The NRA visits the u.n.

Wayne LaPierre, Executive Vice President of the NRA, visited the u.n. today. He spoke to the u.n. regarding the proposed small arms treaty. Here is the text of that speech...

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 self-evident 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 if 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.

I would trust rattlesnake before I would trust the u.n. or hillary clinton. Neither of them give a damn about me and you. They care about power and the doors that power will open. The u.n. will never take my firearms, not as long as I am still breathing.

 

And to all the naysayers, claiming that the recent rise in frequency of articles concerning this treaty are scare tactics by pro-gun groups in order to raise, do you still think so? If this weren't an issue of legitimate concern would time had been allowed at the u.n. for LaPierre to speak?

 

Wayne LaPierre is correct, Americans will never give up our guns or gun rights to a foreign body. We won't even give up those things to the government of our own Country.

 

And just a word to those who don't own guns or are even anti-gun. Those of us who do own firearms continue to ensure the freedoms you enjoy every day. The 2nd Amendment is what guarantees all of our other rights. As long as there are those of us that do exercise our right to Keep and Bear Arms, all of us will remain citizens instead of subjects...

u.n. small arms treaty...

We had a conversation at lunch today about the u.n. small arms treaty. I suggested that it will be a way around the 2nd Amendment for obama and the anti-gun crowd. My two friends thought that is was nothing more than scare tactics by the pro-gun crowd in order to keep us donating. I can see that side of it too, but I also know how bad the left wants to rid us of our weapons.

Not that it really matters these days. The majority in this Country don't have the balls or the inclination to defend it. I don't know if you have ever heard of the three percenters, but I doubt if the number willing to die for this Country is even that high.

When media outlets, people other than the NRA and the National Association for Gun Rights, start writing about the devastation this treaty could do to our rights, I start to get worried.

Here is an article from The Washington Times. See the short excerpt below...

Political scientist Rudy Rummel estimates that the 15 worst regimes during the 20th century killed 151 million of their own citizens, which works out to 1.5 million victims per year. Even if all 300,000 annual deaths from armed conflicts can be blamed on the small-arms trade (which they cannot), governments are a bigger threat to most people than their neighbors.

Here is an article from Forbes. See the excerpt below...

Have no doubt that this plan is very real, with strong Obama administration support. In January 2010 the U.S. joined 152 other countries in endorsing a U.N. Arms Treaty Resolution that will establish a 2012 conference to draft a blueprint for enactment. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has pledged to push for Senate ratification.

Former U.N. ambassador John Bolton has cautioned gun owners to take this initiative seriously, stating that the U.N. “is trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about international arms trade between nation states, but there is no doubt that the real agenda here is domestic firearms control.”

Of course, there are plenty of places you can go to see the exact opposite. Places like Snopes deny that it will be a gun grab. They claim it is as innocent as the u.n says it is. Nothing is ever as it seems when hillary clinton, obama, or the u.n are involved. There is always some underlying motive, some personal gain. In this case the personal gain may just be the support of the liberal base if a victory is obtained.

I'm not willing to find out. It will be tough for clinton to get this passed in congress. If there is even a hint in washigton that this is a threat to the 2nd Amendment, many won't give their approval. But still, I plan to let my congress critters know every week what my feelings are about this. Even if it is as innocent as they claim, it is still bad policy. Read the quote from the first article. Rouge governments are a far bigger threat to their people than other countries, or even terrorists. Rouge regimes have killed MILLIONS of unarmed citizens. Gun confiscation is the first indication that you are truly and completely screwed. At that point you cease to be a citizen and instead become a subject, or worse, a slave.

If this treaty passes, and becomes the law of the land, it will be because of those people reading Snopes and the like, with their heads in the sand. "It can't happen here" are some of the most famous last words. It ranks right up there with "Hey, hold my beer and watch this"...