NRA call: China wants to take my guns?

[Kleinzeit]

Hi folks.

I had a call today from the NRA. They've never called me before, and I'm not a member, so I thought that was interesting for starters.

Anyway, they played me a message from Wayne la Pierre, and then asked me if I wanted to join. The gist of the message was that we taxpayers are funding a completely outrageous meeting at the UN in which the US may sign a treaty that will give other countries (such as China) the right to impose restrictions on US gunowners.

I respect the fact that the NRA was not repeating any of the more absurd versions of this story that are going around (e.g., that the President has already signed this treaty and that our rights are already in jeopardy). Nonetheless, I'm having trouble working out how much of this is a legitimate, factual account of the situation, and how much is scaremongering. I've done some research online, but I figure some of you people might already be knowledgeable on the matter and might have something to share.

My own take is that we haven't signed any such treaty, that people are perfectly entitled in a free country to discuss such things, that there is no such thing as a treaty that can circumvent congress (it would still need 2/3 majority support), and that a treaty in any case could not undermine the Constitution and the rights it protects. Still, I accept that there may be politicians who might try to use such means (however impractical) to build support for gun control, and I respect any effort to bring that to my attention. But I also despise any attempt to mislead me about the actual state of the threat.

What do you think? What is your take? Have you received one of these calls?

Cheers,
Kleinzeit

[Kleinzeit]

I should probably clarify. After the message was played, the questions I was asked was, "Do you think countries like China should be able to dictate American gun rights?" (or something along those lines). Well, obviously the answer to that is "No." My question is, Was that a reasonable question to ask in the first place? I can't help thinking that it was a deceptive and manipulative question.

[pichon]

I can't help thinking that it was a deceptive and manipulative question.

I agree. I respect the NRA's ultimate purpose but that seems like fear mongering to me too.

[Ecrevisse]

A little over the top. I like the NRA but I don't like scare tactics.

Think about it. China is an authoritarian state that recognizes very few if any civil rights of anybody within its jurisdiction. If they could use the UN to erode our 2nd Amendment rights, then why can't we, or any other nation, force our way of thinking about human/civil rights on them?

In summary, ain't gonna happen, never.

[BlueTrain]

Our civil rights aren't what they used to be anyway (at least, for most of us).

[Ditto_95]

Any treaty signed by the president and ratified by congress that apply's restrictions to small arms can have an impact on gunowners.

While the NRA can be over the top on occasion, the implications are valid.
The NRA does point out the worst case senario in these situations. I believe that this serves a purpose to get people thinking.
It takes forward thinking people to identify potential threats and get the word out to gun owners.

The treaty is real. It has been in the works for quite a long time. Hillary has indicated that the U.S. would participate in the talks on the condition that any treaty would take a consensus for it to be valid. (this means that only one country voting against it would not allow it to become valid.)

Not only china would have a say, all nations in the U.N. would be a part of any treaty that involved small arms.
Mexico for example, has as much of and interest as china, perhaps more so.

[Skadoosh]

I would do a bit of research on this subject and then make your own decisions. You might be surprised at what you find....especially within the past year.

[AirForceShooter]

Wayne is a fearmongering cash machine.
That's what he does.

If the NRA wants my money I'll tell them to take a hike.
If the NRA-ILA wants my money I'll write a check for a specfic cause.

AFS

[Vince302]

Say what you want and think what you want about the NRA, but the fact is they are the only PAC us citizens have to fight the gun grabbers in Washington. Millions of us have realized this and become NRA members. I take a lot of what I get in the mail from the NRA with a grain of salt. That does not mean I do not value the NRA's contribution to gun rights. Just think where we would be if they were not here fighting for us.

Vince

[Kreyzhorse]

I agree. I respect the NRA's ultimate purpose but that seems like fear mongering to me too.

+1. There are some good things about the NRA and some bad things. I typically over look the bad things because the Brady Campaign and Bloomberg using the exact same tactics to acheive their goals too.

[alloy]

From this firearms owners perspective, the CIFTA treaty vs/current events, the occasional press ramp-up about US firearms, and even the recent long gun multiple purchase, seem like more to be curious about.

