Previous Post
Next Post

United Nations Death Star - I sense a disturbance in the force...

Members of the TTAG Armed Intelligentsia know we’ve been on this UN Thang for a long time. Long enough to get completely bored with the subject. Which is when bureaucrats are at their most dangerous, by the way – when they’ve lulled you into a stupor. Not sure if that’s the case here, but Wayne LaPierre sure seems to think so. And so the Exec. VP of the National Rifle Association made the trek to NYC and the less-than-hallowed halls of the U.N. to testify(?) in front of a committee regarding the U.N. Small Arms Trade Treaty. As a public service to our readers, we’re reprinting the text of Big Wayne’s address below . . .

Institute for Legislative Action
11250 Waples Mill Road

United Nations Arms Trade Treaty
Preparatory Committee – 3d Session
New York, July 11-15, 2011
Statement of the National Rifle Association of America

Mr. Chairman, thank you for this brief opportunity to address the committee. I am Wayne LaPierre and for 20 years now, I have served as Executive Vice President of the National Rifle Association of America.

The NRA was founded in 1871, and ever since has staunchly defended the rights of its 4 million members, America’s 80 million law-abiding gun owners, and freedom-loving Americans throughout our country, In 1996, the NRA was recognized as an NGO of the United Nations and, ever since then, has defended the constitutional freedom of Americans in this arena. The
NRA is the largest and most active firearms rights organization in the world and, although some members of this committee may not like what I have to say, I am proud to defend the tens of millions of lawful people NRA represents.

This present effort for an Arms Trade Treaty, or ATT, is now in its fifth year. We have closely monitored this process with increasing concern. We’ve reviewed the statements of the countries participating in these meetings. We’ve listened to other NGOs and read their numerous proposals and reports, as we ll as carefully examined the papers you have produced.

We’ve watched, and read…listened and monitored. Now, we must speak out.

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms in defense of self, family and country is ultimately self-evident and is part of the Bill of Rights to the United States Constitution. Reduced to its core, it is about fundamental individual freedom, human worth, and self-destiny.

We reject the notion that American gun owners must accept any lesser amount of freedom in order to be accepted among the international community. Our Founding Fathers long ago rejected that notion and forged our great nation on the principle of freedom for the individual citizen – not for the government.

Mr. Chairman, those working on this treaty have asked us to trust them…but they’ve proven to be unworthy of that trust.

We are told “Trust us; an ATT will not ban possession of any civilian firearms.” Yet, the proposals and statements presented to date have argued exactly the opposite, and – perhaps most importantly – proposals to ban civilian firearms ownership have not been rejected.

We are told “Trust us; an ATT will not interfere with state domestic regulation of firearms.” Yet, there are constant calls for exactly such measures.

We are told “Trust us; an ATT will only affect the illegal trade in firearms.” But then we’re told that in order to control the illegal trade, all states must control the legal firearms trade.

We are told, “Trust us; an ATT will not require registration of civilian firearms.” Yet, there are numerous calls for record-keeping, and firearms tracking from production to eventual destruction. That’s nothing more than gun registration by a different name.

We are told, “Trust us; an ATT will not create a new international bureaucracy.” Well, that’s exactly what is now being proposed ~ with a tongue-in-cheek assurance that it will just be a SMALL bureaucracy.

We are told, “Trust us; an ATT will not interfere w i th the l awful international commerce in civilian firearms.” But a manufacturer of civilian shotguns would have to comply with the same regulatory process as a manufacturer of military attack helicopters.

We are told, “Trust us; an ATT will not interfere with a hunter or sport shooter travelling internationally with firearms.” However, he would have to get a so-called “transit permit” merely to change airports for a connecting flight.

Mr. Chairman, our list of objections extends far beyond the proposals I just mentioned. Unfortunately, my limited time today prevents me from providing greater detail on each of our objections. I can assure you, however, that each is based on American law, as well as the fundamental rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution.

It is regrettable that proposals affecting civilian firearms ownership are woven throughout the proposed ATT. That being the case, however, there is only one solution to this problem: the complete removal of civilian firearms from the scope of any ATT. I will repeat that point as it is critical and not subject to negotiation – civilian firearms must not be part of any ATT. On this there can be no compromise, as American gun owners will never surrender their Second Amendment freedom.

