5.31.2K1 - 0.46
Niyo!
(Excerpted from Thirteenth Magazine)
Regarding the article Ragabash posted on UN Gun Control -
I've been hearing about this for some time, and am quite concerned. To bring it down to basics - The United Nations is in favor of complete disarmament of civilians worldwide. The UN already sponsors firearm confiscation and destruction programs around the world, and is on record as believing that an unarmed populace is "safe". I've posted the truth. I've posted the numbers. Stripping innocent, law abiding citizens of their God-given (according to the Constitution) right to bear arms is not going to make them safe - it is going to make them prey. For criminals, terrorists, and governments alike.
The Constitution of the United States makes a very fine distinction, that in the language of the day carried great weight.
"The right of the people to bear arms...shall not be infringed."
The Constitution does not give the right to bear arms, "The people have a right to bear arms...", it refers to a pre-existing right that is God-given to all mankind - not just Americans. Let's look at what Thomas Jefferson had to say. "No man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
What could be more tyrannical than said government attempting to overthrow your natural, God-given right in its own interests of self-preservation?
Noah Webster, father of the dictionary, had this to say.
"The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
George Washington, father of the nation."Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence."
Two VERY well-regarded Americans and their views on the subject. However, Mr. Webster, I regret to inform you that your statement is no longer true - the whole body of the people are NOT armed, and the government of this country IS enforcing unjust laws by the sword.
As to the other, not-so-famous, second part of the Second Amendment, many people have tried to construe it as meaning that only the militia is allowed to carry firearms, and therefore only the military, police, and National Guard should have that right that shall not be infringed. In fact, there was a court case I referenced some time back in which a lawyer informed a Federal judge that under the second amendment, American citizens did not have the right to carry firearms! Why not ask the people who WROTE the constitution just what they meant by that statement? Again, time once was that the English language was a very refined tool with a large amount of meaning. The Second Amendment, giving Americans the right to carry firearms and assemble as a Militia, most specifically did not refer to any Federal organization - quoth George Mason, who settled the issue centuries ago:
"Who are the militia? They consist of the whole people, except a few public officers."
Why, it seems the very "public officers" that are trying to take away your rights to own firearms...are the ones exempted from the right itself!
Now, as to the United Nations, and their terminal silliness. Here's a fine quote for you - from the UN video, "Armed to the teeth":
"A gun is born...a killer is on the loose.... A killer that respects no borders, no governments, no authorities. It travels throughout the world and brings tragedy wherever it goes." "Small arms are not fussy about the company they keep...they're constantly traveling from conflict to conflict and they can murder indiscriminately."
A machined piece of metal does not travel by itself. It does not bring tragedy wherever it goes. It cannot respect government or authority because it is an object. It cannot MURDER anyone indiscriminately because it is an object. Inanimate. Unmoving. Until a HUMAN BEING picks it up.
The United Nations is not just looking for illegal, contraband weapons that find their way to various conflicts and such - there are already laws and means against that, and they are being enforced, to whatever effect or lack thereof they have. No, the anti-gun movement believes that since nearly all firearms that are used illegally start out as legally-owned, we must cut it off at the source. And disarm the law abiding of their legally owned firearms, by making their posession illegal one at a time. The UN Disarmament Commission does not see a difference between an AK-47 machinegun used by a Hutu to kill a group of Tutsis in Rwanda, and you with your bolt-action rifle doing target shooting. As far as they are concerned, the mere potential for violent or illegal use means a ban on the item.
Around the world, UN discussions on firearms consistently clash against the greatest right that all Americans should hold dear. Robin Cook, Secretary for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for England, mentioned that small arms "start conflict" in a speech before the United Nations.
"We need to impound and destroy the firearms that are out there.... But destroying firearms is not going to make any difference if they are replaced by fresh supplies. That's why the second task is to reduce the flow of firearms."
