Exclusive: Fred Thompson on the U.N.

My Fellow Americans:

I will be brief. Yesterday, I was contacted by a Mr. Paul Jon Henke, who handles "new media" relations for Fred Thompson, the tallest Republican presidential candidate who is also an actor. Mr. Henke has sent us the following statement, which the Gun Nut is running as a public service. The statement is about the U.N.'s position on the individual ownership of guns:

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.

My own feeling is that the U.N. would screw up the recipe for ice water. The U.N. could not break up a fight between a couple of girl scouts. The U.N. building would make an excellent high-rise apartment site. But I’m not running for president, Mr. Thompson is. Your thoughts, please.

Comments

[Dave in St Pete]

I believe Mr. Thompson would agree with your views on the U.N.

All of the other front runners in BOTH parties want to remove or restrict our 2A rights. Mr. Thompson is the ONLY choice if you believe in the right to keep and bear arms and the right of self defense.

[Jack]

Dave
Your magazine and the subsequent blogs did awonderful job in flushing out the Edward's position on bothe the environment and the Second Amendment. Maybe you guys could do likewise with some of the other candidates. On another note, I am a Viet Nam Veteran and I'm heartsick that I can't vote for one of my compadres for president. It was the longest war in our history. Isn't there someone out there from my generation who respects what our Founding Fathers wrote?
Jack

[Clay Cooper]

All those countries want to tell us what to do when they can’t even fix their own toilet and not only that, when they get a bloody nose, who do they call?
Put the UN building in France where it really belongs and let them deal with it!
And our troops are being used by the UN for their personal gain!
During my Air Force carrier, I made it clear I will not put on a blue hat and have the UN patch on my uniform, period!

[jack]

Fred is correct. (So is David)

Apparently David and his blog are "new media". I suppose the monks said the same thing about Gutenberg.

"New media" seems the best method for disseminating this type of info. Yet, I will continue to read FSODT. (Field and Stream On Dead Tree)

[Steve C]

You say "Mr. Henke has sent us the following statement...". Is the statement Mr. Thompson's? If so, who was he making it to?

[jstreet]

The U.N. serves no purpose in this world. Toothless sanctions against ruthless dictators.

As for the U.N. building being used for a high rise in NY, call Donald "the combover" Trump, I'm sure he call sell it.

[Mike Diehl]

Apart from the Food and Agriculture Organization, the United Nations is a magnet for the most venile low-lives on Earth.

[Ken M]

So far I don't see anything attributed directly to F.Thompson here.

[Chris]

On every subject Fred has demonstrated a full understanding to look to the founding fathers views for his approach on the question at hand...the man just "gets-it".

I am firmly and energetically voting for Fred Thompson and I urge every citizen who holds our Constitution and our values dear to do the same.

Fredipedia;
http://fredipedia-us.blogspot.com/
( A single page list of direct links to everything available about Fred. )
ABC Radio Network Archives - The Fred Thompson Report
http://abcradionetworks.com/Blog.asp?id=15663&m=7&y=2007

Principles of Fred Thompson
http://www.fred08.com/Principles/PrinciplesSummary.aspx

Official website;
www.fred08.com

[Mike Diehl]

Hey all -

I just did some background checking and found the subcommission's statements requiring violations of the US 2nd Amendment.

Link: http://www.iansa.org/documents/salw_hr_principles.pdf

Finer points of subcommision moral depravity:

"10. In order to ensure the protection of human rights by preventing small arms violence by private actors,Governments shall enact licensing requirements to prevent possession of arms by persons who are at risk of
misusing them. Possession of small arms shall be authorized for specific purposes only; small arms shall be used strictly for the purpose for which they are authorized. Before issuing a licence Governments shall require training in proper use of small arms, and shall take into consideration, at a minimum, the following factors: age, mental fitness, requested purpose, prior criminal record or record of misuse, and prior acts of
domestic violence. Governments shall require periodic renewal of licences."

"15. In light of the obligation of a State, under international human rights law, to prevent human rights
violations, States are required under international law to rovide, upon request, assistance, for the purposes of judicial proceedings in other States, in the provision of information regarding the ownership or purchase of small arms and light weapons in the former State."

[The Eds.]

To clear up any confusion: Mr. Thompson authored the statement. His new media advisor sent it to us to post as an exclusive.

[Kevin in Florida]

Boy, what an opportunity for confusion here! This is "Paul Henke" of the Thompson Campaign, not "Paul Helmke" of the Brady Campaign.

[Matt]

Despite what the NRA would have you believe, you have a better chance of seeing a martian walk across your front lawn than you do seeing a UN disarmorment squad walking door-to-door in the U.S. confiscating guns. Is this because the UN's stance on gun control is overhyped? Jesus, Allah, and Buddah... NO! The UN is by far the most anti-gun organization on the planet and it's heads wet themselves every night imaging a world in which the only firearms are in their possession.

But as Dave and many others have said, the UN is imcompetant beyond belief. Sort of a mixture between the Keystone Kops and the Gestapo. What scares the hell out of me are American politicians who are more than willing to tot the UN gun-control line. THEY are the scumbags who actually have the ability to severely cripple the 2A.

Anyway, Thompson in 2008!

[WA Mtnhunter]

I made up my mind to vote Fred '08 the minute he was rumored to run. All the other flacid Republicans and ALL the Dems are weak on 2A rights, state's rights, and individual rights.

If we fail to elect Fred, we shall all be sorry.

[Winghunter]

The mindnumbing audacity to threaten our sovereignty leaves me wondering whether I should be laughing in these pig's faces or break my foot off where their sun doesn't shine...maybe both.

[Pastor Dan]

Fred's own site (www.Fred08.com) attributes the piece to Fred as written exclusively for David Petzal's column here. For me, that makes it plenty authentic.

I know it's amazing with so many candidates in the mix this season, but Fred Thompson really is the only one who seems to get it. He is interested in the future of our great nation, not in building a name for himself. He sees what we see, and he sees what the rest of the world will see through history. His vision for the USA is neither unique nor original; it comes from the Founding Fathers, and is shared by millions of ordinary citizens across America. What is original and unique is that this vision is held by someone willing and able to step out of a comfortable and satisfying life, into the windmill of American politics, in order to better his fellow citizens' prospects for the future.

Looks more and more likely Mr. Thompson will get the vote from us. I myself are starting to lean heavily that way. On the U.N., They will never dictate to me as an American citizen!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Greg]

Last comment was mine Greg in AR.

[Paul]

Fred is the only candidate that covers all the issues. He supports not only the US constitution, also Fred will continue to pursue terrorists, to keep America safe from outside threats, and secure the borders.

[Rob]

Fred isn't doing too well in the primary. If he loses big in Iowa, what little steam his campaign has will quickly blow away. I like the guy but he comes across as lethargic and his speeches don't seem to fire up the crowds. Mike Huckabee seems to be syphoning off a lot of conservative voters in Iowa right now.

What surprises me is that there are actually people posting who are falling for John Edwards little "hunter/fisher rights bill". Yes, all politicians are liars, we know the repubs are good on guns and bad on the environment, and yes both parties stink, but this latest move by Edwards is the most disingenuious act ever. The people who are falling for this should realize that Edwards is sitting back laughing at them saying to his staff: "See guys, I told you these outdoor guys are suckers". His first act after releasing this proposal was to call PETA and say "Don't worry folks, it's all a lie, I'm just trying to survive the Iowa primary and keep my campaign afloat."