It is also regrettable to find such intense focus on record-keeping, oversight, inspections, supervision, tracking, tracing, surveillance, marking, documentation, verification, paper trails and data banks, new global agencies and data centers. Nowhere do we find a thought about respecting anyone’s right of self-defense, privacy, property, due process, or observing personal freedoms of any kind.

Mr. Chairman, I’d be remiss if I didn’t also discuss the politics of an ATT. For the United States to be a party to an ATT, it must be ratified by a two-thirds vote of the U.S. Senate. Some do not realize that under the U.S. Constitution, the ultimate treaty power is not the President’s power to negotiate and sign treaties; it is the Senate’s power to approve them.

To that end, it’s important for the Preparatory Committee to understand that the proposed ATT is already strongly opposed in the Senate – the very body that must approve it by a two-thirds majority. There is a letter addressed to President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton that is currently being circulated for the signatures of Senators who oppose the ATT. Once complete, this letter will demonstrate that the proposed ATT will not pass the U.S. Senate.

So there is extremely strong resistance to the A TT in the United States, even before the treaty is tabled. We are not aware of any precedent for this – rejecting a proposed treaty before it’s even submitted for consideration – but it speaks to the level of opposition. The proposed ATT has become more than just controversial, as the Internet is awash with articles and messages calling for its rejection. And those messages are all based on the same objection – infringement on the constitutional freedom of American gun owners.

The cornerstone of our freedom is the Second Amendment. Neither the United Nations, nor any other foreign influence, has the authority to meddle with the freedoms guaranteed by our Bill of Rights, endowed by our Creator, and due to all humankind.

Therefore, the NRA will fight with all of its strength to oppose any ATT that includes civilian firearms within its scope.

Thank you.

Wayne LaPierre

For media inquires please contact Andrew Arulanandam at 703-267-3820. For all other inquires please contact Thomas Mason at 503-998-0555.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. We should dismantle the useless UN and their silly blue helmet wearing cowards. These fools never did anything to help anyone but a few corrupt politicans who rob us blind. We can then knock down their headquarters of corruption and build a nice family park.

    • Joe, I don’t think it’s up to the US to dismantle the UN… but we sure should stop sending them any money. Sure would make more of a difference in the US budget than changing the depreciation time of corp jets from 5 years back to 7 years.

    • Yes, in 2009, the US gave just under 600 million dollars to the UN. It is projected that the change in depreciation time would bring in about 300 million dollars a year.

      I know I am a “dumb ass” (dumb-ass needs a hyphen, by the way), “lowlife COMMIE,” according to Joe in a different post, but I prefer spending the money on the UN. I know there are a lot of anti-American asses in the organization, but I love that some 2 million kids in Uganda will be immunized this year because of the UN.

    • I’ve a better idea. Get some hot-shot architect to design a “floating city” – essentially a floating platform a couple of city blocks square. Build a UN HQ, dormatory, and helipad on it. Put the UN delegates on it, and shove it out to sea. Let it truly be a “one nation” thing, as it drifts along, across the oceans. Build it big enough, and it will weather the inevitable storms. This will accomplish several things:

      1. We can reclaim that property and put it to good use.
      2. NYC will save millions on traffic citations, unpaid parking tickets, etc.
      3. Serving as a U.N. delegate will no longer be a plum job – it will bloody well be punishment. The delegates will have to actually accomplish something to leave and be replaced. Tough love, I know, but a serious incentive.
      4. We can divert the money wasted on the U.N. to private charities (the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation springs to mind) that actually accomplish something in third world countries.
      5. We can then consign them to the obscurity they so richly deserve.
      6. Due to the increased costs/hardships, few nations will find it attractive to staff offices full-time. Entertainment will be limited to satellite TV and shortwave radios. Everyone will eat in the cafeteria. Think of the equality!
      7. When someone misbehaves (I’m thinking about YOU Iran and N. Korea) they get “voted off the island.” For real. Rubber life raft, some K-rations, and a homing device.
      8. They might actually solve the Somali pirate thing, if it’s their ship that’s being threatened with a hijacking.

      I think that about sums it up.

