Congressman (Ron Paul) Opposes U.N. Gun Control Efforts

Men's News Daily ^ | 10-15-2003 | Jimmy Moore

[jmc813]

Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) recently introduced a bill that would prevent the use of American tax dollars from being used by the United Nations to limit or prohibit the Second Amendment right to bear arms for U.S. citizens.

"The Right to Keep and Bear Arms Act of 2003," or H.R. 3125, was drafted out of a concern that Second Amendment rights would be infringed upon by international forces, such as the U.N.

Paul states in the text of the bill that "2,000,000 largely unarmed people are killed yearly by oppressive genocidal governments throughout the world."

The bill itself details several examples of U.N. attempts to restrict gun rights and to derail the U.S. Constitution since the early 1990s.

U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan had previously told members of the U.N. Security Council that he was concerned about the "easy availability" of firearms.

The Security Council investigated this claim and recommended in a report that there be an international gun control policy that would criminalize the owning of a handgun or rifle.

The report says that the United States is allowing its citizens to have too much access to guns while China and France, which have virtually banned firearms, are lauded for restricting gun ownership. At the same time, French President Jacques Chirac and others have called for a U.N.-imposed personal firearms tax.

"I would remind my colleagues that policies prohibiting the private ownership of firearms were strongly supported by tyrants such as Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Mao Tse-Tong," Paul said in his introductory remarks about the bill on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives.

As reported by Talon News, the U.N. held a conference in June called the "Week of Action Against Small Arms," which was designed specifically to pressure the United States and other countries into restraining gun rights.

Coincidentally, Paul introduced legislation at the time that would allow the United States to leave the U.N. However, that bill, H.R. 1146, is still stuck in the House Committee on International Relations.

This latest bill proposed by Paul would take away American funding of U.N. gun control efforts because he says it runs counter to the constitutional rights of Americans.

"It's no surprise that U.N. bureaucrats want to impose gun control worldwide," Paul explained in defense of his bill. "They don't respect national sovereignty, and they certainly don't care about our Constitution."

Paul says it is time for Congress to stand up for the Second Amendment that protects the rights of Americans to keep and bear arms.

"Congress should make it clear that America will not pay for U.N. gun control schemes, nor will we allow the disarming of American citizens," he asserted.

Interestingly, a recent investigation by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms found that some of Annan's bodyguards were in possession of several submachine guns, Paul said.

"The Right to Keep and Bear Arms Act of 2003" has 20 co-sponsors in the House and is currently under consideration by the House Committee on International Relations.

[jmc813]

ping

[steve50]

Give em hell Ron. About the only true Constitutional conservative left in DC. His own party can't wait to get rid of him.

[joesnuffy]

Pretty much sums it up...as the party staggers left

[philman_36]

BTTT
NUTS!

[tx4guns]

BANG!!

[concerned about politics]

Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) recently introduced a bill that would prevent the use of American tax dollars from being used by the United Nations to limit or prohibit the Second Amendment right to bear arms for U.S. citizens.

The UN has no right to tell Americans anything. Why would we need a bill? The UN has no say in our laws.
This UN stuff has got to stop. No way do they have any right to get involved in our personal affairs. If you ask me, they'd love to see America disarmed. We'd be sitting ducks. It's easier to attack an armed nation.

BTW, imagine how free the terrorists in this country would be if they knew everone was unarmed. They could go house to house without fear of retaliation.

[Joe Brower]

Ron Paul rocks.

[concerned about politics]

"I would remind my colleagues that policies prohibiting the private ownership of firearms were strongly supported by tyrants such as Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Mao Tse-Tong,"

[Mr. Mojo]

Bang!

[knighthawk]

Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) recently introduced a bill that would prevent the use of American tax dollars from being used by the United Nations to limit or prohibit the Second Amendment right to bear arms for U.S. citizens.

No more UN for US-list

If people want on or off this list, please let me know.

[donmeaker]

On my long list of reasons to regret leaving Texas, not having a chance to vote for Ron Paul was in my top 4.

What a pity we could not get him on the supreme court instead of former small state legislators like Sandra. Her recent statement should be grounds for impeachment.

[LittleRedRooster]

GET OUT OF THE UN NOW!!!!!

[taxed2death]

"The UN has no say in our laws."

US Supreme court Judge Sandra O'conner thinks otherwise.

Watch out.

[bc2]

be careful!

soon the FR gun control advocates will be here calling you nothing but a bunch of pro-dope, libertarian moral-liberals.

God bless Ron Paul.

[Abundy]

The UN has no right to tell Americans anything. Why would we need a bill? The UN has no say in our laws.

The way things are going we will need the law to so that we will have a statute available to form the basis for charges against legislators and presidents.

[AdamSelene235]

The UN has no right to tell Americans anything. Why would we need a bill? The UN has no say in our laws.

Treaties requiring only the approval of the President and majority of Senators present have nearly equal footing with the US Constitution.

Treaties are the origin of Federal municipal police power over wetlands, duck hunting, industrial hemp, etc.

[Mortimer Snavely]

Screw the UN.

[Badray]

bump

[steve50]

soon the FR gun control advocates will be here calling you nothing but a bunch of pro-dope, libertarian moral-liberals.

I like the line where we're just not smart enough to realize the brilliance of W's plan to take issues away from the dems myself. We defeat our enemy by becoming him has to be the ultimate departure from reality.

[MarcoPolo]

I love Ron Paul. God bless him. I would LOVE to meet and speak with that dear man someday. I find him to be a greater asset to our cause (a.k.a. freedom) than any other man in Washington, and that includes President Bush.

