NRA Delivers Remarks at United Nations Concerning Proposed Arms Trade Treaty

NRA Delivers Remarks at United Nations Concerning Proposed Arms Trade Treaty

This is a discussion on NRA Delivers Remarks at United Nations Concerning Proposed Arms Trade Treaty within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; NRA Delivers Remarks at United Nations Concerning Proposed Arms Trade Treaty NRA-ILA ^ | July 14, 2011 | Wayne LaPierre Posted on August 29, 2011 ...

Results 1 to 11 of 11
Like Tree4Likes
  • 2 Post By ExSoldier
  • 2 Post By torgo1968

Thread: NRA Delivers Remarks at United Nations Concerning Proposed Arms Trade Treaty

  1. #1
    VIP Member Array ExSoldier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Coral Gables, FL
    Posts
    5,802

    Exclamation NRA Delivers Remarks at United Nations Concerning Proposed Arms Trade Treaty

    NRA Delivers Remarks at United Nations Concerning Proposed Arms Trade Treaty
    NRA-ILA ^ | July 14, 2011 | Wayne LaPierre

    Posted on August 29, 2011


    (NOTE by ExSoldier: Reproduced in full because THIS forum is not a "commercial usage")

    Thursday, July 14, 2011


    National Rifle Association's Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre addressed the United Nations this afternoon. He told the U.N. to not interfere with the Second Amendment freedoms of Americans and pledged to continue the fight to preserve civilian ownership of firearms in the U.S. He said the NRA will oppose any U.N. provision that seeks to prohibit or regulate U.S. civilian firearm ownership. LaPierre said in his remarks, "The cornerstone of our freedom is the Second Amendment. Neither the United Nations, nor any other foreign influence, has the authority to meddle with the freedoms guaranteed by our Bill of Rights, endowed by our Creator, and due to all humankind."

    United Nations Arms Trade Treaty

    Preparatory Committee - 3d Session

    New York, July 11-15, 2011

    Statement of the National Rifle Association of America

    Mr. Chairman, thank you for this brief opportunity to address the committee. I am Wayne LaPierre and for 20 years now, I have served as Executive Vice President of the National Rifle Association of America.

    The NRA was founded in 1871, and ever since has staunchly defended the rights of its 4 million members, America's 80 million law-abiding gun owners, and freedom-loving Americans throughout our country. In 1996, the NRA was recognized as an NGO of the United Nations and, ever since then, has defended the constitutional freedom of Americans in this arena. The NRA is the largest and most active firearms rights organization in the world and, although some members of this committee may not like what I have to say, I am proud to defend the tens of millions of lawful people NRA represents.

    This present effort for an Arms Trade Treaty, or ATT, is now in its fifth year. We have closely monitored this process with increasing concern. We've reviewed the statements of the countries participating in these meetings. We've listened to other NGOs and read their numerous proposals and reports, as well as carefully examined the papers you have produced. We've watched, and read ... listened and monitored. Now, we must speak out.

    The Right to Keep and Bear Arms in defense of self, family and country is ultimately selfevident and is part of the Bill of Rights to the United States Constitution. Reduced to its core, it is about fundamental individual freedom, human worth, and self-destiny.

    We reject the notion that American gun owners must accept any lesser amount of freedom in order to be accepted among the international community. Our Founding Fathers long ago rejected that notion and forged our great nation on the principle of freedom for the individual citizen - not for the government.

    Mr. Chairman, those working on this treaty have asked us to trust them ... but they've proven to be unworthy of that trust.

    We are told "Trust us; an ATT will not ban possession of any civilian firearms." Yet, the proposals and statements presented to date have argued exactly the opposite, and - perhaps most importantly - proposals to ban civilian firearms ownership have not been rejected.

    We are told "Trust us; an ATT will not interfere with state domestic regulation of firearms." Yet, there are constant calls for exactly such measures.

    We are told "Trust us; an ATT will only affect the illegal trade in firearms." But then we're told that in order to control the illegal trade, all states must control the legal firearms trade.

    We are told, "Trust us; an ATT will not require registration of civilian firearms." Yet, there are numerous calls for record-keeping, and firearms tracking from production to eventual destruction. That's nothing more than gun registration by a different name.

