It’s been a rough couple of months for Fred Thompson when it comes to public policy and reality. After being away from politics for a few years, it stands to reason he’d be a little rusty, but he’s had time to clear the cobwebs, read some white papers, and listen to some policy briefings.
At last count, he’s flubbed questions on Iraqi WMD, the Jena Six, Terri Schiavo, Social Security, a national consumption tax, and drilling the Everglades. Now he’s taking on the United Nations and gun-control policy.
Last year, the United Nations Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights declared that international human rights law requires all nations to adopt strict gun control laws. These “minimum” provisions are much more restrictive than any of those on the books anywhere in the U.S. and would almost certainly violate the Second Amendment of our Constitution.
Besides concluding that all nations are obligated under international human rights law to control the small arms and light weapons to which its civilian population has access, the UN report remarkably denied the existence of any human right to self-defense, evidently overlooking the work of Hugo Grotius, the 17th century scholar credited as the founder of international law, who wrote, “It is to be observed that [the] Right of Self-Defence, arises directly and immediately from the Care of our own Preservation, which Nature recommends to every one. . . ,” and that this right is so primary, that it cannot be denied on the basis that it is not “expressly set forth.”
Thompson’s written statement on the issue went on to condemn “forced disarmament.” A fair number of conservative blogs picked up on this, and praised Thompson’s firm stand.
The statement read like a passionate declaration on an issue Thompson obviously takes seriously. It’s unfortunate, then, that the former senator managed to get all of his facts wrong.
Mark Goldberg goes point by point, detailing all of Thompson’s many, many errors. Thompson said the commission “declared” that all nations are “required” to adopt strict gun-control laws, but it doesn’t. Thompson said the U.N. panel “denied the existence of any human right to self-defense,” when the U.N. Charter actually does the opposite.
The point of this declaration, and similar UN work, is to impede the transfer of small arms to recovering conflict zones like Liberia or Sierra Leone, thus removing one of the drivers of conflict. It is not intended to violate American’s Second Amendment rights. Even if the UN wanted to — which it doesn’t — it could not amend the Bill of Rights to alter the Second Amendment.
Keep in mind, unlike most of Thompson’s other gaffes, this one was written down. He wasn’t just winging it on the stump; this was a specific policy position.
But just as importantly, Thompson appears to be making these mistakes as part of a shameless effort to pander to the far-right. Kevin Drum notes the conspiracy theories that underscore Thompson’s odd policy position.
National Rifle Association Vice President Wayne LaPierre insists the U.N. is concerned about more than illicit arms in African hot spots. He says the global body wants the firearms of American citizens — and much more.
“So, after we are disarmed, the U.N. wants us demobilized and reintegrated,” says the NRA’s executive vice president, Wayne LaPierre, according to the Economist magazine. “I can hear it now: ‘Step right this way for your reprogramming, sir. Once we confiscate your guns, we can demobilize your aggressive instincts and reintegrate you into civil society.’ No thanks.”
As Kevin concluded, “Fred is just telling social conservatives, ‘I’m one of you. And I’m not afraid to look like a complete loon if that’s what it takes to prove it.'”