The NRA sends me a gazzillion emails about everything under the sun related to firearms, I figure it's my own business to sort it out into real and far fetched....but would you prefer they just ignore whatever goes on at the UN or between our leadership and other countries? Eventually people would be screaming "how did that danged NRA miss that one?" The below seems stalled, should the NRA just forget about it and never send another email?
The NRA can't be all things to everyone. And at some point they might actually tend to take people at thier own words....and then see where it goes.

Nearly a year after President Obama personally promised Mexican President Felipe Calderon that the White House would push the Senate to ratify a small-arms treaty as part of the effort to combat drug violence, the measure is stalled and the administration has shown few signs it is pressing hard for passage.

Known by its Spanish acronym, CIFTA, the 1997 pact seeks to cut down illegal firearms manufacturing and trafficking by imposing standardized controls on the import, export and transit of weapons and related materials for countries throughout the Western Hemisphere.

From The Washington Times
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...on-gun-treaty/

[Eghad]

Pound for pound the NRA is one of our most effective group when it comes to keeping our firearm freedoms. Ask President Clinton He was told by the Speaker of the House I believe was Tip O'Neill that the gun legislation would cost them. He said go away with it. Tip O'Neill lost his seat in Congress. So did a fellow here named Jack Brooks who had been in Congress for years.
President Clinton mentions the NRA in his book.

That is the reason I am a Life Member.

We have heard a lot of saber rattling in Congress over gun control. I notice not even Pelosi and Reid want to tackle the 900 lb gorilla on with all the baggage they are carrying now.

While I don't always agree with them 100% of the time I would hate to think if they had to fold up shop and were not there in Congress to represent gun owners.

[DogoDon]

The message the OP received from the NRA relates to the U.N.'s Human Rights Council, and particularly the "Universal Periodic Review" conducted by a working group of the Council (known as the "troika of rapporteurs"). Every American should be alarmed that the U.S. would subject itself to review of our human rights policies by other countries.

Here's a link from our State Department website that should send shivers down your spine if you believe in the sovereignty of the United States. It is a short response by a U.S. Ambassador to the "recommendations" that the U.N. Human Rights Council made to the United States after conducting its "review," in various areas of policy. In this case, the "troika of rapporteurs" consisted of France, Japan, and Cameroon. Imagine a country like Cameroon reviewing the United States' human rights policies.

(In case you don't know, Cameroon is not exactly a bastion of respect for human rights. Read about it here at Amnesty International's web site.)


There's also an article about this in the December 2010 issue of America's 1st Freedom magazine.

So, the NRA is not being a fearmonger on this issue. This is an issue of real concern to the U.S.'s sovereignty. It appalls me the extent to which the current administration is prostrating itself before other inferior governments, as if they have something to teach us about human rights or any other issue.

I applaud the NRA for being constantly vigilant to bring issues like this to light. If we remain ignorant about such things, then it will be to our great detriment.

DD

[Classickbass]

The NRA called me recently as well. I have never been a member of their organization but try to stay abreast of all things 'gun control'. I decided to join the NRA for many of the same reasons that some here have posted, what if we didn't have them?! Sure, they use extreme cases in examples. So, is it fear mongering when the outcome they propose is completely viable? Extreme but viable?

Merry Christmas!

[Double Naught Spy]

Pound for pound the NRA is one of our most effective group when it comes to keeping our firearm freedoms.

So I guess that makes deception okay for them.

When you are in the right, you should not have to deceive people to make your point. If you have to use deception, then maybe your point isn't really valid, is it?

[Philo]

"Fear mongering?" Maybe concern mongering would be better. That's okay. After what I've seen over the last couple of years, especially in the last six months, we should all be concerned. Very concerned.

Support the NRA. Take an interest in what's going on in DC. Vote.

[Vince302]

"So I guess that makes deception okay for them."

You don't think the main stream media and the anti gun group distort things? They do it every time they spew anti gun propaganda.

I do not see how you can be a firearms enthusiast and be anti NRA. You should be on your knees thanking every NRA member for fighting for your rights to legally own firearms.

Vince

[gc70]

Any fear mongering by the NRA is a pale shadow of what the UN does.

United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs

Much of the ammunition circulating among armed groups seems to have been illicitly diverted from state security forces. And warehouses of ammunition, sometimes placed in densely populated areas, have recently exploded in a number of countries, causing thousands of casualties. Therefore, security as well as safety measures with regard to ammunition stockpiles need to be urgently addressed.

