Disarm America

There has been a lot of talk about President Obama looking at taking away gun rights. Unfortunately President Obama is not the only threat to firearms freedom. This threat comes in the form of a UN treaty called the “UN Convention on the Rights of the Child”. The best way to sum up this treaty comes from one of its own pamphlets.

• “The Convention on the Right of the Child sets out comprehensive principles and standards to guide all actions and attitudes towards children.”

Since I’m righting about gun control I will refrain from ripping into that statement. This law will set the government in a position on deciding what counts as appropriate behavior towards ones child.

That established, the treaty makes another claim. It says that a culture with guns harms children, therefore, guns go against a child rights. Their solution to this: disarmament and Disarmament Education. In case anyone has any doubts of what they mean by those two terms, the UN World Congress on Disarmament Education (that a group call that exists should be enough to scare anyone) adopted the following statement:

• Definition of disarmament:

“For the purpose of disarmament education, disarmament may be understood as any form of action aimed at limiting, controlling or reducing arms, including unilateral disarmament initiative, and, ultimately, general and complete disarmament under effective international control. It may also be understood as a process aimed at transforming the current system of armed nation States into a new world order of planned of planned unarmed peace in which war is no longer an instrument of national policy and people determine their own future and live in security based on justice and solidarity.”

I highly doubt I need to explain how dangerous and twisted that statement is. Now, I opened by saying that President Obama is not the only threat to the right to bear arms. In all reality that is only half true. One way for this treaty to be ratified is for the current administration to place the treaties before the Senate as they have the power to make treaties. There is one other way for the treaty to be ratified. Through Customary International Law, America could be forced to accept this treaty even though it has not been ratified.

“In contrast to international treaties, where a specific document is drafted, signed, and ratified, customary international law is an unwritten law, "comprised of the customs and usages among nations of the world." These "customs" can be drawn from three separate sources: the general practice of nations, decisions of international judges and courts, and the opinions of legal scholars. If any of these sources provide evidence of an international "custom," that custom can be declared to have the force of law.”[parentalrights.org]

America and Somalia are the only two countries who have not ratified. This fact puts us in a direct position to be under Customary International law. In a way we already are. The only way to get around Customary International Law is if Congress passes a statute that specifically rejects what that law states. If Congress does not pass such a statute or remains silent, America will be forced to accept this treaty no matter what the people think. Right now there is a group of people getting ready to put forth a Constitutional Amendment to protect the rights of parents. It will say that the parents not the Government know what is best for their children. This would effectively block Customary International law from taking place.

I know this is kind of long and you may have already heard about this, but I thought in case you have you might be interested in hearing about it. And in case you want to learn more, here is a website you can go to.

www.parentalrights.org

Jane