    • My uncle spent most of military career wearing a blue helmet and getting shot at by Greeks, Turks, Arabs, Israelis and Africans. He risked his life to bring a measure of peace and law (no matter how small) to areas of the world where the mighty US would do nothing to protect the innocent. The blue helmets went where they could and did what they were able when asked in some of the most violent, hellish shit-holes in the world. The UN Peacekeepers are not cowards. Hundreds of them are killed, mutilated or suffer from all the other war related traumas soldiers everywhere risk. They stand in harm’s way trying to stop atrocities like child soldiers, mass rape, genocide. They kept peace in places where shootings, executions and bombings happened daily. And they do it because the are asked to by those who need their help, not to conquer territory or resources or expand any one country’s political ambitions.

      I don’t recall which corrupt politicians that the UN Peacekeepers aided robbed US citizens blind (other than the ones you yourselves created and the UN most certainly didn’t support that). US contribution to the UN is nothing but a rain-drop in the ocean. Your government has spent thousands of times more propping up your robber baron bankers and car manufacturers. How much better could the UN and the world be if even 10% of that could have been spent feeding the starving, building schools and paying for soldiers to help keep the peace? Perhaps there wouldn’t be as much meaningless bloodshed and crushing poverty as there is in the world.

      Your country and your allies have consistently ignored international law supported by the UN when it went against US interests and then hypocritically demand the UN follow your war mongering or disingenuously claim to operate under its umbrella when you require a modicum of morality for your imperialistic efforts.

      And you, specifically you, call the Blue Helmets cowards.

      The United Nations may not be perfect, but they do far greater good for the world that you will ever admit. There are people, entire races of people who are alive today because the Blue Helmets came. Cyprus is almost re-united because the Blue Helmets came. The Golan Heights were settled peacefully because the Blue Helmets came.

      I am done with this board. It is clear that some of the “armed intellectuals” that post here are quite incapable of thinking beyond their tiny, comfortable box and ignorantly insulting anyone they don’t agree with. Comments like Joe Matafome’s show just how un-intellectual you lot can be.

      • Dear Mouldy:

        Sorry we’ve ruffled your feathers (tentacles?). But this site offers a free exchange of ideas. I’m no fan of the U.N., but I would disagree with Joe’s characterization of U.N. soldiers/peacekeepers as “cowards” for the same reason I disagree with you calling everyone here on TTAG an “un-intellectual lot.” Overly-broad characterizations go overboard. Understand, I’m no fan of the U.N. But there are occasions that they do good. Personally, I think the opportunity costs are too great (in other words the evil they do more than outweighs the good), but that’s my opinion. And while I would never call anybody that puts their life on the line as a member of a military force a “coward,” I would not be so generous with my reserve for the U.N. higher-ups who dictate U.N. policy. THOSE guys, I have a problem with. And I’d seriously like to see the entire General Assembly shipped off to some place without phone, fax, Internet, Pony Express, courier, carrier pigeon, or smoke signals. The less I hear from or about those guys, the better.

        My problem with the U.N. stems from their reluctance to actually take a stand on just about anything until it’s too late. How many resolutions did they issue about Saddam Hussein and Iraq’s warmongering? Have they done anything substantive on Darfur? What about Bosnia?

        Frankly, “peacekeeper” (to me, anyway) is just a euphemism for “thankless job/easy target.” Our military is the best in the world. They excel at going in and taking down targets. But they are NOT designed to be “peacekeepers.” In many ways, I feel as though we won the war in Iraq, but came very close to losing the peace for that very reason. They are vastly different missions, waging war and managing peace.

        As to your comments our our support/actions regarding the U.N., I think it might be worthwhile for you to do some fact-checking before you start slamming the USA. We founded the bloody place, and our “contributions” make up a majority of their budget. We are the single-largest contributor to the U.N. And I, for one, would be thrilled if we simply pulled out of it completely, to see just how long it could stand without our help and support. Frankly, I’m a bit puzzled by your comments that we try to manipulate the U.N. to do our bidding. Name me a country that DOESN’T try to do that. From the days of Nikita Kruschev, the U.N.’s General Assembly has always been a source of political theatre. And you can’t honestly tell me that all the current member countries of the U.N. Human Rights Commission know anything about human rights.

        So while I’m hoping you’re feathers will un-ruffle, that’s up to you. If you want to disagree with someone here on TTAG, that’s your prerogative. As long as you keep it civil, we welcome your input, even when you disagree with something you read here. If you want to leave, that’s your right, too.