The UN obviously needs to get countries to act quickly to deal with the recent outbreak of exploding ammunition warehouses.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Don't get personal, folks and you can find exploding thingees on Youtube.

I get the same kind of excited rhetoric from every cause I believe in.

[spookygeek]

I will ask the question if a treaty is approved by the president and ratified by congress (ignoring any constitutional issues for a moment), how is this same process any different for every other piece of federal legislation that is to be considered? From a pragmatic angle the source of the actual law after being discussed and voted upon (whether actually written by a senator, UN, lobbyist, etc) is an irrelevant question. While I understand the "fear" that foreign entities may somehow hold sway over US law, the very fact that such treaties must pass through muster through both the executive and legislative branch of our government is enough to make the approval of the treaty (or any law for that matter) in the best interest of the United States Government (though clearly there is healthy room for disagreement on the merits of each piece of legislation).

Snopes also has a ruling on a topic that may be the same or just very similar to the one under discussion.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp

BRENT

[44 AMP]

the very fact that such treaties must pass through muster through both the executive and legislative branch of our government ...

All our laws, including the unConstitutional ones go through nearly the same process, excepting only one house of Congress is needed (Senate) for a treaty.

I am far from a law scholar, but I think that because there is a specific process for treaties in the Constitution, that some might argue that a properly ratified treaty can contain and enforce items that would be un-Constitutional as domestic law. And that is what worries us, a lot.

It is splitting hairs (but that's what lawyers love to do) but a Treaty is not a law. It is an agreement that carries the force of law, but not a law, because it does not go through the same process in our govt.

We all know that we have a legal recourse to overturn un-Constitutional laws, but do we have that ability for an un-Constituional treaty?

I just don't know. Your thoughts?

And, yes, the over the top, sky is falling approach of the NRA does get wearying, but if it gets even one more person off their butt and actively supporting the cause, isn't it worth it?

[spookygeek]

I am in no way a legal scholar, but I would find it difficult to believe that there exists some archaic hidden method by which a ratified foreign treaty could trump aspects of the constitution. I would believe that even assuming such a loop-hole exists ignores the purpose of the legislative branch of government, namely to interpret the laws of the nation. Unless all the supreme court justices were unknowingly replaced by aliens (the outer-space kind), I would find it impossible for this any such case to not be struck down in a heart beat.

Doing a quick google search terms up....well what do you know...another TFL on the same topic! (though not the NRA fear-mongering part)

http://thefiringline.com/forums/show...=405217&page=2

Its a good read.

BRENT

[gc70]

United States Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;

Some people are troubled that the clause says laws must be made pursuant to the Constitution, but the phrase about treaties does not. Justice Black explained that language in Reid v. Covert and really laid to rest the question:

There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution. Nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification of the Constitution which even suggests such a result. These debates as well as the history that surrounds the adoption of the treaty provision in Article VI make it clear that the reason treaties were not limited to those made in "pursuance" of the Constitution was so that agreements made by the United States under the Articles of Confederation, including the important peace treaties which concluded the Revolutionary War, would remain in effect. It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights — let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition — to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power under an international agreement without observing constitutional prohibitions. In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and the Senate combined.

[Kleinzeit]

Thanks for clarifying that, gc70. That was my understanding.

DogoDon wrote:

Every American should be alarmed that the U.S. would subject itself to review of our human rights policies by other countries.

It's amazing what people - and nations - can accomplish when they cooperate. A treaty is simply an agreement to cooperate on something where cooperation is perceived to be of mutual benefit. It does not imply an abdication of sovereignty. It is a practice of sovereignty. Human rights and the international arms trade are both areas in which cooperation can be effective.

Acting as if one's nation were not only sovereign unto itself but the sovereign ruler of the world does not seem, on balance, to contribute much to that nation's security or the ultimate preservation of its sovereignty.

Speaking of which: Vince302, I have no intention of ever getting on my knees for an NRA member.

[woodguru]

...or fraud?

As far as I'm concerned any network or news organization trying to send a public message has a responsibility to impart accurately contexed information.

Fear mongering through out of context and inaccurate to even entirely misrepresented information by political oriented groups is not protected under freedom of speech, it's fraud and it's meant to deceive gullible people into acting based on emotional reactions. Lying is fraud and it is in no way okay to protect it under freedom of speech. Catch a person in a lie or fraud and they should be prosecuted or fined at the very least.