[Russ Snyder]

For Jack....There is a Republican running with Viet Nam experience. His name is Duncan Hunter, and he was an Army Green Beret. His son is currently on active duty serving in Afganastan with a previous tour in Iraq. He is the most conservative person in the race. He's very pro-military, having been the Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee and now serving as the ranking minority member.

SKCM(SS), USN Retired
Cam Rahn Bay, RVN 1970

[Tommy]

Clench your guns tightly.

Pick spots to peep into your yard.
A cellar will provide a sanctuary.
When they come to steal our AR's.

If the time is not now.
To rise and defend ourselves, our heritage and our freedom.

Then when?

[Tommy]

I dare anyone to come for my guns.

[Tommy]

If they get to them - they will be empty - without ammo anyway.

And very hot.

[Tommy]

Can I get a...

[Mike Strehlow]

To answer Matt, I agree with you that the UN is generally incompetent. It does serve one purpose, however, depending upon your personal political stance; it provides political cover. Do you remember Bill Clinton and the Bosnia war? Do you remember American troops wearing blue helmets and taking orders from foreigners? Once Hillary is safely elected, she won't have to fuss with congress, or even the courts. She can cite last year's UN sub-commision on human rights' conclusions, let out a little sigh, and say, "Much as it may anger some, if America wants to take its place in the greater international community, America has to abide by international laws." So while she is turning our military into a disaster relief organization, redistributing our wealth overseas, and throttling back our energy consumption to the levels of Nigeria, she can also disarm us. This is the short version, but you get the idea.

Hey, the Congress ratified the UN's charter. And we virtually bankroll the whole thing. Political cover worked for Bill... can you imagine a draft dodger ordering troops to shine their boots, let alone sending them off to risk their lives in a war? Yet by hiding behind the UN, he did just that. It worked for Bill; it'll work for Hillary.

[Blue Ox]

I certainly hope Fred Thomson has border control in mind- I DID see a martian run across my yard this morning. Well, some kind of alien anyway...

[Blue Ox]

Hey Tommy: HELL YEAH!!

[Tommy]

Oh, and I will obviously be none the wiser - nor will I care at that point.

My problems on this rock will be forever over.

[Tommy]

It's about time to ban the UN from anything, order all of our politicians to leave their posts; immediately, deal with peta in the most inhumane ways we can find, make all anti-gun folks anti-life, bomb the middle-east, china, russia and france into submission, and tell anyone who disagrees with us - well tell them nothing - they will be gone and dealt with.

Can I get a ...

[Tommy]

And yes I know that sounds like a dictatorship and not democracy.

That was the idea.

[Tommy]

I think the ideas and dreams of our forefathers have been burned, disrespected and misrespresented for long enough.

I have been enlightened and infuriated. Let us act. Somehow.

[Tommy]

In the words of Mr. Dela Rocha...

''Let the weak grow strong from fire and smoke.''

[Jack]

Russ
Thanks for the heads up! I've seen him on TV in the debates and liked what I hheard but I didn't know much about him. It seems like a lot more people have been watching the Rep debates on Fox than the Dem debates wherever. Unfortunately, it seems to me that guys like Duncan Hunter get one question while Rudy & McCain get five. Sad to say, that's the best news outlet that we have.
Thanks again
Jack

[Walt Smith]

You want my guns? Stay here just a minute and I'll bring them to you----- BrrrrrrrrrrrTTT !!!

[Walt Smith]

Gosh darn it I wish everyone else would've voted for Fred Thomponson like I did.

[BD]

Mr. Henke's first name is actually Jon, not Paul fyi.

[Walt Smith]

I think if our public officials(congressmen,senators, judges,govenors, etc) were all limited to a two year, serve once in your lifetime for $30,000.00 per year with no pension; Term in office that this would cure so very much of the political corruption that goes on in this country that it would be well worth the trouble to get it made into law.

[Matt Mallery]

I'm liking Fred more and more.

[chuckb]

For Russ Snyder and the other commenters who are looking among the candidates for a Viet Nam vet who walks the walk, check out John McCain's views on the 2d Amendment, found at http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/77636553-6337-4ecd-b170-49e1c07d2fbd.htm

I'm not sure which Republican I'll vote for, but McCain sure is among the best of the pack when it comes to issues that matter to me, especially when it comes to my guns.

Have you ever wondered why a millionaire wants to be on Capitol Hill and spending millions for getting there and the job will never pay what was spent? I wonder whose pocket there really lining??

[James]

Jack;

"On another note, I am a Viet Nam Veteran and I'm heartsick that I can't vote for one of my compadres for president."

McCain and Hunter are both Nam vets. Hunters son is a Marine in Iraq.

[Jack]

Everyone
I was under the impression that John McCain refused to address the NRA Convention. I do admire him greatly but also am queasy about his views on some of the issues. I'm very concerned about this U.N. issue and the Supreme Court and for those reasons I will vote for the any Republican over the best Democrat.
Thanks again for the links
Jack

[John]

Everyone should read:

"We Wish to Inform You That Tomorrow We Will be Killed With Our Families: Stories from Rwanda"

http://www.amazon.com/Wish-Inform-Tomorrow-Killed-Families/dp/0312243359/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-1521434-7566405?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193702877&sr=8-1

To get a true picture of how disgusting the UN is - they ordered the Colonel who could have stopped the genocide in Rwanda to just sit idly by. My God, what a revolting set of people run that organization...

[chuckb]

McCain and the NRA parted company in 2001 over McCain's support of campaign finance reform, which would have had the effect of curtailing the NRA's ability to support pro-gun candidates with public appeals close to election time.

Wasn't deliberately aimed at the NRA, but, let's face it, our beloved NRA (I'm a Life Member since '62) is a "special interest." OUR special interest, I know, but McCain tends to think in terms of the big picture, and he was justifiably concerned that 'special interest' money (especially from labor) was distorting election outcomes.

Despite McCain's strong support of gun rights in the Senate (including gun rights in D.C.), it doesn't appear that he and the NRA have ever made up.

[Josh Hunter]

New York - WABC, October 23, 2007) - Last week, The Investigators went undercover to expose a gaping loophole in New York state's gun laws. Now Governor Eliot Spitzer is promising to examine the problem more closely.
The Investigators Jim Hoffer has the story.

The black powder rifle's exemption from gun laws is one of the last remaining major gun loopholes in the state of New York. But the days of buying this deadly weapon no questions asked may be numbered.

Our undercover investigation showed with alarming clarity just how easy it is to get a black powder rifle in New York.

Be it in a department store or on the Internet, the highly powerful .50 caliber weapon can be purchased without any identification, permit or background check.

That's because the black powder gun is muzzle loaded and therefore classified as antique -- and state and federal gun laws do not include antique firearms.

We took the issue to the governor, the one most able to do something about it.

Jim Hoffer: "What if anything can you do as governor to try to close this black powder gun loophole?"
Governor Spitzer: "We have a number of loophole closing gun-related bills that have been proposed. None of which has moved yet through the legislature, but I will look to see if they cover this particular situation."
Hoffer: "And if they don't will you move on that do you think?"
Spitzer: "Sure, it's obviously something that bears examination."

Twice in the last four months, the deadly black-powder gun made news. First, a student with a history of psychological problems carried one loaded onto the St. John's University campus. And in June, a convicted rapist with the same kind of gun shot and nearly killed a state police trooper.

