UN Determined to Destroy America’s Second Amendment

The United Nations declared the week of May 10-16 to be the “Global Week of Action against Gun Violence.”

According to the UN, guns destroy personal freedom:

Governments have a responsibility to ensure public safety, and a vested interest in providing human security and an environment conducive to development to their citizens. However, the excessive accumulation and universal availability of small arms negatively impact on security, human rights and social and economic development in many parts of the world.

The UN seeks a “comprehensive, legally binding instrument establishing common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms.”

Last October, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declared the Obama administration’s support for the United Nations plan to regulate “convention arms transfers.” Brady-endorsed Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher (D, CA-10) was chosen as under secretary for arms control and international security in the State Department.

Fortunately, sufficient data exists among UN non-governmental organizations to determine if civilian firearms ownership will “negatively impact on security, human rights and social and economic development.”

The Graduate Institute of International Studies in Geneva, Switzerland, publishes an annual report entitled "Small Arms Survey." This organization doesn’t support civilian firearms ownership. Its mission page illustrates its agreement with the UN’s goals:

The proliferation of small arms and light weapons represents a grave threat to human security. The unchecked spread of these weapons has exacerbated inter- and intra-state conflicts, contributed to human rights violations, undermined political and economic development, destabilized communities, and devastated the lives of millions of people.

The 2003-2005 and 2007 editions of "Small Arms Survey" contain estimates of civilian firearms ownership rates in 59 surveyed countries.

Freedom House, founded in 1941 by Eleanor Roosevelt and others “concerned with the mounting threats to peace and democracy,” is a leading international advocate for personal liberty. Their annual report, "Freedom in the World," rates each country’s level of individual political rights and civil liberties, defined as follows:

Political rights enable people to participate freely in the political process, including the right to vote freely for distinct alternatives in legitimate elections, compete for public office, join political parties and organizations, and elect representatives who have a decisive impact on public policies and are accountable to the electorate. Civil liberties allow for the freedoms of expression and belief, associational and organizational rights, rule of law, and personal autonomy without interference from the state.

Freedom House rates countries on a scale of 1 to 7 for each category, with 1 equating with the most rights. Countries are “Free” if they attain an average score of 1 to 2.5 (for both political and civil rights). Countries averaging between 2.5 and 5 are “Partly Free;” countries over 5 are “Not Free.”

The chart below collates countries’ average political and civil rights ratings with their level of civilian firearms ownership. The overall trend line shows the general correlation between firearms ownership and freedom. As civilian firearms ownership increases, freedom ratings decrease: more guns, more political and civil rights.

According to UN rhetoric, as firearms ownership increases, people should be less free: the trend line should slope up as it travels from left to right.