    We are told, "Trust us; an ATT will not create a new international bureaucracy." Well, that's exactly what is now being proposed -- with a tongue-in-cheek assurance that it will just be a SMALL bureaucracy.

    We are told, "Trust us; an ATT will not interfere with the lawful international commerce in civilian firearms." But a manufacturer of civilian shotguns would have to comply with the same regulatory process as a manufacturer of military attack helicopters.

    We are told, "Trust us; an ATT will not interfere with a hunter or sport shooter travelling internationally with firearms." However, he would have to get a so-called "transit permit" merely to change airports for a connecting flight.

    Mr. Chairman, our list of objections extends far beyond the proposals I just mentioned. Unfortunately, my limited time today prevents me from providing greater detail on each of our objections. I can assure you, however, that each is based on American law, as well as the fundamental rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution.

    It is regrettable that proposals affecting civilian firearms ownership are woven throughout the proposed ATT. That being the case, however, there is only one solution to this problem: the complete removal of civilian firearms from the scope of any ATT. I will repeat that point as it is critical and not subject to negotiation - civilian firearms must not be part of any ATT. On this there can be no compromise, as American gun owners will never surrender their Second Amendment freedom.

    It is also regrettable to find such intense focus on record-keeping, oversight, inspections, supervision, tracking, tracing, surveillance, marking, documentation, verification, paper trails and data banks, new global agencies and data centers. Nowhere do we find a thought about respecting anyone's right of self-defense, privacy, property, due process, or observing personal freedoms of any kind.

    Mr. Chairman, I'd be remiss if I didn't also discuss the politics of an ATT. For the United States to be a party to an ATT, it must be ratified by a two-thirds vote of the U.S. Senate. Some do not realize that under the U.S. Constitution, the ultimate treaty power is not the President's power to negotiate and sign treaties; it is the Senate's power to approve them.

    To that end, it's important for the Preparatory Committee to understand that the proposed ATT is already strongly opposed in the Senate - the very body that must approve it by a two-thirds majority. There is a letter addressed to President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton that is currently being circulated for the signatures of Senators who oppose the ATT. Once complete, this letter will demonstrate that the proposed ATT will not pass the U.S. Senate.

    So there is extremely strong resistance to the ATT in the United States, even before the treaty is tabled. We are not aware of any precedent for this - rejecting a proposed treaty before it's even submitted for consideration - but it speaks to the level of opposition. The proposed ATT has become more than just controversial, as the Internet is awash with articles and messages calling for its rejection. And those messages are all based on the same objection - infringement on the constitutional freedom of American gun owners.

    The cornerstone of our freedom is the Second Amendment. Neither the United Nations, nor any other foreign influence, has the authority to meddle with the freedoms guaranteed by our Bill of Rights, endowed by our Creator, and due to all humankind.

    Therefore, the NRA will fight with all of its strength to oppose any ATT that includes civilian firearms within its scope.

    Thank you.

    Copyright 2011, National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action.
    This may be reproduced. It may not be reproduced for commercial purposes.
    11250 Waples Mill Road, Fairfax, VA 22030 800-392-8683
    Contact Us | Privacy & Security Policy
    Rock and Glock and Doodle like this.
    Former Army Infantry Captain; 25 yrs as an NRA Certified Instructor; Avid practitioner of the martial art: KLIK-PAO.


  2. #2
    VIP Member Array dukalmighty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    texas
    Posts
    15,179
    I concur and stand with the NRA
    "Outside of the killings, Washington has one of the lowest crime rates in the country,"
    --Mayor Marion Barry, Washington , DC .

  3. #3
    VIP Member
    Array archer51's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    22,332
    While I may not agree on everything the NRA back/opposes, we must remember. When it comes to protecting our 2A rights, no other organization has the political clout they have.
    Freedom doesn't come free. It is bought and paid for by the lives and blood of our men and women in uniform.

    USAF Retired
    NRA Life Member

  4. #4
    VIP Member
    Array ppkheat's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    4,210
    Christmas is not too far away, give some NRA memberships as gifts.
    Turn the election's in 2014 to a "2A Revolution". It will serve as a 1994 refresher not to "infringe" on our Second Amendment. We know who they are now.........SEND 'EM HOME. Our success in this will be proportional to how hard we work to make it happen.

