U.N. Agreement Should Have All Gun Owners Up In Arms

[Guest]

by Larry Bell

Forbes Magazine

It may not come as surprising news to many of you that the United Nations doesn’t approve of our Second Amendment. Not one bit. And they very much hope to do something about it with help from some powerful American friends. Under the guise of a proposed global “Small Arms Treaty” premised to fight “terrorism”, “insurgency” and “international crime syndicates” you can be quite certain that an even more insidious threat is being targeted – our Constitutional right for law-abiding citizens to own and bear arms.

What, exactly, does the intended agreement entail?

While the terms have yet to be made public, if passed by the U.N. and ratified by our Senate, it will almost certainly force the U.S. to:

1.Enact tougher licensing requirements, creating additional bureaucratic red tape for legal firearms ownership.

2.Confiscate and destroy all “unauthorized” civilian firearms (exempting those owned by our government of course).

3.Ban the trade, sale and private ownership of all semi-automatic weapons (any that have magazines even though they still operate in the same one trigger pull – one single “bang” manner as revolvers, a simple fact the ant-gun media never seem to grasp).

4.Create an international gun registry, clearly setting the stage for full-scale gun confiscation.

5.In short, overriding our national sovereignty, and in the process, providing license for the federal government to assert preemptive powers over state regulatory powers guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment in addition to our Second Amendment rights.

Have no doubt that this plan is very real, with strong Obama administration support. In January 2010 the U.S. joined 152 other countries in endorsing a U.N. Arms Treaty Resolution that will establish a 2012 conference to draft a blueprint for enactment. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has pledged to push for Senate ratification.

Former U.N. ambassador John Bolton has cautioned gun owners to take this initiative seriously, stating that the U.N. “is trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about international arms trade between nation states, but there is no doubt that the real agenda here is domestic firearms control.”

Although professing to support the Second Amendment during her presidential election bid, Hillary Clinton is not generally known as a gun rights enthusiast. She has been a long-time activist for federal firearms licensing and registration, and a vigorous opponent of state Right-to-Carry laws. As a New York senator she ranked among the National Rifle Association’s worst “F”-rated gun banners who voted to support the sort of gunpoint disarmament that marked New Orleans’ rogue police actions against law-abiding gun owners in the anarchistic aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

President Obama’s record on citizen gun rights doesn’t reflect much advocacy either. Consider for example his appointment of anti-gun rights former Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels as an alternate U.S. representative to the U.N., and his choice of Andrew Traver who has worked to terminate civilian ownership of so-called “assault rifles” (another prejudicially meaningless gun term) to head the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

Then, in a move unprecedented in American history, the Obama administration quietly banned the re-importation and sale of 850,000 collectable antique U.S.-manufactured M1 Garand and Carbine rifles that were left in South Korea following the Korean War. Developed in the 1930s, the venerable M1 Garand carried the U.S. through World War II, seeing action in every major battle.

As an Illinois state senator, Barack Obama was an aggressive advocate for expanding gun control laws, and even voted against legislation giving gun owners an affirmative defense when they use firearms to defend themselves and their families against home invaders and burglars. He also served on a 10-member board of directors of the radically activist anti-gun Joyce Foundation in Chicago during a period between 1998-2001when it contributed $18,326,183 in grants to anti-Second Amendment organizations.

If someone breaks into your home when you are there, which would you prefer to have close at hand: 1) a telephone to call 911, or 2) a loaded gun of respectable caliber? That’s a pretty easy question for me to answer. I am a long-time NRA member, concealed firearms license holder and a regular weekly recreational pistol shooter. And while I don’t ordinarily care to target anything that has a mother, will reluctantly make an exception should an urgent provocation arise. I also happen to enjoy the company of friends who hunt, as well as those, like myself, who share an abiding interest in American history and the firearms that influenced it.

There are many like me, and fewer of them would be alive today were it not for exercise of their gun rights. In fact law-abiding citizens in America used guns in self-defense 2.5 million times during 1993 (about 6,850 times per day), and actually shot and killed 2 1/2 times as many criminals as police did (1,527 to 606). Those civilian self-defense shootings resulted in less than 1/5th as many incidents as police where an innocent person was mistakenly identified as a criminal (2% versus 11%).

Just how effectively have gun bans worked to make citizens safer in other countries? Take the number of home break-ins while residents are present as an indication. In Canada and Britain, both with tough gun-control laws, nearly half of all burglaries occur when residents are present. But in the U.S. where many households are armed, only about 13% happen when someone is home.

Recognizing clear statistical benefit evidence, 41 states now allow competent, law-abiding adults to carry permitted or permit-exempt concealed handguns. As a result, crime rates in those states have typically fallen at least 10% in the year following enactment.

So the majority in our Senate is smart enough to realize that the U.N.’s gun-grab agenda is unconstitutional, politically suicidal for those who support it, and down-right idiotic—right? Let’s hope so, but not entirely count on it. While a few loyal Obama Democrats are truly “pro-gun”, many are loathe to vote against treaties that carry the president’s international prestige, causing him embarrassment.

