities against civilian populations.

So now the same people who support their arguments with lies claim that this treaty has nothing to do with American civilian arms. Who do you believe? Them or the NRA?



NRA Delivers Remarks at United Nations Concerning Proposed Arms Trade Treaty

Thursday, July 14, 2011

National Rifle Association’s Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre addressed the United Nations this afternoon. He told the U.N. to not interfere with the Second Amendment freedoms of Americans and pledged to continue the fight to preserve civilian ownership of firearms in the U.S. He said the NRA will oppose any U.N. provision that seeks to prohibit or regulate U.S. civilian firearm ownership.  LaPierre said in his remarks, “The cornerstone of our freedom is the Second Amendment. Neither the United Nations, nor any other foreign influence, has the authority to meddle with the freedoms guaranteed by our Bill of Rights, endowed by our Creator, and due to all humankind.”





United Nations Arms Trade Treaty

Preparatory Committee – 3d Session

New York, July 11-15, 2011



Statement of the National Rifle Association of America

Mr. Chairman, thank you for this brief opportunity to address the committee. I am Wayne

LaPierre and for 20 years now, I have served as Executive Vice President of the National Rifle

Association of America.


The NRA was founded in 1871, and ever since has staunchly defended the rights of its 4 million

members, America’s 80 million law-abiding gun owners, and freedom-loving Americans

throughout our country. In 1996, the NRA was recognized as an NGO of the United Nations

and, ever since then, has defended the constitutional freedom of Americans in this arena. The

NRA is the largest and most active firearms rights organization in the world and, although some

members of this committee may not like what I have to say, I am proud to defend the tens of

millions of lawful people NRA represents.


This present effort for an Arms Trade Treaty, or ATT, is now in its fifth year. We have closely

monitored this process with increasing concern. We’ve reviewed the statements of the countries

participating in these meetings. We’ve listened to other NGOs and read their numerous

proposals and reports, as well as carefully examined the papers you have produced.

We’ve watched, and read … listened and monitored. Now, we must speak out.


The Right to Keep and Bear Arms in defense of self, family and country is ultimately selfevident

and is part of the Bill of Rights to the United States Constitution. Reduced to its core, it

is about fundamental individual freedom, human worth, and self-destiny.


We reject the notion that American gun owners must accept any lesser amount of freedom in

order to be accepted among the international community. Our Founding Fathers long ago

rejected that notion and forged our great nation on the principle of freedom for the individual

citizen – not for the government.


Mr. Chairman, those working on this treaty have asked us to trust them … but they’ve proven to

be unworthy of that trust.


We are told “Trust us; an ATT will not ban possession of any civilian firearms.” Yet, the

proposals and statements presented to date have argued exactly the opposite, and – perhaps most

importantly – proposals to ban civilian firearms ownership have not been rejected.


We are told “Trust us; an ATT will not interfere with state domestic regulation of firearms.”

Yet, there are constant calls for exactly such measures.


We are told “Trust us; an ATT will only affect the illegal trade in firearms.” But then we’re told

that in order to control the illegal trade, all states must control the legal firearms trade.


We are told, “Trust us; an ATT will not require registration of civilian firearms.” Yet, there are

numerous calls for record-keeping, and firearms tracking from production to eventual

destruction. That’s nothing more than gun registration by a different name.


We are told, “Trust us; an ATT will not create a new international bureaucracy.” Well, that’s

exactly what is now being proposed — with a tongue-in-cheek assurance that it will just be a

SMALL bureaucracy.


We are told, “Trust us; an ATT will not interfere with the lawful international commerce in

civilian firearms.” But a manufacturer of civilian shotguns would have to comply with the same

regulatory process as a manufacturer of military attack helicopters.


We are told, “Trust us; an ATT will not interfere with a hunter or sport shooter travelling

internationally with firearms.” However, he would have to get a so-called “transit permit”

merely to change airports for a connecting flight.


Mr. Chairman, our list of objections extends far beyond the proposals I just mentioned.

Unfortunately, my limited time today prevents me from providing greater detail on each of our

objections. I can assure you, however, that each is based on American law, as well as the

fundamental rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution.