"These guns can kill and they should be subject to the same restrictions that other guns are subject to," said Michael Gianaris (D-Queens).

The Queens state lawmaker says after seeing our investigation he'll be introducing legislation to close the loophole that exempts these so-called antique weapons from gun laws.

"Clearly this gun has already done harm to a state trooper, it almost caused a tragedy at St. John's and we have to act quickly to keep them out of the hands of people who shouldn't be holding guns," Gianaris said.

Assemblyman Gianaris plans to introduce the gun bill in the general assembly next week.
(Copyright 2007 WABC-TV)
http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?s...ocal&id=5722620

[RHRobinson,MD]

For Blue Ox:
Here is Fred Thompson's official plan for those Martians trolling your lawn:

BORDER SECURITY AND IMMIGRATION REFORM PLAN
Fred Thompson:

In the post-9/11 world, immigration is much more of a national security issue. A government that cannot secure its borders and determine who may enter and who may not, fails in a fundamental responsibility. As we take steps to secure our borders and enforce our laws, we must also ensure that our immigration laws and policies advance our national interests in a variety of areas, and that the immigration process itself is as fair, efficient, and effective as possible.

Securing the Border and Enforcing the Law

A fundamental responsibility of the federal government is to secure the nation's borders and enforce the law. The following policies and initiatives will put the nation on a path to success:

1. No Amnesty. Do not provide legal status to illegal aliens. Amnesty undermines U.S. law and policy, rewards bad behavior, and is unfair to the millions of immigrants who follow the law and are awaiting legal entry into the United States. In some cases, those law-abiding and aspiring immigrants have been waiting for several years.

2. Attrition through Enforcement. Reduce the number of illegal aliens through increased enforcement against unauthorized alien workers and their employers. Without illegal employment opportunities available, fewer illegal aliens will attempt to enter the country, and many of those illegally in the country now likely will return home. Self-deportation can also be maximized by stepping up the enforcement levels of other existing immigration laws. This course of action offers a reasonable alternative to the false choices currently proposed to deal with the 12 million or more aliens already in the U.S. illegally: either arrest and deport them all, or give them all amnesty. Attrition through enforcement is a more reasonable and achievable solution, but this approach requires additional resources for enforcement and border security:

1. Doubling ICE agents handling interior enforcement, increasing the Border Patrol to at least 25,000 agents, and increasing detention space to incarcerate illegal aliens we arrest rather than letting them go with a promise to show up later for legal proceedings against them.

2. Adding resources for the Department of Justice to prosecute alien smugglers, people involved in trafficking in false identification documents, and previously deported felons.

3. Maximizing efforts to prosecute and convict members of criminal alien gangs, such as MS-13 and affiliated gangs. These gangs have brought unusual levels of violence to more than 30 U.S. states and have also become very active in drug-smuggling, gun-smuggling, and alien-smuggling.

4. Implementing fully and making greater use of the expedited removal process already allowed under federal law.

5. Enabling the Social Security Administration to share relevant information with immigration and law enforcement personnel in a manner that will support effective interior enforcement efforts.

3. Enforce Existing Federal Laws. Enforce the laws Congress has already enacted to prevent illegal aliens from unlawfully benefiting from their presence in the country:

1. End Sanctuary Cities by cutting off discretionary federal grant funds as appropriate to any community that, by law, ordinance, executive order, or other formal policy directs its public officials not to comply with the provisions of 8 USC 1373 and 8 USC 1644, which prohibit any state or local government from restricting in any way communications with the Department of Homeland Security regarding the immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of an alien in the United States.

2. Deny discretionary Federal education grants as appropriate to public universities that violate federal law by offering in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens without also offering identical benefits to United States citizens, regardless of whether or not they live in the state, as required by 8 USC 1623.

3. Deny discretionary Federal grants as appropriate to states and local governments that violate federal law by offering public benefits to illegal aliens, as prohibited by 8 USC 1621(a).

4. Reduce the Jobs Incentive. Ensure employee verification by requiring that all U.S. employers use the Department of Homeland Security's electronic database (the E-Verify system) to confirm that a prospective employee is authorized to work in the U.S. Now that the technology is proven, provide sufficient resources to make the system as thorough, fast, accurate, and easy-to-use as possible.

5. Bolster Border Security. Finish building the 854-mile wall along the border by 2010 as required by 8 USC 1103. Extend the wall beyond that as appropriate and deploy new technologies and additional resources to enhance detection and rapid apprehension along our borders by 2012.

6. Increased Prosecution. Deploy the additional assets outlined above to prosecute alien smugglers ("coyotes"), alien gang members, previously deported felons, and aliens who have repeatedly violated our immigration laws much more vigorously.

7. Rigorous Entry/Exit Tracking. Complete the implementation of a system to track visa entrants and exits, as has been required by federal law for more than ten years, and connect it to the FBI's National Crime Information Center (NCIC), in order to curb visa overstays and permit more effective enforcement.

Improving the Legal Immigration Process
The United States is a nation of immigrants. We must continue to welcome immigrants and foreign workers who come to our country legally, giving priority to those who can advance the nation's interests and common good. Immigrants and foreign workers who play by the rules need to be rewarded with faster and less burdensome service, not delays that last years. Advancing the following initiatives will require close cooperation between all levels of government, the business community, and concerned citizens:

1. Maximize Program Efficiency. Reduce the backlogs and streamline the process for immigrants and employers who seek to follow the law. Also, simplify and expedite the application processes for temporary visas. This can be accomplished by hiring more personnel at Citizenship and Immigration Services and the FBI. Caps for any category of temporary work visa would be increased as appropriate, if it could be demonstrated that there are no Americans capable and willing to do the jobs.

2. Enhanced Reporting. Improve reporting to the government by businesses that rely on temporary workers so that the government can track whether the visa holder remains employed.

3. Modernize Immigration Law/Policy. Change the nature of our legal immigration system to welcome immigrants who can be economic contributors to our country, are willing to learn the English language, and want to assimilate.

1. Reduce the scope of chain migration by giving family preference in the allocation of lawful permanent resident status only to spouses and minor children of U.S. citizens, and no one else (no siblings, no parents, no adult children, etc.).

2. Eliminate the diversity visa lottery.

4. English As Official Language. Make English the official language of the United States to promote assimilation and legal immigrants' success, and require English proficiency in order for any foreign person to be granted lawful permanent resident status.

5. Freedom from Political Oppression. Preserve U.S. laws and policies to ensure that the United States remains a beacon and a haven for persons fleeing political oppression, while assuring appropriate admission standards are maintained.

6. Service to Country. Place those foreign persons who are lawfully present in the country and who serve honorably in the Armed Forces of the United States on a faster, surer track to U.S. citizenship.

[Dr. Ralph]

Ron Paul is also running for president. He was in the U.S. Air Force in the '60s and served as a flight surgeon. He is an obstetrician and has delivered over 4,000 babies. He will defend the Constitution better than anyone I am familiar with. He also is hated by the press, the powers that be, and other politicians... I am afraid he has so many enemies in Washington, LA, and NY that his chances are slim but he is the true patriot in this election. Fred is probably more electable and lives in my city but Dr. Paul is my hero.

[rosignol]

The U.N. serves no purpose in this world.

-----

I disagree.

The UN provides a centralized location for monitoring those most likely to cause regional or global trouble.

The UN does serve a useful function. It's just not the UN's officially stated function.

