Skip to comments.The Right to Bear Arms is a Human Right
Posted on 04/18/2012 8:34:43 AM PDT by marktwain
At the United Nations, the governments (and the dictatorships) of the world are conspiring to deny their people a means to defend their families and their liberty.
The Small Arms Treaty and the U.N.s project on International Small Arms Control Standards seek to impose global restrictions on gun ownership that would apply to Americans and the citizens of every country that ratified the agreements. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has pledged to support the treaty, an excuse for governments everywhere to empower themselves and limit their citizens instead of the other way around.
As long as were limited to fighting over the Lefts gun control agenda were debating on their terms. We have to go on offense.
The Constitution does not give us the right to bear arms. It says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. We already have the right, because it doesnt come from governmentit comes from God. Our founders understood this right is essential to the defense of liberty. It was a lesson they learned firsthand at the Battles of Lexington and Concord, 237 years ago this week. As David Hackett Fischers Paul Reveres Ride recounts, in order to quench the beginnings of the American Revolution, British soldiers marched to confiscate gunpowder and other militia supplies, an act that they hoped would incapacitate the colonial rebels. Thus, it was in defense of the right to bear arms as a means of securing the other liberties that the first battle of the American Revolution was fought.
As the Second Amendment implies, the right to bear arms isnt given to us by the government, and it isnt just an American right. It is a human right. As a fundamental component of self-defense, the right to bear arms is intimately tied to those universal truths expressed in our Declaration of Independencethat all men have rights to life and liberty, with which they are endowed by their Creator. And they have not just a right but a duty to throw off despotic government.
These truths are universal. The Second Amendment is an amendment for all mankind.
Every person on the planet has the right to defend themselves from those who would oppress them, exploit them, harm them, or kill them.
Far fewer women would be raped, far fewer children would be killed, far fewer towns would be destroyed, and far fewer dictators would survive if people everywhere on the planet had this God-given right to bear arms recognized. Mass killings and rapes like those that took place in Darfur might have been prevented if the people had the right and the means to defend themselves. When citizens have the power to defend themselves against a violent and tyrannical regime, governments think twice about trampling the lives and liberty of the people.
The United Nations has an extensive Declaration of Human Rights, including the right to join a labor union and the right to social services and security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood or old age.
Nowhere does it provide for the right to keep and bear arms that in many places around the world is so critical to self-defense. And the Small Arms Treaty is a deliberate attempt to restrict these human rights. I believe the United States should submit to the U.N. a treaty that extends the right to bear arms as a human right to every person on the planet.
It is critical not just for those living under oppressive regimes, but for the many people who live in conditions in which the government cannot secure their safety. From dangerous neighborhoods even here in the United States to lawless regions of the world run by gangs and warlords, firearms are often the only means of personal security.
When criminals have weapons, taking away the right to bear arms is nothing less than eliminating the right to self-defense. Only the elites, whove never had to live in a dangerous place or fear for their own lives, could be so confident that denying ordinary citizens the right to bear arms would make everyone safer.
It isnt enough to watch people move from one dictatorship to another, nations lurching from disaster to disaster. In submitting a treaty to the U.N. guaranteeing that right, America can represent its trust in the basic decency of millions of people around the world and our belief that the God-given rights in the Declaration of Independence apply to them, too. We can let them know that if they had a government that recognized their inherent rights; a government that understood that they were a citizens, not subjects; a government that understood it is government which is to be limited, not people, they too would the chance to pursue happiness and live in safety.
Thats the message our president and secretary of state should be standing up for, not a document designed for the protection of dictators.
It ain’t over til Romney gets 1144 confirmed for sure delegates. If we get a brokered convention and the nominee is not Romney then we win, if it happens to be Newt, America wins big time. Romney wants to hold the office of President. Newt wants to BE President and believes he is needed.
I can imagine that there is a grieving husband and new father in Houston who wishes that his wife had had the ability to “stand her ground” and protect herself yesterday.
And yet Neut voted for the Hughs amendment in 1986 that banned the civilian ownership of full autos manufactured after 1986. Neut talks a good game on 2nd amend. He hasn’t been particularly good on actually doing pro 2nd amend things.
Hussein and SOS Hilary Clinton want to take our guns. This is a pox since both Hussein and Clinton have Secret Service protection - guns all around them.
Hitler had guns, the people didn’t. Hussein is no different than Hitler.
Texas would seceed from the US if Hussein tried to get our guns, UN treaty or not.
I have lived longer than most Freepers and I have never seen this country in such peril and Hussein Hitler is the cause.
Got stored water and food?
And Ronald Reagan signed it into law. What is your point? On balance we got a good bit out of the 1986 law. Yes, Charley Ranel pulled a fast one to get the amendment banning further civilian manufacture of full autos (vague language exploited by the ATF) on a very questionable voice vote into the 1986 law.
I believe Newt voted for the whole law, as did nearly all Republicans and Ronald Reagan signed it.
Apparently I was unclear. Anyone who had anything to do with passing that travesty (including Saint Reagan) can be considered NOT to be a friend of the 2nd amendment. In addition, Neut voted FOR the lautenberg law lowering the bar on restricting rights. To make it perfectly clear, my point is Neut is NOT a pro-gun candidate no matter what he says. Talk is cheap in Washington. Judge them by their actions, not their words, and Neut judged on his actions rather than his empty rhetoric is not a pro-gun candidate.
Do you still need clarification on what I was trying to convey?
Not at all. It appears that you are someone who believes that we have to restore the Constitution all at once or not at all.
I have been there. Done that. Does. Not. Work.
I agree we need to educate people, so that more see how blatantly unconstitutional most of federal and a great many state laws are.
But... a very big but... we lost most of our constitutional protections gradually and over a number of administrations. I believe that we need to gain them back in an incremental way. Are permits for concealed carry constitutional? I would argue that they are not, but judges as far back as the 1820's thought that they were.
So, I have supported lots of legislation that I would say is unconstitutional, but is less of an infringement than the alternative.
I believe that we are winning with this strategy. We cannot count on winning in the courts. We change the public debate by educating the public, which then change the media, the legislatures, the laws and finally, the courts.
The question is: do I support my oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States best by insisting that it all be restored at once, or by working to get us there incrementally, even if that means supporting halfway measures that move us in the right direction?
I have chosen the later option because I believe that is the best method for me to use. I think you have chosen the former.
Nope I'm still not getting my point across. It isn't that we're restoring anything by supporting Neut (and I feel at this time the point is moot anyway since the excrable Mittens appears to be the front runner). It's just that Neut is NOT a pro gun candidate, but rather a hypocrit who thinks that people won't remember what he did if he says the right thing now.
we lost most of our constitutional protections gradually and over a number of administrations
Agreed, but the direction has always been one way to the direction of less freedom including the Republican administrations even Reagan whom most freepers seem to think walked on water. I can't see how electing someone who has a history of supporting gun control (ie neut) even when he talks a progun game advances the cause of freedom.
I believe that we are winning with this strategy
I disagree at the federal level. In the states perhaps we've made some progress in the realm of issuing carry licenses and preventing wholesale confiscations during disasters, but on the whole the only good thing at the federal level is that the clinton semiauto ban expired, and that was inherent in the legislation anyway. I'll take incremental progress, but is it really progress if we get something small and give up something else?
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.