« First Look: The Browning X-Bolt and Winchester Model 70 | Main | New Guns From Weatherby »

October 29, 2007

This page has been moved to http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/gun-nut

If your browser doesn’t redirect you to the new location, please visit The Gun Nut at its new location: www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/gun-nut.

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.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Exclusive: Fred Thompson on the U.N.:


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!


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


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.


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.


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.


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.



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.


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.


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.


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.


"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.



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!


The End Times is coming!

R U Ready?


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

Let them come.

Blue Ox

Come and get me. I dare ya.


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.


Yeah Blue.


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.''


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.


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


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.


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.


Whatever you run into.

Our Blogs