search
top

Wayne LaPierre Before the United Nations

Wayne LaPierre spoke before the United Nations yesterday on the Arms Trade Treaty:

Let me state – in the clearest possible terms – that it is not.  A preamble to a treaty has no force of law.  We know that, and a strong bipartisan majority of the United States Senate and House of Representatives know it as well.

Any Arms Trade Treaty must be adopted by two-thirds of the U.S. Senate, which has 100 members.  Already, 58 Senators have objected to any treaty that includes civilian arms, and a majority of the U.S. House of Representatives also opposes such a treaty.

The NRA represents hundreds of millions of Americans who will never surrender our fundamental firearms freedom to international standards, agreements, or consensus.

NRA is essentially threatening to push the US out of the Treaty if the scope at all extends to civilian weapons, and the delegates know NRA can follow through on that threat. It’s a firm speech, but one that’s entirely for domestic consumption. I wish Wayne, rather than only concentrating on American rights and freedoms, had spoken a bit more about the fundamental human right to self-preservation, and the right all people have to the one tool most effective at affecting that defense: the firearm. He’s essentially conceding the ground that this is some peculiar American right, and while it practically may be, we can’t accept that philosophically.

10 Responses to “Wayne LaPierre Before the United Nations”

  1. Dannytheman says:

    “The NRA Foundation, Inc. is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization that raises tax-deductible contributions in support of a wide range of firearm-related public interest activities of the National Rifle Association of America and other organizations that defend and foster the Second Amendment rights of all law-abiding Americans.”
    “NRA-To defend and foster the Second Amendment rights of all law-abiding Americans.”

    I think Wayne stayed true to the NRA mission Statements. It is not his role to impose gun freedom on country not as smart as ours.

    • Zermoid says:

      Well said, and if he did would he be any better than the UN bureaucrats who try to impose their beliefs and convictions upon us by way of this treaty?

    • Sebastian says:

      I think by protecting an international human right to keep and bear arms, it also protects our own right.

    • Alpheus says:

      While the NRA’s mission is to secure the right to keep and bear arms in America, I see nothing wrong with declaring, or even just hinting at, the fact that this isn’t just an American right, but a right for all, everywhere–and explaining the moral basis for that right.

  2. Sage Thrasher says:

    “I wish Wayne, rather than only concentrating on American rights and freedoms, had spoken a bit more about the fundamental human right to self-preservation, and the right all people have to the one tool most effective at affecting that defense: the firearm.”

    That would have been great. Some at the UN are malicious, but when it comes to civilian rights to the means of self-defense, it’s a concept most people in most countries never contemplated. It would have been a great opportunity to lay out the case.

  3. Harold says:

    His remarks are so short I suspect that he didn’t have the time budget to do it justice. I doubt his audience is ignorant of the concept, but obviously doesn’t agree with it … and by making a focused, credible threat that the US will not ratify if it touches upon civilian firearms he’s also probably doing the best he can for civilians in other nations.

  4. Matthew Carberry says:

    He nailed it in the middle, that the 2nd expresses a universal ideal, and why.

    “Our Second Amendment is freedom’s most valuable, most cherished, most irreplaceable idea. History proves it. When you ignore the right of good people to own firearms to protect their freedom, you become the enablers of future tyrants whose regimes will destroy millions and millions of defenseless lives.”

  5. Dave says:

    Why is Obama/Hillary pushing ATT now, just before the election? He knows we will come after him with a vengeance come November…
    Can anybody theorize on why the change in approach?

    • Sebastian says:

      The Administration has been pretty consistent in its support of ATT. I suspect the timing is not Obama’s. He may be counting on the fact that those that will oppose him because of the ATT already oppose him, and he has little to lose by signing on. I think he has more to lose than gain, given how many working class Democrats have little love for the UN or gun control. This is a demographic he’s already having a tough time with. The gun control crowd gets him virtually nothing.

    • Matthew Carberry says:

      I don’t think it’s accurate to say this administration is “pushing it”, this treaty has been moving along under its own steam all along.

      In fact I’m sure the administration, even though they are all for it, would like it to just go off the media radar, but they simply don’t control the process. Rebecca Peters and her international ilk don’t take their marching orders from US domestic gun controllers; they’ve got their own agenda.

      We can’t blame Obama for everything anti-freedom, and trying to shoehorn him in as the evil mastermind when he’s just a lackey impacts our credibility.

top