UN Treaty Threatens Gun Owners

[GunsofLiberty55]

The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) is an international treaty currently supported by President Obama that is designed to create better child welfare standards through the promotion of children’s rights. Unfortunately for gun owners, the UN has declared that one of these inalienable children’s rights is the freedom to grow up in a community free from all guns .

Ratifying the CRC would immediately put it above all existing state and federal laws. This is not to say that the CRC would supersede the Second Amendment. No treaty has the ability to override the Constitution. But it would give the government the ability to declare that parents must either keep their homes free of firearms, or forfeit the right to raise their children.

The UN has stated that small arms cause profound physical and emotional injury to children, and the threat they pose violates the human rights of children. The UN agenda for children does not stop with direct disarming of individuals. Article 29 of the CRC imposes education standards, including “peace education” on nations that ratify the treaty.

If the U.S. Senate ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child we will have become willing parties to an international mandate that obligates us to disarm our citizens, keep guns from children, and indoctrinate American children to believe in world disarmament. These ramifications of the CRC are unknown to many Americans, but we must be informed if we want to preserve our foundational liberties.

For more information on how the CRC threatens gun rights read the full article here. (http://www.parentalrights.org/gunrights)

[TheNewGuy]

Absolutely absurd. That could never pass.



...Right?

I mean honestly, if they try to pass that, there's going to be a revolution, no doubt about it.

[GunsofLiberty55]

(10-06-2009 11:41 AM)TheNewGuy Wrote:  Absolutely absurd. That could never pass.



...Right?

I mean honestly, if they try to pass that, there's going to be a revolution, no doubt about it.

The problem is that the CRC is subtle. Its text never contains the words "guns are wrong." Like you said there would be revolution if the government agreed to that. But Congress can ratify the treaty and the international community can later point out that it means we have to protect kids from guns.

This has already happened with spanking. The UN waited until 169 nations had signed the CRC, then told them the treaty means you cannot spank children. It's still legal to discipline kids this way in 176 nations of the world, only now these nations are all violating the treaty.

If the UN does the same thing with guns, and decides Americans are violating the treaty, U.S. judges will have to side with the treaty that Congress signed. These internationalists will never pass the CRC if people know what's going on -- but they can be tricky. That is why it is vitally important we take action to stop this attempted infringement on our liberty.

[cgbudde]

Let see these people try and go into anyones house and say because you have guns, we have to take your children. This will be followed by plenty of lead.

[Mark2528]

(10-06-2009 03:36 PM)cgbudde Wrote:  Let see these people try and go into anyones house and say because you have guns, we have to take your children. This will be followed by plenty of lead.

Not to laugh, but I can see some people saying, "Take my children, but leave my damn guns alone."

On a personal note regarding this information; this is one cop that will never follow an order to disarm the American citizens, and I can only hope and pray that others who have taken an Oath to support and defend our Constitution will do the same.

[cgbudde]

(10-08-2009 12:26 AM)Mark2528 Wrote:  Not to laugh, but I can see some people saying, "Take my children, but leave my damn guns alone."

On a personal note regarding this information; this is one cop that will never follow an order to disarm the American citizens, and I can only hope and pray that others who have taken an Oath to support and defend our Constitution will do the same.

Yes I can see some people saying the same thing. I for one will not give them anything. Whats next, the government saying we don't like what you are teaching your kids, so we need to take them.

I thank you for commitment to support and defend our Constitution and not follow an illegal order blindly.

[spencer280]

ya let them try to take my kids or my guns , i bet they'll go out that door with a bullet in the head. them are two things you dont mess with in my house

[GunsofLiberty55]

It's important that we talk to our senators and national reps about supporting the Parental Rights amendment to ensure that parents can keep both their kids and their guns safe at home. 121 Congressional reps and 6 senators have already signed on to this effort, if PA reps come on board that should be enough to pass the amendment through the House.

[spencer280]

if it passes look like theres going to be alot of law inforcement shot at when trying to inforce this law

[Mark2528]

(10-14-2009 08:18 PM)spencer280 Wrote:  if it passes look like theres going to be alot of law inforcement shot at when trying to inforce this law

Well, you may be right. However; this LEO will be one protecting your rights, and mine for that matter. I will not violate yours or anyone’s 2nd Amendment Rights by enforcing a law based on some UN Treaty that clearly violates our Constitution. As far as I’m concerned our Constitution is what makes this Country what it is, and nothing trumps it, NOTHING!!

