U.N.; An Encroachment on the Second Amendment?


PDA






gun-fucious
May 16, 2003, 12:50 PM
The United Nations Conference on the Illicit
Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons – An
Encroachment on the Second Amendment to the
U.S. Constitution?
By Daniel B. Pickard

http://www.fed-soc.org/Intllaw&%20AmerSov/smallarms.pdf

V. Conclusion
The United States is a world leader in preventing the illegal trade in small arms and light
weapons, and appropriately supported the goals of the UN Conference on the Illicit Trade in
Small Arms and Light Weapons. However, it is clear that many delegates to the UN Conference
intended to expand the scope of the negotiations and would have preferred to restrict the rights of
private ownership of weapons, and to prevent the sales of such arms to non-State groups. Such
efforts, if successful, would have compromised American sovereignty.
When the follow-up conference to the Program of Action is convened sometime before
2006, the United States should remain vigilant in its opposition to any programs or treaties that
are incompatible with rights guaranteed under the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
The U.S. should not take any action that threatens rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment
in order to meet the worthy goals of the Conference. Indeed, the United States has already
implemented significant export controls that, if adopted by other nations, would be a significant
step forward in preventing the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons.

If you enjoyed reading about "U.N.; An Encroachment on the Second Amendment?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Standing Wolf
May 16, 2003, 11:23 PM
Obvious solution: get the United States out of the United Nations, and send the United Nations to Nigeria.

Maybe that Blix creep can look for the Nigerian E-mail scammers.

HBK
May 16, 2003, 11:37 PM
The UN should have no bearing on the lives of US citizens. It should move to France.

Jeff White
May 16, 2003, 11:49 PM
Come on guys, if the fiasco over a use of force authorization in Iraq didn't convince you that the UN was irrelevant, nothing will.

How many battalions does the UN have? How may fighter squadrons? How many tanks and howitzers?

I missed the reports from the embedded reporters on how we drove through the UN peacekeepers that were on the Iraqi/Kuwaiti border that Kofi Annan put there to keep us from attacking Iraq.

We are the only 600 pound gorilla in the world these days. Let's worry about what our own elected officials do to us and stop worrying about the UN.

The UN can't do anything to us unless our elected officials permit it.

Jeff

geekWithA.45
May 17, 2003, 01:06 AM
The UN can't do anything to us unless our elected officials permit it.

Actually, they have to get our permission as well....:evil:

http://www.a-human-right.com/RKBA/_warningtoevil.jpg

Desertdog
May 17, 2003, 01:33 AM
I do not believe the U.N. wants much FROM us. They just want to control all of us, as well as the rest of the world. Simply, just One World Government.
What Scares the **** out of me is there seems to be a whole lot of politicians on their side. :cuss:

schild
May 17, 2003, 09:17 AM
www.getusout.org

Art Eatman
May 17, 2003, 10:27 AM
The idea of a single government for the whole world has been around for quite a while. Do a search on Wendell Wilkie and his "one world government" when he ran for U.S. President, back around 1936/1940.

The trend of all governments, everywhere, has been to reduce personal sovereignty. The next, larger step is to reduce national sovereignty. Our government has been sporadically in the forefront of this, with various levels of justification. We use the UN when it suits us; we ignore it when it suits us.

My question has always been that if all these various countries around the world, including ours, have great difficulty in creating a "perfect world" within them, where are you going to find folks smart enough to administer a whole durned planet? Duh?

The UN has made of itself a Nattering Society. It's much like the old League of Nations, but more expensive.

:), Art

spartacus2002
May 18, 2003, 10:26 AM
This (among many other issues) illustrates why local distributed control is so much better than centralized control.

With local decentralized control, you can always vote with your feet. You believe in right to carry, right to own firearms, then you have the option to up and leave when a state gets too restrictive, and you can use that to put political pressure on TPTB -- and if they don't change, you leave.

However, this only works if you have options, meaning the "great laboratories" of the states. If you have one size fits all laws, then you have no options.

What kills me about those who wish for a UN to enact all the laws they want is that they don't realize that leaves them no options should the UN start enacting laws they DONT like. Kinda hard to protest and thus influence the political system if Cuba's or China's laws against political speech are the only ones on the books.

Graystar
May 18, 2003, 10:37 AM
It has always been a belief of the United Nations that the people should be disarmed. Their International Bill of Rights has been carefully crafted to put forth only the collective interpretation of the right to keep and bear arms.

If you enjoyed reading about "U.N.; An Encroachment on the Second Amendment?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!