      • My father & uncle served on many UN missions in the middle east & mediterranean (one was an NCO & the other was an officer). Both of them have their share of stories about being shot at (and not returning fire), being held at gun point, getting drunk & high, sleeping in fields that were still mined, etc. Both of them say that nothing has changed where they were, that their missions weren’t realistically meant to accomplish anything, it was just feel good stuff from politicians. I don’t think UN soldiers are cowards I think their reasons for being in a region are cowardly.

        My dad was deployed to the Golan Heights once & at the time the base there was populated mostly by Finns & Russians (2 of the 3 heaviest drinkers in Europe). The base had a bar with an unlimited supply of alcohol being continually brought in. The average Finn consumed a 40oz of vodka to himself every day. When their deployment was up & the Finns went home they were put into rehab. My dad would trade Marlboro’s to the local bedouin for hash, he’d get stoned & read Mad magazine while enjoying a black coffee. Every once in a while an officer would spot a farmer or sheep herder crossing the border & my dad would have to get on his teletype & report that in. That sums up my dads deployment to the Golan Heights.

        I wouldn’t say they Golan Heights were settled peacefully, if that had been the case the UN would have left. Not long ago UN officers at the same base my dad was at, still doing the same thing my dad was doing in the 70’s, were killed by Israeli artillery.

      • You should be proud of your uncle because he sounds like a good man who tried to help, but I still believe that the UN are a bunch of useless fools. I went a little overboard calling them cowards because there are plenty of good people there, but I still hate the UN and they need to go.

    • Yes sir!

      I’m looking forward to donating more this year. I have told my son that as soon as he passes the NRA pistol qualification at our local range, I am buying him a life membership.

      Also, I think NRA members need to encourage others to join. I took a young man (24) to the range this week as he wanted to learn more about handguns. He and his family are hunters and he is mostly familiar with rifles and shotguns. I found that none of them were NRA members. I am now encouraging all of them to join up.

  2. I told a friend of mine he couldn’t hunt my property until he joined NRA. That lit a firre under him and he went on to become one of the top 10 NRA recruiters in the country.

  3. The amount of information in this letter that is downright fictitious is simply astounding. There is a provision in the Principles section of an ATT that reads explicitly that all intra-national (read “domestic”) arms transfers and conventions for weapons ownership are to retain the protections extended by the ratifying States’ respective Constitutions. This treaty attempts to create a common and equitable standard for INTERNATIONAL transfer of conventional arms, small arms and light weapons, ammunition and munitions. This treaty is to insure that organisations like FARC and al’Qaeda, as well as States like Yemen or Syria won’t receive arms shipments that have as their end-use the systematic extermination of civilians and non-combatants. No one is taking your guns away, or aims to reform the manner by which you acquire them. Fear not, America.

    • George you need to go to the UN website and in the video on their own website the Finnish Foreign Affairs Minister clearly says that the long term goal of the UN is total disarmament and that this treaty is the first step. So yes that is what they are trying to do. UN website:

  4. hey george, the bigger lie you tell, the more people believe it, who said that, well it was HITLER, wwll, 50 million people dead, mau, china, killed millions of his own people, same with stalin, because they had no guns to protect them selfs, you believe what the goverment lies to you about most ever thing, you must be a population control freek, i think i will keep mine to go hunting just in case, i don’t need your proaganda

  5. Well said john wynne, I will not surrender nor bow down to a foreign body. I am a United States Military Veteran and I will defend my Constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic. The UN has no say so in my right to keep and bear arms period.

  6. I understand and approve of restricting the traffic of illegal guns. More accurately, I am opposed to anyone using a gun for an illegal purpose.

    I have my concealed carry license and I follow the gun laws in my state and I will defend that right.

    Heck, if everyone followed the laws then I wouldn’t have a need to carry!

  7. I Think It’s High Time To Try Any Politicians For TREASON Who Don’t Follow Their Oath Of Office To Uphold The U.S. Constitution That Was Sworn To By Them…..

  8. Why is the UN making laws for America or any other Country? Have we given up our sovereignty as a Nation to become a nation of the world with leaders who could care less about the USA? Do not let this Treaty fool you! In the name of good the UN has already destroyed American Values. Why should we continue to support a world government that wants to control all people’s of the world. The USA contributed 2x as much as the next nation to this group of bureaucratic criminals.

  9. its not gonna be easy, be a man ! when they come for your freedom to keep and bear arms remember all that died to give you your freedoms. also try to imagine being a kings subject and him telling you what every aspect of your life will involve once you are disarmed.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here