[howard stiffy]

As far as I’m concerned our Constitution is what makes this Country what it is, and nothing trumps it, NOTHING!!

Thank you!

[mrjam2jab]

(10-15-2009 12:44 AM)Mark2528 Wrote:  

(10-14-2009 08:18 PM)spencer280 Wrote:  if it passes look like theres going to be alot of law inforcement shot at when trying to inforce this law

Well, you may be right. However; this LEO will be one protecting your rights, and mine for that matter. I will not violate yours or anyone’s 2nd Amendment Rights by enforcing a law based on some UN Treaty that clearly violates our Constitution. As far as I’m concerned our Constitution is what makes this Country what it is, and nothing trumps it, NOTHING!!

And you didn't swear to uphold a UN Treaty...

[Mark2528]

(10-15-2009 11:16 AM)mrjam2jab Wrote:  

(10-15-2009 12:44 AM)Mark2528 Wrote:  

(10-14-2009 08:18 PM)spencer280 Wrote:  if it passes look like theres going to be alot of law inforcement shot at when trying to inforce this law

Well, you may be right. However; this LEO will be one protecting your rights, and mine for that matter. I will not violate yours or anyone’s 2nd Amendment Rights by enforcing a law based on some UN Treaty that clearly violates our Constitution. As far as I’m concerned our Constitution is what makes this Country what it is, and nothing trumps it, NOTHING!!

And you didn't swear to uphold a UN Treaty...

Let's see,
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of Police Officer on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

Nope, nothing about any UN Treaty mentioned here.

When the blue helmets come-a-marchin', they better bring backup!!

[YnaMarie16]

SPAM removed ~Staff

[jimoconnell]

I found a copy of the text of the entire CRC, (Linked from http://www.unicef.org/crc/) at the following address:

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/crc.htm

Reading through the actual text of the treaty, I cannot find anything that addresses the ownership of guns as it's being presented here. The linked sites quote UN publications and brochures, but the actual treaty does not address the ownership of firearms. If it's not directly addressed in the treaty, it's irrelevant how the UN feels about gun ownership—the signing countries need only pay attention to what's actually written in the treaty.

That said, even if the treaty were to explicitly say that gun ownership is illegal and that all children were to be inducted into camps for forced “peace education”, we, as Americans, have our constitution. Time and again, the constitution has been proven to be the supreme law of the land and treaties that conflict with the constitution are void:

“The treaty is ... a law made by the proper authority, and the courts of justice have no right to annul or disregard any of its provisions, unless they violate the Constitution of the United States.” Doe v. Braden, 57 U.S. (16 How.) 635, 656 (1853). “It need hardly be said that a treaty cannot change the Constitution or be held valid if it be in violation of that instrument.” The Cherokee Tobacco, 78 U.S. (11 Wall.), 616, 620 (1871).

While I'm a new member on these forums, let me assure you that I didn't come here to address this issue and have no hidden agenda. I saw the post and was shocked by what it alleged, so I decided to track down the original documents to take a look at them for myself.

The original poster stated:
"Article 29 of the CRC imposes education standards, including “peace education” on nations that ratify the treaty."

Whoa. When I read that, I had visions of communist "re-education centers" and gulags, where our children will sit, glassy-eyed, reciting pacifist doctrine. So I took a look at the text of article 29:

1. States Parties agree that the education of the child shall be directed to:
(d) The preparation of the child for responsible life in a free society, in the spirit of understanding, peace, tolerance, equality of sexes, and friendship among all peoples, ethnic, national and religious groups and persons of indigenous origin;

Hardly the same spirit of how it's presented in the original post.

The thing is, paragraph D of the same article also says:
"© The development of respect for the child's parents, his or her own cultural identity, language and values, for the national values of the country in which the child is living…"

Who could argue that gun ownership, being not only one of our inalienable rights as Americans, isn't part of our cultural identity, our values and part of the national values of our country?

There's nothing here that's going to keep me up at night with worry.