[Jim K]

Fred is the only candidate with a good 2nd Ammendment record. He should definitely get the vote of all gun owners in the US. And if he just happens to kick the UN out, so much the better.

[Tina K]

Paragraph four has to be the most depressing statement I have ever read from a Presidential Candidate. Lack of arms is NOT why Genocides occur! Genocide occurs in countries where the people are ruled by a tyrannical elite in where bearing a gazillion arms would not be sufficient against their governments weapons and power (e.g. Armenian genocide, Rwandian, and now in Darfur). Genocides (by our def'n) continue because the UN (on behalf of the int'l community) is hesitant to lose persons and resources as in Rwanda. Fred Thompson is extremely short-cited and the UN's ability to limit the second am. is close to none considering America's unilateral stance in the global political community so there is nothing to worry about.
Moreover, a Genocide could occur on a group of people in America today if the government wanted to, regardless of how many (if any) arms the American people possess. Wake up America!

[PbHead]

Thanks for the alert Dave. Go easy on those Girl Scouts. I would not want to get between a good troop and their cookies.

[Jack]

Tina
In paragraph 4, Fred Thompson is making an observation. I don't think he's trying to goad them into action, he's just saying that they tend to be impotent with respect to these matters. Envision a government here where there is a Dem President with 60 Dem Senators, all of whom owe George Soros. I can't think of any Dem Presidential Candidate who doesn't believe in submission of our sovereignity to the higher world order. With a couple of new Supreme Court Justices we could see ratification of that UN resolution.
Jack

[charlieb]

Tina K,

Please check your history before ticking off laundry lists.

1) Ottoman Armenians, under the terms of the sharia legal code of the time leading up to the massacre, were forbidden to bear arms. If it had been otherwise, an armed Armenian populace (being the largest ethnic minority in the Empire) would have been more than able to defend itself collectively against the Sultan's genocide, given the rise of fiery ethnic nationalism to give the Armenians common cause (said nationalism among the various Ottoman ethnic groups having been a major contributing factor to the dissolution of the Empire itself not much later).

2) In Rwanda, it was hard enough for even a Hutu to obtain a gun, even within the military. The ruling government's unrelenting hostility toward Tutsis was very effective in keeping them disarmed and defenseless. The Hutu-dominated government kept a tight enough lid on gun ownership that the thousands-strong Hutu militias (far more effective killers than the army regulars) made do with machetes, which turned out to be the weapon of choice for butchering Tutsis. You really don't think more of a level playing field vis-a-vis armaments might have made the marauding Hutus at least think twice?

3) The refugees in Darfur, having been driven from their villages by the janjaweed and Sudanese military (while carrying nothing more than they could hold at a full sprint), are lucky to have the clothes on their backs, let alone a gun to defend themselves (which is far beyond the means of most of them in the first place).

4) "Genocide could occur on a group of people in America today if the government wanted to?" Really? If it's that easy, why hasn't it happened? Could be because the only time the American federal government ever launched a full-out armed assault on its own people was during the American Civil War, and y'know, that's a pretty persuasive argument against it. Even the most wild-eyed, conspiracy-theorizing, bunker-dwelling Unabom wannabe might hesitate to assert that the U.S. government would blithely traipse into an armed endeavor that, last time it was tried, caused over 620,000 deaths among the military alone.

By the way, that was when the U.S. population was roughly one-tenth what it is now, and top-of-the-line firearms then had the efficiency and destructive force of a slingshot compared to what is available to a civilian today. You think the last government attack on Americans was a bloodbath? I'd hate to see them try it now.

Wake up, yourself.

[Matt]

For Mike Strehlow:

Can't argue with a thing you said. And if Hitlery gets elected, I'm moving to Chechnya!

[Tina K]

"Charlie b",

1)First of all, it is odd that you assume all members of a society whom possess the legal right to keep and bear arms would want to embrace such law. Second, in the case of the Armenians- their fate was carefully sought out (with the help of German army officials) before they knew which way to turn. In 1915 (during the Genocide) the Ottoman Empire was run by a dictatorial triumvirate – and led by the CUP (young “unionist” Turks) whom commanded virtually all of the Ottoman army. The Turkish officers trained at military schools in Germany, drew their battle plans, built fortifications and even made “killing units” in where millions of Armenians would end up if they had not died from the long, forced walks in the desert. I am not denying that these Armenians were not forced by weapons out of their homes but you have to understand that their fate was planned out and sought out under a much more powerful force than any ownership of arms could have deterred.

2)In the case of Rwanda, the mass killing of the Tutsi people was led by extremist Hutu militia groups. It is a wide known myth that the genocide was a result of some kind of spontaneous action from below or that it was a “tribal meltdown” rooted in long-standing hatred. As in the Armenian genocide, it was political manipulation behind the systemic massacre of innocent people – the idea of a “playing field vis-a-vis armaments” is not even a question in the case of the Rwanda genocide and any arm-bearing Tutsi would not have deterred the political will and determination of the Hutu people.

3)I don’t understand what your point is here – if anything you are providing mine – many of these societies do not have any material means and is why it is ignorant to think that they would obtain a gun or any weapon in need of revolting against their own government. If their government wants to plan a genocide, it will happen and I explained that in the two aforementioned examples.

4)I am not saying that a certain ethnic group in America has to go out and buy guns in case a genocide will be deployed upon them by their own government; I am saying that if there was a leader who wanted to exert such force and power on a certain group they could do so. Germany was an extremely developed, intellectual society during the rise of the Third Reich, however a few minds at the top were able to wield officials into believing that the Aryan race was above all – especially the Jewish race. Not all of Americans own guns, and even if they did it wouldn’t matter – it is never an equal playing field when one side is in control of all the countries resources and military power.

5) Do your own homework.

Tina K.

[Jason]

I smelled BS when I read this. So I looked it up. Guess what it is BS. I have included a link at the bottom for anyone that really wants to read this report.

http://hrp.cla.umn.edu/small_arms_project.html

[Jason]

Since we are at it there is a Jon henke who handles New Media for Fred Thompson. he is a Political Blogger. You can find his page here. http://www.qando.net/

Hey Dave how carefully are you checking this crap before you post it? I am starting to wonder if I should have bought that Remington you suggested.

[Gregg]

So Tina, just how much homework have you done? Have you ever heard of the Warsaw Uprising? Perhaps it was listed as the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising.

FYI, the ghetto referred to was a jewish ghetto. A small group of Jews who finally realized that death was all that awaited them decided to revolt against the Nazis. According to the "Oxford Companion to World War 2" about 1000 jews armed with one machine gun, and various scrounged pistols, rifles, etc... held off at least 3000 Nazi soldiers, 2600 of whom were SS, for 3 months. Please note that the Jews basically scrounged weapons and ammo from the Nazis themselves.

Think about that for a moment. 1000 civilian jews held off 3000 Nazi soldiers for 3 months inside a walled off ghetto, inside a city that the Nazis controlled. Are you saying that with their own weapons they could not have done better?

Look, I don't care what elaborate plans are drawn up, "no plan survives contact with the enemy" (Murphys Rules on Combat). It all boils down to the guys in the mud and the blood. You point to genocides where the victims were disarmed and say that they were doomed regardless without referencing a genocide that succeeeded in the face of armed resistance.

I disagree with your basic premise. However, even if you are right, I don't care. I want the best tools possible if I find myself in that boat. I want to stand my ground and die on my feet like a man, not slaughtered like an animal.