May I point out, Minister Cook, that after your country did just that - impounding, destroying, and stopping the flow of firearms - your crime statistics skyrocketed so much that they had to be massaged severely to retain any sensible, safe data to release. Did you know that the police in England, until very recently, consider all assaults, robberies, rapes, burglaries, etc. in a single area to be but one crime? Ah, it seems the good Britons have discovered the idea that if you redefine crime, it goes away!
No stranger to Socialism are the dearly beloved French. Their former Prime Minister, Michel Rochard, had this to say to the UN:
"Measures must be devised to limit the access to small arms, to curtail the supply of small arms, and to reduce the demand for small arms. The weapons of violence must be brought back into the control of the state."
When the state controls the firearms, Mr. Rochard, it is free to do whatever it likes - including wholesale slaughter of undesireables. 10 million in Nazi Germany. 30 million in China. 60 million in Russia. One hundred MILLION dead, sir, from tyrannical governments that stripped away the ability of the governed to fight back against their oppressors. A government is a self-sustaining organism, and will fight to preserve itself. A government that has no form of overwatch or any possible means of restraint, will by nature expand itself to cover completely the people. Slavery, sir, is merely defined as ownership of one man by another - is it not arguable that dictatorships do not have citizens, then, but slaves? Is this what the UN wants?
And, on the subject of governments without overwatch - just who can get into the United Nations? Only the people they let in. There are no public records or open meetings laws for the UN. Only government officials and special "NGO"s - Non Government Organizations - have the right to come see what is truly happening. All they do, they can do in secret - and do. However, all their secret treaties and agreements DO affect the governments that sign them. And how do we know just what our government, and others, is doing? What harm can they do, you ask? Patrick O'Malley, deputy director of the NRA's Institute for Legal Action has seen. "Thre are some truly extremist proposals out there, ranging from the bizarre to the ridiculous... Proposals have been put forward that every single round of ammunition manufactured be trackable by satellite so that we can establish a protocol for monitoring what they call 'flows' of small arms and ammunition into areas of conflict." Rube Goldberg never came up with that one, but the UN did.
So what are we looking at this July, less than a week after we celebrate our independence and our rights, and the United Nations decides ways to strip them away? There's a proposal now before the floor that aims to create a whole new organization of the UN to oversee manufacturing and commerce of firearms, and track any and all holdings. Including YOURS. Another wants to register all firearms worldwide - and keep a database on what is where, under the oversight not of your local sheriff...not of your congressman...not of your president...of the UN diplomats and bureaucrats themselves. Another proposal offers to only ban "military" firearms - or any of their derivatives. Did you know, for example, that the standard for bolt-action hunting and target rifles is the Mauser 98k series of rifles...which started life as a military rifle at the turn of the century, and is STILL one of the best designs ever? The Colt 1911, arguably the standard for American semiautomatic handguns, was originally the Government Model M1911 and was made for the Army? Gone, both of them - and all the variants, upgrades and copies that have come out since.
Did you know that if any of these proposals pass in the UN, it would take a mere Senate vote to pass them into law? Bypassing the House entirely? And thanks to Jim Jefferts jumping ship, we have a current Senate makeup of 49 Republicans and 50 Democrats...and the Democrats are not known for a fondness for firearms. Charles Schumer, Dianne Feinstein, Patrick Moynihan, and Ted Kennedy all instantly spring to mind.
Let's not forget a few last things - firearms ownership is not a recognized right in any other country. So just who is it that the United Nations is so set on disarming? America is the last bastion of true freedom and liberty in the world. We're it, boys and girls, when you cut down to the chase. And let's also not be deluded as to WHY the UN wants to take away our firearms. We know it's not to make us safer. We know it's not because firearms are running free in the wilds and killing people when they get the chance. Does anyone dare answer WHY the United Nations is so dead set on taking away the teeth of American liberty?
Could be because they fear us? Anyone wanna guess why?
Chew on that for a while, y'all.