It is regrettable that proposals affecting civilian firearms ownership are woven throughout the

proposed ATT. That being the case, however, there is only one solution to this problem: the

complete removal of civilian firearms from the scope of any ATT. I will repeat that point as it is

critical and not subject to negotiation – civilian firearms must not be part of any ATT. On this

there can be no compromise, as American gun owners will never surrender their Second

Amendment freedom.


It is also regrettable to find such intense focus on record-keeping, oversight, inspections,

supervision, tracking, tracing, surveillance, marking, documentation, verification, paper trails

and data banks, new global agencies and data centers. Nowhere do we find a thought about

respecting anyone’s right of self-defense, privacy, property, due process, or observing personal

freedoms of any kind.


Mr. Chairman, I’d be remiss i f I didn’t also discuss the politics of an ATT. For the United States

to be a party to an ATT, it must be ratified by a two-thirds vote of the U.S. Senate. Some do not

realize that under the U.S. Constitution, the ultimate treaty power is not the President’s power to

negotiate and sign treaties; it is the Senate’s power to approve them.


To that end, it’s important for the Preparatory Committee to understand that the proposed ATT is

already strongly opposed in the Senate – the very body that must approve it by a two-thirds

majority. There is a letter addressed to President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton that is

currently being circulated for the signatures of Senators who oppose the ATT. Once complete,

this letter will demonstrate that the proposed ATT will not pass the U.S. Senate.


So there is extremely strong resistance to the ATT in the United States, even before the treaty is

tabled. We are not aware of any precedent for this – rejecting a proposed treaty before it’s even

submitted for consideration – but it speaks to the level of opposition. The proposed ATT has

become more than just controversial, as the Internet is awash with articles and messages calling

for its rejection. And those messages are all based on the same objection – infringement on the

constitutional freedom of American gun owners.


The cornerstone of our freedom is the Second Amendment. Neither the United Nations, nor any

other foreign influence, has the authority to meddle with the freedoms guaranteed by our Bill of

Rights, endowed by our Creator, and due to all humankind.


Therefore, the NRA will fight with all of its strength to oppose any ATT that includes civilian

firearms within its scope.


Thank you.



Copyright 2011, National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action.
This may be reproduced. It may not be reproduced for commercial purposes.
11250 Waples Mill Road, Fairfax, VA 22030    800-392-8683

News Politics

News Politics Self-defense

From Howard Nemerov at Pajamas Media comes this report about how the UN Ignores Its Own Data to Promote Gun Ban:

Since the mid-1990s, the United Nations has proclaimed that global civilian disarmament will ensure worldwide peace and prosperity. But to comprehend their attitude towards civilian gun ownership, know that the United Nations believes you have no civil right of self-defense:

Self-defence is a widely recognized, yet legally proscribed, exception to the universal duty to respect the right to life of others. Self-defence is a basis for exemption from criminal responsibility that can be raised by any State agent or non-State actor. Self-defence is sometimes designated as a “right.” There is inadequate legal support for such an interpretation. Self-defence is more properly characterized as a means of protecting the right to life and, as such, a basis for avoiding responsibility for violating the rights of another.

In other words, if you kill an attacker, you violate their human rights. For now, the UN will let it pass if you can prove you were protecting your life. But this remains a “basis for exemption from criminal responsibility,” which implies that you owe a debt to society. Also, government can revoke this privilege of self-defense at any time.

Curiously, the UN never consults their own research when asking: “Does gun ownership make you less safe?”

UN data shows that gun ownership is associated with greater economic prosperity, more freedom, and less government corruption.  So why doesn’t the UN pay any attention to their own data? The quote above is telling. It demonstrates the difference between the “American Experiment” and the tyranny that is more typical of the human experience.

Long ago, the American People asserted their dominance over their government. As a result, we do not see rights as flowing from government. Were that the case, rights would not be rights at all, but privileges granted by a tyrant. Instead, the People have rights that predate the formation of the government. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights do not grant, but rather, recognize rights that the People have held all along; simply by virtue of being Human Beings. In short, your rights come from God, not a politician.

The aspiring tyrants at the UN take a dim view of this philosophy. Someone who sees his rights and liberties as things flowing to him from God is someone who will be difficult to control. Someone who holds this view and possesses the means to resist tyranny will be especially difficult to control!