As far as the inability to stand off a modern army with small arms. Please tell the Vietnam and Iraq Vets that it is impossible for anyone to stand against a modern army with all its advanced equipment and wonderful plans. Maybe you ought to tell that to George Washington, or Michael Collins.

The whole theory that the pen is mightier than the sword is great, until you end up armed with a pen trying to fight off a guy with a sword.

[Kerry]

Read Stephen Halbrook's book Target Switzerland – Swiss Armed Neutrality in World War II. Good excerpts are here: http://www.frontline.org.za/articles/reformation_resistance.htm
Note that Switzerland " was the only European nation which
proclaimed that, in the event of an invasion, any announcement of surrender was to be regarded as
enemy propaganda, and that every soldier must fight to the last cartridge, and then with the bayonet. Their published and openly proclaimed military
strategy was to make any invader pay a severe penalty for violating their neutrality. The order was: Keep Fighting. No surrender. No retreat. Fight to the last bullet and blade." If there is a better definition if Liberty, I have not heard it.

[Kerry]

P.S. At the time the Swiss were armed with the Schmid-Rubin K-31. They are still available. Some come with the previous owner's name, unit and/or other information on a slip of paper beneath the butt plate. Mine did.

[Ralph the Rifleman]

Seems we need to vote on individual rights;the 2nd amendment gets my #1 priority on this issue. Now, once our elected officials take office they need to abide by their campaign promises...which most don't, sad to say. I must say I do trust a veteran running for office more so then a civilian career politician, but that is not always a certain vote either;AH, the cost of democracy!
Anyway, history lessons are fine but lets not forget that the bottom line to mass murder is supported by an evil government and that is the fundamental difference in our country. Having a populace armed just helps to keep checks and balances in place.

[SilverArrow]

"The UN could screw up the recipe for ice water!"

What I still fume about is the unwillingness of our congress to confirm Bolton to serve us on the UN! There are some megalomaniacal two bit dictators there who need a good can of U.S. Whoop-ass opened up on them! With Bolton we had a chance of that happening.

The UN in and of itself is hopelessly impotent. The scary thing is that if we adopt UN policies our ATF is far from impotent and more than zealous to come crashing through our doors to steal our guns and trample our rights. The First Klintonista Regime abetted by Komrad Reno certainly proved willing to avail themselves of this unconstitutional -- quasi military --Federal police unit.

I have my doubts as to how much any President will do to support our rights though Thompson and Ron Paul seem to mostly be in our corner. Congress -- increasingly left leaning -- will have the biggest impact but Executive branch regulators such as OSHA, TSA, BATF etc also have tremendous confired power and little respect for our rights.

Points to ponder on Tuesday of next week.

SA

[Sandbagger]

Welcome to the Twilight Zone!
Several years ago, one of the provisions by the UN for the right to life is, as long as the individual serves a purpose, that person will be allowed to live. In other words, “genocide and euthanasia” will be the norm of the United Nations.
AIDS in Africa? You really think condoms will cure AIDS? The fact is, AIDS virus passes thru a condom like a freight truck thru a tunnel. Condoms do have microscopic holes in them. Just another way to channel money to a group of elites! Africa is nothing more than a money pit to channel dollars in to the back pockets of the UN.
As for the 2nd Amendment, does the American Citizen have the backbone to make the stand? Australia was disarmed with only a wimpier! O’You gutless Aaussie’s!
If you think the UN is the way, I got one thing to say to you. YOU FOOL!

[Sandbagger]

The End Times is coming!

R U Ready?

[Tommy]

There will be far more than a ''wimpier'' here my friend.

Let them come.

[Blue Ox]

Come and get me. I dare ya.

[DepHarry]

In yesterday's Washington Post, on the front page, was an article about how American guns smuggled into Mexico are killing police down there. The Post can't blame a porous border, but blames the ready availability of guns in the U.S. If we secured that border, we could address both problems.

[Tommy]

Yeah Blue.

[Tommy]

Time for some ''real'' gun problems boys!

Pick a lobbyist, to ''help to see the problem''.

Time to get down to business.

Pick a vegan...to give some protein rich backstraps.

Time to express yourself.

Find a gun-grabber...to debate the effects of guns only in the hands of criminals.

Time to be alive!

''The only thing necessary for evil to triumph, is for good men to do nothing.''

[Mike]

This Tina chick has no understanding of what the Second and an armed citezenry is really all about, let alone the ultimate motivation of the far left or the autocrats of the UN.

Anyone one who really believes that gun confisacation is about crime abatement is pathetically naive. Control of privately held firearms (which invariably will lead to confiscation) is about one thing and one thing only: Establishing absolute subjection over the citizenry.

These elitists are convinced that the unwashed masses are incapable of managing their own lives, but to establish absolute authority, citizens must be disarmed. Regardless of the strength of their armed forces or the advantages of technology, nothing instills fear in the heart of a potential tyrant like an armed and resolute populace.

[Tommy]

A history lesson without a lateral line in the world is all she posed. I agree Mike. It isn't about what might happen, it's about what you have to offer in case it does. One could do wonders with an attitude full of steel.

[WA Mtnhunter]

Tina:

What makes you so sure that whatever ethnic, religeous, or political group YOU are a member of won't end up on someone's killing list? You are correctly stating the circumstances in the cases mentioned. The common denominator is hatred and the ability of one group to exert power over another.

I intend to remain capable of defending my liberty and family to the very best of my ability. At least a few of the aggressors will pay the ultimate price for their transgressions.

[Tommy]

When you go into the woods, in the dark, alone; knowing there could be bears, coyotes, cougars or linx, rapists or murderers - you sure feel a hell of alot better with some cold freeeeeaking steel at your disposal - it may be a fool-hearted, false-sense of security - but it feels alot better than going in unarmed.

And you have a chance.

[Tommy]

Whatever you run into.

[Thomas]

All I can say is Rise up and let your voice be heard VOTE. Hopefully vote for the candidate that best serves our needs. Unfortunitly I may find my self voting for a Independent this time because Nether side has produced some one I feel that I can trust. I do not respect Hillery and do not think that Rudy will respect us. I am hoping that neither candidate makes it past the primerys.

[Chad Love]

Don't you just love throwing a big, bloody hunk of red meat to the frothy-mouthed base? Mention "UN" and "gun control" in the same sentence and here come New World Order piranhas down from the mountainside and up from the bunkers. Rational dialogue has about as much chance as a three-legged capybara swimming the Amazon.
This is a tired old chestnut that should have been thrown out long ago but keeps getting trotted out every election cycle because it's very good at engendering nationalistic outrage amongst the red-blooded hordes. It is a calculated pandering tool, nothing more. And it's fairly obvious that that is what the Thompson campaign is doing here. Does anyone (barring those with a five-year supply of MREs stashed in their lead-lined basements) really believe that A. a majority of American lawmakers would sign off on such plans and B. the U.N. is such an omnipotent global force to make us abide by it?
Come on, people. This is the UN we're talking about here, an organization with a 67-year history of institutionalized impotence and corruption.
I'm of the opinion that - due to a variety of geopolitical and natural resource issues - the era of rampant corporate and governmental globalization is in its waning hours. You can bank on this, in the next 10 to 20 years the world's nations - all of them, including us - will be concerned with much larger issues than meddling in each others' internal affairs.
The UN, if it's even still around in 20 years, will continue to be what it's always been: a high-minded circle jerk.
I think rather than engaging in knowingly disingenuous Internet rabble-rousing the Thompson campaign (and voters) should heed another old political saw, that old Tip O'Neill cliche that "all politics is local."
Forget the UN bogeyman, guys. Focus on what OUR elected officials are doing...

