Fred Thompson on the UN and Disarmament

[jh45gun]

Last year, the United Nations Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights declared that international human rights law requires all nations to adopt strict gun control laws. These "minimum" provisions are much more restrictive than any of those on the books anywhere in the U.S. and would almost certainly violate the Second Amendment of our Constitution.
Besides concluding that all nations are obligated under international human rights law to control the small arms and light weapons to which its civilian population has access, the UN report remarkably denied the existence of any human right to self-defense, evidently overlooking the work of Hugo Grotius, the 17th century scholar credited as the founder of international law, who wrote, "It is to be observed that [the] Right of Self-Defence, arises directly and immediately from the Care of our own Preservation, which Nature recommends to every one. . . ," and that this right is so primary, that it cannot be denied on the basis that it is not "expressly set forth."

There is another disturbing aspect to this call for international global gun control. Throughout modern history, the forced disarmament of people by its government has often been accompanied or followed by that government's commission of often massive human rights abuses. In fact, no genocide in the 20th century occurred when the victim population still possessed small arms, legally or illegally, with which to defend themselves.

So now the UN wants to disarm civilians? Where was the UN when the massacres in Rwanda occurred? What did the UN do to protect the victims of ethnic massacres in Bosnia? Disarming civilians under the guise of international human rights law will only lead to more such genocides by ensuring that civilians can never defend themselves! It would be funny if it weren't so perverse.

Thankfully, the Framers of our Constitution recognized this potential peril to our liberty, and enshrined in our Second Amendment the more basic right of self-defense. The U.N. can say what it likes about other countries' citizens' possession of small arms being a violation of human rights law, but so long as the United States is a sovereign nation governed by its Constitution, its words will have no effect here. And I am glad for it.

Senator Fred Thompson

[Sourdough]

Good point!

[muskeg13]

Fred's take on the Second Amendment and gun shows:

"I strongly support the Second Amendment of the Constitution, which protects an individual’s right to keep and bear arms. Gun control is touted as a major crime-control measure. But some of the places with the strictest gun-control laws also have high violent-crime rates. Disarming law-abiding citizens does not prevent crime. The answer to violent crime is smart, effective, and aggressive law enforcement. The real effect of these gun-control measures is to place onerous restrictions on law-abiding citizens who use firearms for such legal activities as self-defense, sport-shooting, hunting, and collecting. I am committed to strictly enforcing existing laws, severely punishing violent criminals, and protecting the rights individual Americans enjoy under the Second Amendment." (http://www.fred08.com/Principles/PrinciplesSummary.aspx?View=OnTheIssues)

Fred gets it, while Rudy and Mitt fake it, and the demoncrats do their best to weaken and ignore the Second Amendment.  Notice the emphasis Fred places on this being an INDIVIDUAL right.  Fred said a few other things of interest at the NRA convention last month (full transcript at http://www.fred08.com/NewsRoom/Speech.aspx?ID=84dad709-cbb2-4ab4-8934-5c054e62c022):

"I never subscribed to the notion that it made our country safer by infringing on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens.  I think back to the A rating I got from this organization and the endorsements that I was proud to receive.  So it's not just a matter of promises made, as far as I'm concerned.  It's a matter of commitments that have been kept.

My first trip to New Hampshire after I announced my candidacy, I went to a gun store.  When I was in Florida just last week, I went to a gun show right before the UT-Florida football game.  I should have stayed at the gun show. 

But it's not because I hang out there every day.  It's because I wanted to demonstrate something that I think is important: that I will say the same things that I've been saying since 1994, and that what I say in New Hampshire, I will say in Florida and all parts in between. My philosophy does not depend on my geography, and I thought it was time I laid down that marker early on.

MODERATOR:  We submitted some questions from the members.  Some have argued that the Second Amendment means different things in different places, that it's okay for New York City or Chicago to impose more restrictions on gun owners' rights than it is in Tennessee or Montana.  Do you agree with that view?

MR. THOMPSON:  Nope.  I would only point out that it's more than coincidental that so many places that have such high crime rates have the toughest gun restrictions in America.  That's more than a coincidence. 

MODERATOR:  What is your position on gun shows?

MR. THOMPSON:  Well, just having come from one ... No, I -- I enjoy gun shows.  I think that they're a part of Americana. I don't know that anybody would be against gun shows.  There are various kinds of regulations and proposals that would restrict private citizens who are not professional dealers or anything like that and place rules on them as they go there.  I've always been against that.

[gypsyman]

Since I do gun shows for a living, this piece certainly enlightened me on Fred Thompson. Thanks- gypsyman