John Lott's Website: "Seven Nation International Gun Control Effort"

7/26/2006

"Seven Nation International Gun Control Effort"

Australia's Courier Mail reports, "SEVEN nations, spanning five continents, formally launched an initiative today aimed at stifling the supply of weapons that fuel conflicts and terrorism. In a letter to fellow UN members, Argentina, Australia, Britain, Costa Rica, Finland, Japan and Kenya said they wanted to draw up a global treaty to regulate the international arms trade.

"The treaty would help to "prevent, combat and eradicate" the supply of arms "which would be likely to increase crime, conflict and terrorism and displacement of people", according to a draft resolution proposed by the seven.

"Our governments consider that the idea of an arms trade treaty is one whose time has come," wrote the UN representatives of the group." . . .

5 Comments:

Anonymous said...: Oddly enough (for an ardent gun nut), I have no problem with other nations reaching agreements regarding their own involvement with the arms trade. If the people of these nations don't have the intelligence and/or backbone to protest such fascism, then they deserve what they get.

What I despise is when such 'agreements' are trojan horses for imposing gun control *within* other nations (notably ours). IANSA et al do not seem to understand, or care, that such an imposition is technically *impossible* under our Constitution. Our President is our *employee* and is not authorized to effect such change...it requires an amendment - agreed to by we the people! Some have speculated on back-door routes to circumnavigate this constraint, however...

I think that the correct American response should be to refuse all arms trade with the *governments* (of such conspiring nations) that enslave their people by barring them from arms.; 7/26/2006 9:52 AM
Anonymous said...: If ones' integrity and conviction in the 2nd Amendment stretches only as far as money, then no matter the amount, you are the cheapest of whores.; 7/26/2006 1:23 PM
Nimrod45 said...: Wouldn't a valid Treaty, signed by a Democratic President, and ratified by a Democratic Congress, supercede any Constitutional documents?

That is how the gun grabbers intend to "backdoor" their dastardly plans. They couldn't get what they wanted through "concensus" so now they are going to try the UN General Assembly, which only requires a majority vote. They want a legally binding treaty, while the "Programme of Action" was only voluntary.

Don't get complacent. Don't think it can't happen to you, too.; 7/27/2006 9:51 AM
saturdaynightspecial said...: When you walk the street, isn't is better that only you are armed ? Let the rest of the world disarm; but this movement adds fire to the local one. It's a good thing the NRA watches the UN.

Chicago will require living wages (minimum wages) for box store retailers; we live in a socialist era, and it only gets worse. We have to find a way to get Americans to live by and respect the Bill of Rights.

Put your money where your mouth is: send money to the NRA legislative action fund. It will be money well spent !

Did you know the ACLU's position on the 2nd amendment is "neutral" !!; 7/27/2006 5:28 PM
Anonymous said...: Yes nimrod, you correctly highlight the "back-door" I was alluding to :-)

The NRA is fully aware of this potential route also, and has raised the warning flag already...but I still have my doubts.

Can a President and/or Congress *legally* commit America to a treaty that is unconstitutional? My understanding is that they cannot, and if they do, it should correctly be voided by the SCOTUS (whether or not we can trust the SCOTUS to do its duty is another matter). Neither the President nor Congress has the authority to commit the American people to unconstitutional law.

Surely the act of engaging in such unconstitutional and illegal conduct would be clear grounds for impeachment?

Either way, you are correct to warn against complacency!; 7/28/2006 10:15 AM