Also, don’t forget that Senate confirmation of anti-gun Obama nominee Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Many within the few who voted against her did so only because of massive grassroots pressure from constituents who take their Constitutional protections very seriously.

Now, more than ever, it’s imperative to stick by our guns in demanding that all Constitutional rights be preserved. If not, we will surely lose both.

http://blogs.forbes.com/larrybell/2011/06/07/u-n-agreement-should-have-all-gun-owners-up-in-arms/

[Textus Receptus]

Here is the question: As an Adventist, (excuse my presumption), are you willing to use those arms in defense of protecting the constitutional right of Freedom of Religion when they impose the National Sunday Law and force the Mark of the Beast?

Kinda doesn't fit with the Tennats of Adventism or Adventist eschtology does it?

Food for thought.

[BobRyan]

If we ignore the "SDA" POV on this for a moment and just look at the constitution of the United States - then clearly these guys are trying to find a way to undermine the US constition in ways that benefit a totalitarian state. Given that the UN has a number of such states - it is no wonder there might be a bevy of them signing up to get the guns out of the hands of their citizens.

But here is a trend I am noticing in the US - if a home is known to have a registered fire arm, and the police are there to search the home, or break in, or whatever... they first announce that the people inside are armed and dangerous and then they go in ready for guns blazing. Not because anybody inside has a gun in their hand - but just because someone in the home has registered one.

How "odd" that citizens are being endangered by the increasingly socialist and totalitarian state simply for HAVING a firearm as IF that is "good second ammendment" policy by our court system.

Oh well - we did say that sin would increase and that mankind would become more wicked over time. So as SDAs all this is not too surprising. And as someone pointed out - we are not about to shoot at people in defense of our right to keep the 4th commandment so the fire arms don't really do us much good in that case anyway.

in Christ,

Bob

[Guest]

Here is the question: As an Adventist, (excuse my presumption), are you willing to use those arms in defense of protecting the constitutional right of Freedom of Religion when they impose the National Sunday Law and force the Mark of the Beast?

Of course not! But that doesn't mean that I want the gov't to take my rights away. We are not even at that point in time yet. Nobody is enforcing sunday worship now. How absurd.

I was born with the right to own a firearm. God gave me that right, as stated in our constitution. Do you think I should welcome the govt's desire to take that right away?

This has nothing to do with the mark of the beast.

[Guest]

Not necessarily my line of thinking, but definately more food for thought. The point that he makes that I like, is that he doesn't NEED a document for a God given right.

[nuff sed]

Hmm....I just turned down an opportunity to purchase an AK-47. Maybe I'll be sorry...............Nuff Sed

[Guest]

Best designed assault rifle ever made. Fun to shoot too. I haven't shot mine in a couple years though.

[John317]

Here is the question: As an Adventist, (excuse my presumption), are you willing to use those arms in defense of protecting the constitutional right of Freedom of Religion when they impose the National Sunday Law and force the Mark of the Beast?

Kinda doesn't fit with the Tennats of Adventism or Adventist eschtology does it?

Food for thought.

I think it is obvious that God's plan is not for Seventh-day Adventists to use guns in order to protect our religious freedom. That would be the wrong approach. (The example of David Koresh shows how important it is to be clear on this point.)

However, I do see a difference between that and using weapons against a home-invader who is out to do harm to one's family. If someone came in to steal my computer, I wouldn't kill him over it, but I believe God expects me to do everything I need to in order to prevent a man from breaking in and murdering my family.

While I personally wouldn't take up arms for the purpose of fighting against even an unjust government (such as our forefathers did against England), I don't condemn others if they choose to do so. I believe that some wars are just.

[Guest]

That's right John.

[John317]

(quoting):

....As an Illinois state senator, Barack Obama was an aggressive advocate for expanding gun control laws, and even voted against legislation giving gun owners an affirmative defense when they use firearms to defend themselves and their families against home invaders and burglars. He also served on a 10-member board of directors of the radically activist anti-gun Joyce Foundation in Chicago during a period between 1998-2001when it contributed $18,326,183 in grants to anti-Second Amendment organizations.

Americans need to be aware of this and take it into consideration when they vote in 2012. I didn't realize this about Obama, but I am not in the least surprised.

Thanks for posting this information.

[John317]

...

Have no doubt that this plan is very real, with strong Obama administration support. In January 2010 the U.S. joined 152 other countries in endorsing a U.N. Arms Treaty Resolution that will establish a 2012 conference to draft a blueprint for enactment. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has pledged to push for Senate ratification.

Former U.N. ambassador John Bolton has cautioned gun owners to take this initiative seriously, stating that the U.N. is trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about international arms trade between nation states, but there is no doubt that the real agenda here is domestic firearms control.

No other American president would have taken the position that Obama has taken on this issue. I agree with John Bolton. I see an endorsement of the U.N. Arms Treaty Resolution as a betrayal of America and as a clear attack on the U.S. Constitution.

[Guest]

That's exactly what it is.