[Mike]

1st and foremost, the U.N. is a toothless neutered dog!

Second, powder blue helmets make fine targets.

3rd Send the U.N. headquarters and delegates to Rwanda. (i bet the place shapes up quick like)

another thought about genocide on american soil. Hate too tell ya folks, but the american govt initiated and followed a national policy of genocide right after "the war that destroied the constitution"

Think American Indian...thankfully the genocide didnt work...but sooo much is lost to us today.

Back to the topic at hand....I have looked at Freds record...not too shaby...

[SilverArrow]

Chad and Mike

Please re-read my comments above. The UN in and of itself (As DEP pointed out.) can screw up the recipe for ice water. The real concern is that our own government agencies will grab this UN mandate and overzealously enforce it; think the BATF, TSA, OSHA and others are on our side? Think again. No I am not worried about poorly trained troops in powder blue helmets coming to my door for my .30-30! My own government will send a SWAT team or two, in Urban BDU camo, to disarm or kill me.
It has happened already, remember Ruby Ridge, Waco? And it will happen again!
SA

[MuzzleBlast]

All of these posts with "Fred" as "the only" are part of the collective denial that Ron Paul exists, is running in the race as a Republican and has a long term consistent record of supporting the Constitution that makes all the rest look like the poseurs and pikers that they are.

--MuzzleBlast

[Linda D in Nevada]

From Ralph the Rifleman:
… I must say I do trust a veteran running for office more so then a civilian career politician, but that is not always a certain vote either…

Jimmy Carter was a veteran. Ronald Reagan served, but not in combat. Enuf said.

[Roberto]

Chad do you not know that the gun control groups which mouths the UN´s stand on disarming citizenry around the world is financed in this country by loony leftist George Soros.
I,too, support Fred. Duncan Hunter is also fine but unfortunely was a virtual unknown.
My hope is that we will have a president who will kick the UN out of the country. He will need a Republican House and Senate who are for America First in order to make it a reality. The defeat to join of the League of Nations can be attributed the Republican control of both houses while Democrat Wilson was trying to foist it on the U.S.
Let´s face it the UN is nothing but a hotel for the loony leftists of the world who hate the U.S.A I don´t think we should give our hard earned tax dollars to allow them to rub excrement in our faces. The people in this country that support the UN and say we deserve all of the crap and criticism are mental masochists.

[Mark]

On my United Nations affairs blog, UN Dispatch, I respond to Fred Thompson's baseless assertion that the United Nations seeks to violate second amendment riots. Thompson is grossly misrepresenting the UN in a cynical attempt to scare monger. The UN emphatically does not have any jurisdiction over the second amendment.

Don't listen to him. Here's my response in full.

http://www.undispatch.com/archives/2007/10/uh_fred_1.php

[Mike Diehl]

I have no complaints about BATF in the past or now. Although I've heard rumours about some conspiracy to shut down ffls it's hard to see any merit to the rumours.

The threat from the UN is that the finding of the subcomission makes two claims: 1) that there is no inherent right to self defense and therefore the use of lethal force is presumed to be a human rights violation unless the person using lethal force can deploy compelling evidence of clear and present danger to life.

That is an idiotic claim and moreover a stupid executive standard. When some p.o.s. breaks into a home at night, there usually is not sufficient intel on the intruder or a protracted interval of conversation of the "Are you armed and here to kill me or just rob my house" conversation.

My take is that NO human engaged in illegal entry into a private residence has any rights at all. I think we need a national law guaranteeing homeowners a green light to kill property criminals on sight. I'm about as opposed to the UN finding that "criminals should be coddled" as anyone could be.

Now, the US as a member nation, if it agrees to this little tyrant subcommision memorandum, would be obligated to treat all homeowners as suspects, even in states with castle doctrine laws. That's idiotic and it would be a clear cut case of an international body attempting to redefine both US sovereignty and also the US constitutional balance between states and Federal gov't. No thanks to that. Better to not have a UN.

2. The subcommision's finding is also that the United Nations shall dictate the general terms of laws regulating ownership of firearms, including a requirement that all citizens be subject to repeated Federal scrutiny vis their right to bear arms, and a "purpose" litmus test ('firearms to be used only for the purpose for which issued' -- meaning that a hunting rifle could not be used for self-defense). That's a violation of the US 2nd Amendment, leaving aside the whole issue of enforcability of such a ridiculously complex mandate.

3. The US would be required to provide lists of US firearms owners to other nations on request. It's not clear that such information is only required in the event of judicial warrants pursuant to criminal investigations.

For these reasons it is evident that the US should veto any General Assembly resolution that might endeavor to oblige nations to comply with the subcommission's findings.

[Mike Diehl]

"On my United Nations affairs blog, UN Dispatch, I respond to Fred Thompson's baseless assertion ..."

It's not a baseless assertion. Fred Thompson's take on it seems pretty accurate, given the actual content of the UN Subcommission's findings in re firearms; I posted a link to the subcommission's findings above.

[Mike Diehl]

@Leon -

Your "reply" to Fred seems to very carefully avoid looking at the details of the specific articles of the subcommission. Here's Article 10. It is definitely a clear and present danger to the rights of US citizens to keep and bear arms and were the US to agree to any General Assembly resolution calling for the enforcement of Article 10, then the 2nd Amendment would be thrown in the trash.

"Article 10. In order to ensure the protection of human rights by preventing small arms violence by private actors, Governments shall enact licensing requirements to prevent possession of arms by persons who are at risk of
misusing them. Possession of small arms shall be authorized for specific purposes only; small arms shall be used strictly for the purpose for which they are authorized. Before issuing a licence Governments shall require training in proper use of small arms, and shall take into consideration, at a minimum, the following factors: age, mental fitness, requested purpose, prior criminal record or record of misuse, and prior acts of
domestic violence. Governments shall require periodic renewal of licences."

That all sounds very nice but the devil is in the details. What is "misuse" of a firearm? According to the same commision, if you shoot someone who has broken into your house at night, you have violated their "rights" unless you can prove that the intruder meant to kill you. That's a specific challenge to states that have castle doctrine laws.

What does it mean for a person to be "at risk of misusing" a firearm? Would that mean that, under the right kind of radical right wing or left wing regime, individuals of a different political party might be defined as the kind of person "at risk of misusing a firearm?"

What does it mean that posession of small arms shall be authorized for "specific purposes only"? The second amendment makes absolutely no claims about citizens needing to demonstrate a specific need for a firearm in order to own one. So that clause of Article 10 clearly stands in contrast to the 2nd Amendment. And if there are "specific purposes" authorized, it follows that some purposes are not authorized, and therefore that there will be a regulatory body that will TELL you what sorts of purposes are authorized. Wanna bet that list of authorized purposes will be short and will grow shorter with time.

Fred Thompson's assessment of the subcommission's report is spot-on!

[tay]

Like freedom... check out Ron Paul a congressman from Texas. He is an INDEPENDANT rebublican.