  5. #5
    Member Array 5POINT56's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    61
    كافر AMERICAN INFIDEL كافر

  6. #6
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    12,050
    Read the book, "Bad Samaritans" by Ha-Joon Chang. It is really about international economics, but treats the use of treaties and trade agreements rather well. Often well intentioned ones do lots of harm, and that would be the case with any international agreement that threw into the mix restrictions on individual gun ownership. I have no problem with restrictions on international traffic in arms and ammo. Made in America is fine with me.

    I would however like to know more about precisely who was addressed at the UN. I thought that was a pretty clubby place for diplomats.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  7. #7
    Member Array torgo1968's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    420
    You know how the Brady bunch trots out stuff like, "deadly assault weapons," and "cop-killer bullets," any time they want attention? This idiotic treaty that has no chance of passing is the NRA's deadly assault weapon.

    "What's that, we haven't met our fundraising targets for the month? Better put out another press release about the U.N. treaty."

    They might as well send you an email that says, "BOO!"
    Hopyard and BigBadBang like this.

  8. #8
    Member Array geohans's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    tucson
    Posts
    51
    Quote Originally Posted by torgo1968 View Post
    You know how the Brady bunch trots out stuff like, "deadly assault weapons," and "cop-killer bullets," any time they want attention? This idiotic treaty that has no chance of passing is the NRA's deadly assault weapon.

    "What's that, we haven't met our fundraising targets for the month? Better put out another press release about the U.N. treaty."

    They might as well send you an email that says, "BOO!"

    The NRA's not perfect. They've even made fundraising mistakes. But if you think we'd be better off without them, think again. Comments like yours are founded in ignorance. If there were 8 million members, how different would the country look?

    You remind me of the people who enjoy the freedoms this country has to offer, but uses your freedom of speech to denigrate the military that defends those rights. You own a gun? You should be in the NRA. Gotta problem with them? Work to fix it!

    Why is there preemptive opposition in the Democratically held Senate to the ATT? Who organized that, and got commitments from a majority in a liberal house? The answer to those questions is one word: NRA.

    Of course, i guess that's not exactly a word. . . . . But the word for folks who trash the NRA is *******.

  9. #9
    Member Array torgo1968's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    420
    Quote Originally Posted by geohans View Post
    The NRA's not perfect. They've even made fundraising mistakes. But if you think we'd be better off without them, think again. Comments like yours are founded in ignorance. If there were 8 million members, how different would the country look?

    You remind me of the people who enjoy the freedoms this country has to offer, but uses your freedom of speech to denigrate the military that defends those rights. You own a gun? You should be in the NRA. Gotta problem with them? Work to fix it!

    Why is there preemptive opposition in the Democratically held Senate to the ATT? Who organized that, and got commitments from a majority in a liberal house? The answer to those questions is one word: NRA.

    Of course, i guess that's not exactly a word. . . . . But the word for folks who trash the NRA is *******.
    You managed to waste all of that accusing me of something I didn't do (trash the NRA) and failing to address what I did say about them (that they fear monger).

  10. #10
    VIP Member Array Sticks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    3,524
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    ...I have no problem with restrictions on international traffic in arms and ammo. Made in America is fine with me. ...
    Careful...Springfield among others may be based in the US, but their firearms are manufactured overseas. The XD that I had was made in Karlovac, Croatia, Glock (although not a US company, is one of the top handguns for the public) is Austria. Never mind the plethora of other top of the line pistols and rifles.

    No mention of firearms or ammo restrictions in any form, out of the UN is fine with me.
    Sticks

    Grasseater // Grass~eat~er noun, often attributive \ˈgras-ē-tər\
    A person who is incapable of independent thought; a person who is herd animal-like in behavior; one who cannot distinguish between right and wrong; a foolish person.
    See also Sheep

  11. #11
    Member Array xpertz1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Northeast Pa
    Posts
    68
    I would however like to know more about precisely who was addressed at the UN. I thought that was a pretty clubby place for diplomats.


    Lately it has beome a hangout for Despots!
    Peace is that brief, glorious moment in history, when everybody stands around reloading.

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

proposed gun inspection in pennsylvania

,

wayne lapierre united nations

Click on a term to search for related topics.