[eskimo]

Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) recently introduced a bill that would prevent the use of American tax dollars from being used by the United Nations to limit or prohibit the Second Amendment right to bear arms for U.S. citizens.

Sounds like a matter of survival. The corporate owned dictator types installed at the UN may just be directed to force their will on all "their states" if they have the means to purchase a few hundred million mercenaries.

[jjm2111]

French President Jacques Chirac and others have called for a U.N.-imposed personal firearms tax.

Oil-for-palaces Chirac wants to tax my guns? Sure, Jacques. I'll pay you one bullet at a time.

[Cobra64]

The UN has no right to tell Americans anything. Why would we need a bill? The UN has no say in our laws. This UN stuff has got to stop. No way do they have any right to get involved in our personal affairs. If you ask me, they'd love to see America disarmed. We'd be sitting ducks. It's easier to attack an armed nation.

BTW, imagine how free the terrorists in this country would be if they knew everone was unarmed. They could go house to house without fear of retaliation.

Yup. We are a sovereign country. I'd ignore that bunch of dolts after telling to to STFU.

[jjm2111]

Thanks for the ping

[neverdem]

"Treaties requiring only the approval of the President and majority of Senators present have nearly equal footing with the US Constitution."

I'm pretty sure treaties require at least a two thirds vote by the Senate.

[Semper Vigilantis]

I just recieved an email that contains a letter from an Australian Police Officer that lists the changes in crime statistics in the 12 months since Australia banned citizens from keeping their firearms. The letter is printed on The Idaho Peace Officers Association webpage here: http://www.idahocops.com/magazine.htm

This is the letter:

Australian Gun Control

Ed Chenel - A Police Officer In Australia

Hi Yanks,
I thought you all would like to see the real figures from Down Under. It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by a new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by our own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.

The first year results are now in: Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent; Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent; Australia- wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent) in the state of Victoria alone; homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. (Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not and the criminals still possess their guns!)

While figures over the past 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since the criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.

There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased after such a monumental effort and expense was expended in "successfully ridding Australian society of guns."

You won't see this data on the American evening news or hear your governor or members of the state Assembly disseminating this information. The Australian experience proves it. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding citizens.

Take note Americans, before it is too late!!

[keri]

Thanks for the ping, KH. (Please keep me informed on this bill.)

[Donaeus]

God Bless Ron Paul for defending the Constitution and all its amendments.

Another legislation thread you might want to see http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1015128/posts?page=15

[AdamSelene235]

I'm pretty sure treaties require at least a two thirds vote by the Senate.

The language of the Constitution requires only two thirds of Senators present. No quorum requirement is specified. I believe treaties have been ratified via voice vote with only 2 Senators present as recently as 1950. See the text "Constitutional Conflicts between Congress and the President" for futher details.

[eskimo]

I'm pretty sure treaties require at least a two thirds vote by the Senate.

They got away with ignoring that for GATT and NAFTA. Should be easy to do again.

[knighthawk]

Please keep me informed on this bill

We will

[Protagoras]

Ron Paul is a pariah on this site with a great many freepers. The mere thought of freedom makes them gnash their teeth.

[cinFLA]

George Soros supports total gun control, stronger UN powers, a national police force and drug legalization. He funds many pro-drug sites, state drug intiatives and pro-drug spammers.

[Mr. Mojo]

Do you bring your pro-WOD jackboot agenda to EVERY thread, regardless of the topic?

[Travis McGee]

"Hmmm...blue helmets make such nice targets..."

[neverdem]

I think such arrangements can be easily discarded if found to be against the national interest and well publicized.

[jmc813]

I take it you're a big fan of Ron Paul's?

[AdamSelene235]

I think such arrangements can be easily discarded if found to be against the national interest and well publicized.

What about the individual interests of American citizens?

[neverdem]

"George Soros supports total gun control, stronger UN powers, a national police force and drug legalization. He funds many pro-drug sites, state drug intiatives and pro-drug spammers."

I have no problem with Soros' position with the WOD, but I think he might be doing too much drugs.

[neverdem]

"What about the individual interests of American citizens?"

You might need to persuade a majority.

[Andonius_99]

AMEN and BUMP!

[cinFLA]

have no problem with Soros' position with the WOD

Perhaps you should do a little research about how Soros plans to use his war and WODs to further his agenda of taking your freedoms away from you.

[AdamSelene235]

You might need to persuade a majority.

If you need to persuade a majority to honor your rights, you don't have any.

[jmc813]

Being that this thread has nothing to do with Soros, I'd be interested in your opinion of Congressman Paul and/or his proposed legislation.

[eskimo]

I think such arrangements can be easily discarded if found to be against the national interest and well publicized.

I think that is what a majority of Americans thought about the GATT fiasco.

[neverdem]

"If you need to persuade a majority to honor your rights, you don't have any."

We have some as imperfectly recognized by the Bill of Rights and our ability to persuade various levels of gov't. Look at the power of eminent domain. Who hasn't been screwed by gov't?

[ought-six]

"The UN has no right to tell Americans anything. Why would we need a bill? The UN has no say in our laws."

Well certain Supreme Court justices disagree with you, and are on record as saying that the U.S. Constitution should be subordinate to "the international will." O'Connor, Breyer and Ginzberg have just recently said as much.

[trebb]

The UN has no right to tell Americans anything. Why would we need a bill? The UN has no say in our laws.

The scary thing is that Sandra Day O'Connor recently said that the Supreme Court should take international laws into account when it made decisions...

[Dead Corpse]

Ron Paul Bump.