[Mike Diehl]

Here's another goody from the subcommission:

"8. In honouring the right to life, liberty and security of person, as guaranteed in the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights and reaffirmed in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the intentional lethal use of small arms may only be made when strictly unavoidable in order to protect life. State agents,
including law enforcement officials, shall not use small arms against persons except in self defence or defence of others against the imminent threat of death or serious injury, to prevent the perpetration of a
particularly serious crime involving grave threat to life, to arrest a person presenting such a danger and resisting their authority, or to prevent his or her escape, and only when less extreme means are insufficient to
achieve these objectives."

One implication of that is that a convicted criminal attempting to escape confinement can't be shot if he refuses to comply with orders to stop. Another implication is that a person whom you know to be violent but who is not currently threatening someone can't be shot if they try to evade capture.

Those are some pretty radical shackles on law enforcement. The subcommission's basic attitude comes down to this:

Criminals, even known or potentially violent ones, are more trustworthy and less of a public danger than the l.e.o.s that try to stop them, or homeowners who might find themselves accosted by criminals inside the homeowner's home.

[Mike Reeder]

I'm a bit surprised anyone who reads this forum would not already be familiar with the U.N. subcommittee's declaration on gun control. As I recall it caused a significant brouhaha at the time, and has been consistently opposed by the Bush Administration.
Secondly, for purposes of disclosure, I worked in the TV branch of the RNC Communications Dept. from about 1998-2002, in what I would consider to be at most a mid-level capacity. During that time I had a chance to meet just about all the Republicans currently running for President. For purposes of clarity, I am somewhat right of a neanderthal, but I also judged the men I met by the way they interacted with people farther down the totem pole and by the views they expressed when the cameras weren't running. I can tell you Fred Thompson is the real deal. What you see is what you get. He is down-to-earth, irascible, sometimes contrary and as consistent in his views off the record as when he's on. I also very much liked Mike Huckabee. Unlike too many governors, who regarded themselves as Olympian figures, Huckabee was another regular guy who was unfailingly polite, friendly, and equally conservative on and off camera.
As far as I'm concerned, those two are the cream of the crop. I very much admire Guliani for much of what he did in NY and for his stance on the war and terrorism, although some of his other positions are anathema. While I must admit to liking McCain personally, based on private encounters, his leftward-lurching in search of media favor and his zeal to restrict free speech puts him far down my personal list.
All that having been said, barring the takeover of the GOP by Ted Kennedy, I will vote for any Republican currently running in the general election, even if I have to hold my nose to do so. As someone who worked in D.C. on 9-11, and who watched first hand as the smoke from the Pentagon wafted across the streets and people fled the capitol, I believe there is one issue that trumps them all, and that is the defeat of militant Islam, whereever the hell it resides. Europe appears to be dead set on committing suicide by assimilation, and the national Democrat Party might as well be run by French socialists. In fact, and it is a fact, the DNC works hand in glove with the various European socialist parties and is sympatico with them in every way, particularly in its pacifism and defeatism. Because of the war, the only Republican I could not support is Ron Paul. I admire him and probably agree with him on more issues than with any other candidate in the race, but the pure libertarianism that blinds him to the life-or-death nature of the current war is a deal-breaker as far as I'm concerned.

[WA Mtnhunter]

In looking at the polls, it seems that Ron Paul a long shot at best. Hopefully, voters will evaluate the candidates and vote for the one that best reflects their values and has at least a snowball's chance of winning. Remember how the good conservatives voted for Ross Perot and gave the White House to Billy Bob.

[John]

The Patriot Act, and many other such bills sponsered by the Republicians, have done more to set this country down a tyranical path than any gun law has. Wake-up and see what the Neo-con, far-right is trying to do; our own corperate, fascist, goverment.

[Peter]

Nothing like a comemnt on the 2nd Am. to get the nuts out of their fall-out shelter and put down their guns long enough to type a few words.

[Roberto]

Thank you Mike for your analysis.
I think a Fred & Mike would be a good ticket. Most of all thank you for blowing the whistle on the DNC. I´ve had my suspicions that they are pink behind the gills. I´ve called Rep. Xavier Becerra a Communist for his comment in 1993 that he was going to observe the elections in El Salvador, not to protect democracy, but to protect the interests of the FMLN. And Senator Chris Dodd wants President Uribe in Colombia to make peace with the terrorist
FARC by letting them govern a piece of the country. Now I know I can´t ever trust a Democrat to run the country. I guess the the Harry S. Trumans are gone forever.

[JA Demko]

Chest-thumping on a blog about how you'll gun down the Blue Helmets is proof that the internet is mainly about masturbating.
These competitions to see who can compose the manliest sound-bite are a waste of time and energy. Instead of taking part in yet another such wankfest, why don't you do something that would actually advance the 2A cause? Volunteer for the NRA grassroots programs. Run for local or state office yourself. Act like a civilized, reasonable human being, instead of a badly-scripted zealot, and take a newbie shooting. Right now, all this thread needs is to name an official pivotman...

[Mike Reeder]

WAMtnhunter has it exactly right. Conservatives frankly need to grow up. I used to be pretty pure, too, and then I got a few years on me and a little perspective. Conservatives mad at W gave us Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. Conservatives mad at Daddy Bush gave us Bill Clinton. Not a good swap. I remember Bill Buckley talking about how the writers at National Review worked in shifts in the '56 election. While one bunch took turns writing editorials condemning Ike, the others would run off to the polls and vote for him. Not a bad example. As to John's comments from the fever swamp, whether you like it or not there are medieval nut jobs out there who want to kill us on a massive scale. If you don't think they've been trying since 9-11 you're kidding yourself. Our continuing problems don't come from not killing enough of them or from tracking them too much. It's called being at war. I presume you would also consider FDR and Lincoln to be fascists, because they went a helluva lot farther in their domestic restrictions than anything found in the Patriot Act. However, I would be happy to lift the various wiretapping and surveillance provisions if those who oppose them would first agree to taking down the mullahs in Iran and little Assad over in Syria. Destroy the rats' nests and you might not need to strew traps all over the house.

[Chad Love]

Plus 1 for JADemko's post, which is sort of the point I was trying to make, but JA takes match point for most creative and appropriate use of the term "wankfest"...

[Mike Strehlow]

Amen, Mike Reeder. There's talk of a third party candidate to give Conservatives not happy with the eventual Republican nominee somebody pure enough to vote for. To this rumor I would say to my fellow gun owners, this is America; vote for whomever you choose. But don't stupidly vote for someone who has no chance of winning, just "to send a message to the Republicans that they'd better clean up their act." With the way the country is split right now, every vote matters. The only thing your 'message' vote will be sending is a liberal, anti-gun, pro UN Democrat, probably Hillary, to the White House. And won't you be satisfied when that happens.

[clay pooper]

Never been to a wankfest before. Been to "testicle festival" once, and ate mountain oysters. They taste like chicken.

[Roberto]

Mike and Mike are so right. It is so foolish for gun owners and all other conservatives to vote for a third party candidate. If for no other reason; judicial appointments. I would not want to leave that in the hands of Hillary and Patrick Leahy. Just as the left is so scared about overturning Roe v Wade, we need to be worried about having our second amendmant rights trampled.

