Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Protecting the Second Amendment is Not Enough(UN)
The Firearms Coalition ^ | 5 August, 2011 | Jeff Knox

Posted on 08/06/2011 5:33:54 AM PDT by marktwain

Manassas, VA --( At last count, a full half of the US Senate had signed onto a July letter to Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton declaring their opposition to any United Nations Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) which includes infringement on US citizens’ rights to possess firearms.

While I applaud this effort, I have to say that I’m disappointed in the senators’ narrow focus in the letter.

Protecting the Second Amendment and warning Obama and Clinton not to agree to any treaty which might infringe on the rights of Americans ignores what the UN is doing to citizens of other countries. The right to arms is not just an American right, it is a basic human right extrapolated from the right to self-defense. Human beings have an individual right to defend themselves and their families, and citizens – regardless of what country – have a moral obligation to also defend others who are unable to defend themselves.

If the UN were forwarding a plan to limit voting to males only or to institute broad government controls over the press, our senators would not stop at our constitution and our borders in their denunciation of the plans. Instead they would expound upon the importance of universal suffrage and the necessity of a free press – for all people everywhere. They would not just “strongly encourage” the administration to “uphold our country’s constitutional protections,” they would demand that the administration reject and actively oppose any treaty which could be in any way construed to support such restrictions on basic rights in any nation. United Nations Arms Trade Treaty

The right to arms is as much a component of that revolutionary and successful philosophy called free speech or the right to assembly.

The right to arms is just as important a concept as the right to vote, the right to express oneself freely and publicly, and the right to a fair trial before a jury of ones peers. It is part of the progressive, liberal heritage of our nation. (From a time before the words “progressive” and “liberal” were co-opted by communists and socialists to mean government controlled.) The constitutional right to arms has roots in English Common Law, but the philosophy runs much deeper and broader than the English could ever manage because they were tied to a monarch. When America broke away from the monarchy we also cut the restraints that system placed on our understanding of liberty. We became the cutting edge, and embodiment, of liberal (libertarian) philosophy and we reaped the rewards of that philosophy. It is part of what made America so exceptional for most of the past 200 years, and the right to arms is as much a component of that revolutionary and successful philosophy as free speech or the right to assembly. It was seen as even more important than the right to vote, as that right was originally limited to only White, male, property holders while the right to arms belonged to “the people.”

Freedom is a religion which demands evangelism. We don’t have to require that other nations meet all of our standards before we will do business with them, but we should encourage right and oppose wrong – and restrictions on the individual right to arms is clearly wrong.

Members of the US Senate should understand the philosophical significance of the right to arms and the importance of promoting US philosophy and principles of freedom. Their letter focusing on only the potential impact of the proposed UN Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) on US citizens is much too narrow and shortsighted. Unfortunately, it seems the senators are following the lead of the NRA, who should definitely know better.

The UN ATT has been a distant rumble for the past several years with little progress being made and little exposure to the public outside of over-hyped rhetoric in fundraising letters from rights groups. I have tended to downplay concern about the treaty because it wasn’t showing much life, but now the treaty is getting closer to reality and it’s time to start worrying about something actually being passed by the middle of next year. The best way to keep that from happening is to pressure your politicians to return to principled arguments and to demand that Obama and Clinton actively oppose any arms treaty which includes restrictions on any personal firearms, ammunition, or components – not just in the US, but anywhere in the world.

Ask your Senators if they signed the letter – if not, why not – if so, thank them and encourage them to move to a more principled position. While you’re at it, if you’re a member of the NRA you might drop them a line asking why they are focusing only on the potential impact of this treaty on US gun owners rather than espousing and defending the principles of freedom for all people everywhere.

Copyright © 2011 Neal Knox Associates – The most trusted name in the rights movement.

About: The Firearms Coalition is a loose-knit coalition of individual Second Amendment activists, clubs and civil rights organizations. Founded by Neal Knox in 1984, the organization provides support to grassroots activists in the form of education, analysis of current issues, and with a historical perspective of the gun rights movement. The Firearms Coalition is a project of Neal Knox Associates, Manassas, VA. Visit:

TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: banglist; consitution; secondamendment; un
Yes, we should be standing on the moral basis of the right to keep and bear arms. The left claims a moral basis for their efforts to disarm everyone but the government.

You cannot win this argument without disputing their moral claim.

1 posted on 08/06/2011 5:33:56 AM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: marktwain

“The right to arms...” ~Jeff Knox

Yeah, I’m going to parse words with Jeff on this...He repeats himself with this term, so he needs to be called on the carpet if he is to get any credibility to criticize a direct challenge to our national soverienty, it’s Constitution and it’s laws...

It is the “right to KEEP and BEAR arms...”

It is a moral, unalienable right that is granted by a higher power than ANY government instituted amouongst men...Period...

Anyone who starts discussing incorrectly that this is a “fundamental” right is laying the ground work for its eventual alteration by a governmental entity, therefore bringing the few of us who would defend the origianl intent of the Amendment and its provisions to a direct confrontation...

Which by the way is something the gun-control community believes any of us do not have the committment or courage to do so...that will be a serious miscalculation on their part...

So what we need to remember is that they have ALL the time in the world to “breed” this out of the culture and societal makeup of countries around the world, andthe United States will be a triumph of incalculable and irreversable consequence...

We lose this battle, and we might as well hang it up, because no one you trust before this happens can be trusted to keep your secret of “keeping and bearing arms”...

I always include what I consider to be the ultimate “gut-check” question...A lot of people here have seen it and understand it to be a personal, issue to resolve in your mind,and not one to be answered in a public forum, you just got to ask yourself this:

“What are you prepared to do about it, and what are you willing to sacrifice for it???”

It is really a shame that such a right to keep and bear arms, is so challenged and so hated by the rest of the world,that they feelcompelled to continue a patient fight to ween America of this moral and unalienable right...It is so easy if politicians just left it alone, which in my opinion demonstrate a wisdom that transends contemporary, liberal/progressive mindsets these days...

We are certainly outnumbered, but at the end of the day, we still have them, and we had better start ponying up and voicing our opposition to this usurption of such a moral and unalienable right, or you can kiss it goodbye, and become a criminal in their eyes the second we lose that right on that piece of paper...

If Jeff Knox sees this opinion, he is certainly welcome to contact me, and we can discuss this difference of wording,not so much opinion...I also believe we are not at odds or of any contentious dissagreement, I believe we, and his groups of loose knit supporters of our “Right to Keep and Bear Arms” are still on the same page...

We need to stop reacting and takethe fight to those that want to take this away from us...

And to me, and many others, that will never, ever be an option we will accept...

2 posted on 08/06/2011 6:12:43 AM PDT by stevie_d_64 (I'm jus' sayin')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson