...how will we shoot the UN bureaucrats, who don't believe in an individual right of self defense?

Will Franklin has some thoughts:

The report goes out of its way to clear up any silly confusion about self-defense for States, including totalitarian regimes, as somehow also applying to lowly individual human beings:

"Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations applies to the States acting in self-defence against armed attacks against their State sovereignty. It does not apply to situations of self-defence for individual persons."

How ironic, that the preeminent human rights organization in the world, the UN, gives the full panoply of protections and immunities under international law to someone like Kim Jong-Il, whereas if you engage in self-defense you are 'violating the rights of another.' This goes to the heart of an entire belief system rampant in the world today that thinks that all violence is bad regardless of circumstances and context, and that the problems of violence are caused by weapons and not those that wield them.

This is no problem, never was, never will be. The only way the U.N. could enforce its gun rules on us would be for our Congress to give them that power. Right after the lynchings and murders of the OLD Congress, the NEW Congress will rescind the laws giving the U.N. that power.

Besides there are too many guns, rifles, too much camping equipment, too many cell phones, FRS, GMRS, and CB radios for us to ever be easily cowed by even our own military, much less the Peace Keeping blue helmets of the U.N.

> How ironic, that the preeminent human rights organization in the world, the UN, gives the full panoply
> of protections and immunities under international law to someone like Kim Jong-Il, whereas if
> you engage in self-defense you are 'violating the rights of another.'

Not really. Organizations tend to represent their members. The members o the UN are governments, not individuals, so it's not surprising that they're concerned with the "rights" of governments rather than individuals.

What Steve said.

Rand, you ought to revise the title to read:

"If They TRY TO Take Away Our Guns"

At least that is how it should read as far as I personally am concerned.

Fortunately, if they only try to take away our guns, we'll still be able to shoot them.

Rand,
they can of course try. Then again, there is that crucial part of completing the task of trying to disarm America, without dying from "lead poisoning" administered by p1ssed off American gun owners.

Was the UN ever a human rights organization? C'mon, three of the permanent members of the Security Council are Russia, China and France.

"Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations applies to the States acting in self-defence against armed attacks against their State sovereignty. It does not apply to situations of self-defence for individual persons."

Not even that applies to every country. For example,there's a small country at the eastern end of the Mediterranean Sea...