[Chev Jim]

I have read Tina K's analyses of historical events, and as a former professor of military science and 21-plus-years veteran as an Army officer, I must respectfully disagree with her conclusions. History is replete with examples of armed "civilians" completely disrupting the plans of the would-be conqueror. We know how partisans in the former Czechoslovakia tied up the Wehrmacht in that country, and in Russia, as well. If the Confederacy had ordered unrelenting guerilla warfare, even in the face of overwhelming Federal numbers, the Union could not have maintained control of the Old South. Another such example is Afghanistan, which has never been successfully occupied by a foreign power. I will concede her the point that only in the case of determined, organized genocide is armed resistance subject to failure--as long as the enemy has any hopes of controlling the indigenous population, it will never be successful as long as that population resists. We are learning that lesson in Iraq right at this moment--although the "resistance" is slowly learning that al Qaida is the real threat, not the US. If the populace is armed, it is simply not enough to defeat that nation's organized military forces. The Iraqi army was disbanded--but there has been no shortage of Iraqis to act as snipers or emplacers of bombs. And, yes, if the Tutsis had possessed weapons in even modest numbers, the machete-wielding Hutus would have met the same fate as anyone who brings a blade to a gunfight. The Warsaw Ghetto was another memorable example of how a very few armed citizens can stymy a much larger force--unfortunately, not that many European Jews owned weapons. The Jews learned, however, and they were able to preserve their newly resurrected nation in the face of a massive Arab assault in 1948. Let us hope that we do not have to learn that lesson the hard way.

[Chad Love]

Veering off-topic a bit, but since the Polish campaign and in particular the fighting in Warsaw has been mentioned several times now, if anyone is interested and happens to find themselves in a used book store (and I've found that many Gun Nuts are also fairly well-read bibliophiles, so why wouldn't you find yourself in a used book store, right?) and they happen to see a copy of a long out-of-print book by Hanson W. Baldwin entitled "Battles Lost and Won" snap it up. Great read on some of the major battles of WWII. There is a fantastic chapter on the Polish campaign and the fighting in the Warsaw ghettos.

Anyway, I digress. Back to, uhhh, whatever it was that was being debated...something about blue-helmeted hordes and the futility of darkhorse candidates, right?

[Steve C]

To JA Demko and Tina K; thank you

To Dave P: Please limit your topics to guns. Not politics, not religion, not the UN, not the ATF, not the boogey man, not the shade of blue the sky is. Just guns. Also, you might want to consider limiting blogs to no more than 5-6 posts. That’s about the point where the tyranny of the minority kicks in and we go off to Tangentland

To All: There are no “gun rights” or “human rights” or any other kinds of “rights”. These are privileges granted by the powers that be. They can be abused, denied, removed, rescinded, repealed, outlawed, amended, they don’t appear as the eleventh commandment, and they don’t transfer like airline miles if you go visit someplace else. If you disagree, try boarding a plane with your “rights”.

[Mike Reeder]

To Steve C:

No rights? Only privileges?

"We hold these rights to be self-evident,That all men are created equal,that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness -- that to secure these rights governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,-- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

In case you're wondering, those are a few of those pesky natural rights Ted Kennedy had trouble comprehending when he was badgering Clarence Thomas.

[your dad]

go Fred Thompson!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[John C]

To Steve C: Piss off. In case you haven't noticed, this blog covers many things, all related in one form or another to guns. If you don't like it, go bother somebody else.

[John C]

Fred Thompson is a reanimated corpse with an NRA speaking chip implanted in his rotting cerebellum.

[John C]

Why can't there be a pro-gun candidate with brains enough to guide the country to a stable foreign policy, a strong economy, a healthy environment, and a respect for the differences between the country and the city mice?

[Chad Love]

Because that would require courage, independence, original thought and a commonality with and a concern for the American people and the future of our country.
We used to breed men like this, used to call them statesmen. Now we call them nowhere to be found.

[Chad Love]

Well, I guess I should say we used to produce men like that, rather than breed them.
Unless, of course, the gubment has some super-secret elder statesmen genetic reanimation program under wraps somewhere and they're just waiting for things to get bad enough to spring the Great Leaders Superpower Team on us.
I for one could go for some honest Abe, some TR, some FDR, JFK, anyone, anyone other than the wretched bunch of plastic automatons we have to choose from today.

I always go back to my favorite George Bernard Shaw quote.

"Democracy is a device that ensures we are governed no better than we deserve."

We are a pretty spoiled bunch. Maybe this less-than-inspiring bunch of candidates (in both parties) is merely a reflection of ourselves?

[Steve C]

Mike Reeder,

Unfortunately, you’re quoting the Declaration of Independence whereas the issue is the Constitution. Besides, the Constitution isn’t some kind of cafeteria where you pick out the things you support and believe to further your own raging narcissism and dismiss the rest. It’s a package deal.

Anyway, take some time to read the entire Constitution, you'll come to recognize that your “rights” are relative to context and are really controlled – for lack of a better word - by the government. Those Founding Fathers even provided the means to repeal Amendments if circumstances warranted (the door of tyranny can swing both ways).

But I still sense you disagree with me. Therefore, feel free to test your rights under the First (free speech) and Second (gun rights) Amendments by standing outside of the White House and shouting “I’m comin’ to get you” while waving a AK-47 over your head. I’m sure if you show them the Constitution the local constabulary will let by-gones be by-gones.

[Mike Reeder]

Steve C.

I know exactly what I was quoting. The Declaration lays down the principles the founders believed justified their actions in overthrowing the king. The Constitution defines how those principles are to observed in organizing the new government. The Bill of Rights enumerates some of the ways the government should be prevented from violating those principles and rights. In case they missed any, the founders threw in the 10th, which says any powers not specifically designated to the federal government belong exclusively to the people and to the various states. This entire country was founded on the basic belief that all humans are born with certain inherent rights by virtue of their humanity. Governments are necessary in order to place certain agreed upon limits upon human behavior, in order to keep one person from violating the rights of another. The classic example: the right of free speech does not give you the unfettered right to shout "fire" inside a crowded theater. The Constitution was needed in order to prevent the government from violating the rights of everyone. The key is that any limitation of rights must be implemented by general agreement, and by legal means, not by fiat or extra-Constitutional action. Otherwise, it is imperious and tyrannical and a violation of the basic rights we all share. Incidentally, I fail to see what is narcissistic about anything I said. Perhaps you have a quarrel with Jefferson. Or maybe Webster.

[Nathan Foster]

Mike Diehl,

You said' "I have no complaints about BATF in the past or now. Although I've heard rumours about some conspiracy to shut down ffls it's hard to see any merit to the rumours."

Here is one gun dealer's battle with an overreaching ATF:

http://redstradingpost.blogspot.com/

Here's a Violence Policy Center Press Release Saying that 80 (EIGHTY!) percent of gun dealers have been shut down since 1994:

http://www.vpc.org/press/0603dealers.htm

Here is testimony before congress from Congressman Phil Gingrey (R-GA) stating that 85% of gun manufacturers (another type of FFL) have been shut down since 2002!

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?position=all&page=H8481&dbname=2007_recor

The ATF has been reprimanded in a recent appropriations bill.

"The Committee has heard reports that ATF has pursued violation revocations and denials against firearms dealers based on violations that consist largely of record keeping errors of various types that are unlikely to impede tracing investigations or prosecution of individuals who use firearms in crime. The Committee encourages ATF to consider lesser gradation of sanctions for record keeping errors."

http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2007/10/25/more_atf_woes-6/

BTW the above link has about 10 ATF abuse stories listed, with links.

I have to say if you don't see any merit to those rumours, it's because you haven't looked.

Take a pill, Mike.

Both the Declaration of Independence and Constitution dodged the issue of slavery or the genocide