More

Former NSSF President Bob Delfay's unbridled endorsement of the World Forum on the Future of Sport Shooting Activities ("In The Field," "Gun News & Views") in the May issue cannot go unchallenged. Proposing that American gun-rights advocates confer with the United Nations is not only a waste of time and resources that are needed at home, but also lends such venues unearned legitimacy--as if the UN should have any stance on American liberty other than to shut up and learn.

Calling the WFSA a "progun watchdog" mischaracterizes the organization's stated positions and objectives. A watchdog should be expected to snarl and sound the call to arms, attacking when boundaries are breached--instead of being toothless and conciliatory, conferring with intruders and ceding to them "reasonable" trespass concessions.

We're told global restrictions are "blunted" by sitting at the table with agents of statism, and that the WFSA has demonstrated "proven effectiveness." We're told it protects the interests of "hunters and sports shooters," and "safeguard[s] firearms ownership for law-abiding firearms owners around the globe."

We've all heard "The Second Amendment isn't about duck hunting," and must flatly reject justifying inalienable rights using such arguments. In a letter to BATF critical of the Gun Control Act of 1968's "sporting purposes" requirement, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership revealed, "The Nazi Weapons Law (18 March 1938) forbade importation of weapons under substantially the same test: 'It is forbidden to manufacture. . .and to import: Firearms which fold-down, break-down, are collapsible, or are speedily dismantled--beyond the common limits of hunting and sporting activities.'"

Just so we're clear on where this came from.

As for "law-abiding firearms owners," we must not forget that the UN recognizes no inalienable rights. Its "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" reads like a Utopian's wish list until you get to Article 29:

"(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law. . . [and] (3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations."

In other words, the law is what the UN or any of its despotic member regimes say it is--as is your "law-abiding" status.

And, of course, there is no declaration that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The UN Panel of Governmental Experts on Small Arms report proclaims, "All States should determine in their national laws and regulations which arms are permitted for civilian possession and the conditions under which they can be used."

So if the answer is "none" and "never," your job is to obey.

World Forum President Dr. Carlo Peroni sounds like a sincere man. But his insistence that Americans can forestall repressive edicts by treating with socialists, thugs, monarchs and monsters, reveals a fundamental faith in governmental benevolence, and thus a fundamental misunderstanding of the Constitutionalist American psyche.

If America is out of step with, say, France, on citizen disarmament, moderate (read "treasonous") politicians will demand the same edicts here, he worries. Newsflash: They already do. And while plenty of arguments exist to validate the benefits of an armed citizenry, the ultimate trump card that renders the debate moot is the Second Amendment.

Still, if WFSA can help secure our rights, perhaps we should examine how they want to go about it by examining some of Dr. Peroni's past statements:

"The World Forum supports the efforts of the United Nations to stop the proliferation of illegal small arms and to fight against organized criminality. . . We seek not to oppose, but to assist."

Translation: If member states outlaw guns, we'll help criminalize people who defy their edicts.

"Copies of our reports, on firearms marking and the definition of a weapon of war, are available for your use."

Translation: We're devising a universal registration scheme and defining criteria to ban firearms that are nonsporting in design.

"[M]any of you are aware [of] the proposal the firearms manufacturers have made to create a system of self-regulation on the marking and tracing of firearms."

Translation: Listen to us and you'll know who is allowed to have a gun and exactly what they have.

"WFSA is anchored in the belief that the best regulations are those reached through open dialogue that respects cultural diversity and draws upon the best wisdom and analysis of those directly affected to achieve consensus on common objectives."

Translation: We view rights as mutable concepts, subject to being defined by whomever wields power over a piece of ground. All cultural viewpoints are morally relevant and deserving of respect.

What can the government of the Sudan teach the U.S. about freedom? What contributions to human liberty have been made by Cuba, North Korea, Syria or communist China? All cultures are not equal. Deferential political correctness on the part of WFSA notwithstanding, some are better.

The UN is, at its most clownish and benign, what Rush Limbaugh calls "a 'Star Wars' bar scene." At worst, it offers a chilling prescription for world tyranny. Rather than working with them, we should withdraw and conduct our sovereign affairs as prescribed by the Constitution--observing Washington's admonishment to "steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world."

The Bill of Rights is the benchmark of freedom. Its authors were the innovators, pioneers and leaders in mankind's quest for liberty. Heeding their wisdom made our nation a beacon to the rest of the world, "the shining city on the hill." Disregarding it, trying to emulate the rest of the world, is the downward path to misery. Our system requires consent of the governed, not consent of the masters. Our "progun" leaders, consorting with CEOs, politicians and diplomats, need to understand this, along with our resolve to defy standardizing rights endowed by our Creator to a global norm.