Debt Free

Australia, Brazil, Canada, Germany, Belgium, Cambodia, Croatia, Mexico, South Africa and Britain. What do these countries have in common? They may have a say in your constitutional rights as an American citizen. All the above are either signatories or have ratified the UN Firearms Protocol. As the UN meets in New York to move this proposal forward, you have to ask yourself “I may like some of these countries, but do I want them having a say in my constitutional rights as an American citizen?” This protocol would give the UN broad powers to regulate private firearms ownership in signatory nations. As a smokescreen, the U.N. Has stated they have no designs on private firearms ownership in individual member states.

This is simply poppycock. Kofi Annan not withstanding, other delegates were much more forthcoming. Stated the Indonesian representative “We believe that no armed group outside of the State should be allowed to bear weapons. We also believe that regulating civilian possession of Small Arms/Light Weapons will enhance our efforts to prevent its misuse. In our view, the issue of ammunition should also be addressed in the context of the Program of Action because in the absence of ammunition, small arms and light weapons pose no danger.” Similar sentiments were voiced by other nations such as Australia, Brazil and Britain, although without the clearcut sense of purpose that the Indonesians displayed. Brazil attempted to ban private firearms ownership last year, but failed.

Conference chairman Prasad Kariyawasam stated 'Contrary to what people say, especially in (the United States), this conference and program of action is not aiming to ban individual use of firearms if they are held legally,'. The problem is that this Protocol would enable any future U.S. President to term the Protocol an agreement, rather than a treaty. This future president now could bypass the 2/3 majority currently required for passage of legislation requiring U.S. citizens to be bound by its constraints. Presto! Now firearms in the U.S. would not be held legally, and thus qualify as illegal and be subject to the U.N. Mandate.

In theory, our constitution could not be circumvented by such an agreement, however, it would render the 2^nd Amendment perilously close to abolition by an international body. It would be another step in the U.N., rather than your legally elected representative, with global control over one aspect of your life. You may not care about the 2^nd Amendment. In fact, you may agree, in principle, with those gathered on our soil, as we speak, discussing the your civil and constitutional rights. You may, in fact, dislike and fear private firearm ownership. You may believe, as do those in so many other nations, that firearms ownership is the province of the military and police, not private citizens.

You may feel all of those things. However, if you examine the big picture, you will come to the realization your personal feelings vis-a-vis the 2^nd Amendment are missing the broader issue. The issue is weather or not we, as U.S. citizens, want unelected representatives of other nations deciding our fate in any measure. Maybe you feel it would be more appropriate, in this day and age, if we had a single governing body for the entire globe. There are many today who echo these sentiments.

You should reflect for a while on who you would be entrusting your future to. Many of these nations don't have core beliefs in any way close to those of our citizens. They have never had our freedoms, and they certainly do not have a cherished document guaranteeing them. Many of these countries sanction, either officially, or through callous disregard, such things as honor killings, female mutilation, torture, and a lack of private property rights or just rule of law. Do we want nations with such a value system having a hand in deciding the future direction of our great nation? I say not. There are too many diverse belief systems in the world to force conformity to a single governing body that attempts to adequately represent all the world's citizens. You may not give a whit about your second Amendment rights. You may actually hope they are taken away. Be careful what you wish for. The next right you lose to an unelected, international body may be one you do care about.