"History is philosophy teaching by example." (Lord Bolingbroke)

New Email Address:

Friday, June 16, 2006

"We're From the U.N. and We Want Your Guns"

Nothing surprises me anymore. The U.N. is influencing U.S. lawmakers and international law is influencing the courts as some judges are "looking to international law for precedence" to influence decisions. Could our rights under the Constitution become a thing of the past? Anything is possible.

The U.N. will gather in New York City this July for the 2006 Small Arms Review Conference. Doesn’t the name alone make you nervous? The U.N. is “reviewing” guns. If you don’t own one, doesn’t it make you want to go out and buy one just so you can be ready for whatever Kofi’s got planned?

Wayne LaPierre is plenty nervous, which is why he’s written, “The Global War on Your Guns: Inside the U.N.’s Plan to Destroy the Bill of Rights.” Sound alarmist?

His critics think so, claiming that the aim of the conference and its supporters is only to deal with the “illicit” sale of small arms, so it would have no effect on any legally traded arms. But check out the U.N.'s own explanation and see what you think (emphasis mine):

By unanimously adopting the UN Programme of Action to address the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons (UNPoA), in 2001, the UN Member States committed to collecting and destroying illegal weapons, adopting and/or improving national legislations that would help criminalize the illicit trade in small arms, regulating the activities of brokers, setting strict import and export controls, taking action against violators of such laws, and better coordinating international efforts to that end.

Sounds like there’s some wiggle room in there to me. I got to talk to LaPierre, executive vice president and chief executive officer of the National Rifle Association, about his new book and the new fight facing gun owners.

LaPierre has been charting the U.N. gun-ban movement since the mid-1990s, when all of the nuclear freeze non-governmental organizations (NGOs) morphed into gun-ban groups and “hijacked the disarmament machinery of the United Nations,” he said.
The philosophy of these groups, LaPierre said, is that the right to own a gun should be solely the right of governments, and they despise the fact that the United States remains a country in which private citizens can keep a handgun at their bedsides.
In a recent debate LaPierre did with Rebecca Peters, who is heading up the NGOs’ gun-ban efforts, Peters told him that Americans need to give up on the notion of self-defense because it’s something that only happens in movies.

The problem is, of course, that a disarmed people can do nothing when its armed government or militias turns on it. The U.N. has no response about what to do about that, LaPierre said, citing the Tutsis in Rwanda, the people of Darfur, and the Muslims of Bosnia.

“All they offer is a global socialist fantasy…If there were no guns, there would be no poverty, there would be no child hungry, there would be no violence. It’s the same global socialist fantasy we saw in the 20th century, “ he said. “Under the U.N. gun-ban policy, they have no solution for when the government goes bad; they have no answer for how to be liberated from a tyrant or a dictator; they have no answer for what oppressed people should do…Their whole philosophy is give up your arms and your freedoms and we’ll protect you.”

But why should we be scared in the U.S., I asked him. Doesn’t our Constitution override any international treaty the U.N. could impose upon us?

According to LaPierre, the U.N. plans can find their way into America in one of several ways. A treaty would require approval by two thirds of the Senate. An international agreement, however, is a lower hurdle, requiring only a simply majority. But, if neither of those succeeds, much of the U.N. plan can be implemented through executive agreement—the President putting policy to work through his agency heads.

The NRA’s message remains that gun owners should stay vigilant about the U.N. and work in 2006 and 2008 to elect Second Amendment candidates here at home who will protect their rights from U.N. encroachment.
“This threat is real. It is very well-funded and they really do intend to diminish the standard of U.S. freedom and dumb it down to some U.N. standard,” he said.

As for the upcoming conference, LaPierre is just happy to have Ambassador John Bolton on the inside, fighting for American gun-owners. There will be a week of testimony from NGOs and member countries before the U.N. insiders go behind closed doors to make decisions. It’s hard to find an ally on this issue behind those doors, he said.

“The United States stands alone,” he said. “The United Kingdom has not only thrown in the towel; they’re funding this.”
Another contributor to the gun-ban crusade is none other than moonbat favorite George Soros. Though some Democrats have learned recently that it doesn’t pay to be on the wrong side of the Second Amendment come election time, LaPierre doesn’t believe the American left is about to give up on gun control. The U.N. is just another vehicle for the same old policies, he said.

“There’s a whole wing of the party…the Hillary Clinton wing of the party, the George Soros side…I don’t see they’ve changed at all,” he said.

And, the U.N. won’t be giving up either. The gun-ban NGOs are full of folks who’ve dedicated their lives to learning international law, testifying for global symposia, and using both skills burrow under the sovereignty of countries around the globe.

“They’re not going away…they’ll simply find another way to do it,“ he said. “They’ve become really a freedom-eating beast and they’ll take as much as they can get.”

As for the NRA, it’s urging its members to contact Congress, the administration, and the State Department before and during the U.N.’s conference. LaPierre naturally implores Americans to “wake up to what’s going on. That’s one of the reasons I wrote the book, 'We're From the U.N. and We Want Your Guns.' ”

“We’re gonna get in their way and we’re gonna fight them,“ he said.

Far be it from me to question Ronald Reagan, but perhaps it’s about time to rethink the scariest nine words in the English language.

“We’re from the U.N. and we want your guns.”

It’s at least a tie.


  • At Fri Jun 16, 06:42:00 PM PDT, Blogger Cubed © said…

    I hope that the citizens of this country realize how easy it is for our Constitution to be sacrificed to the UN without the need for our consent or the consent of our elected representative or senators.

    The closer we let Bush come to forming the North American Union, the closer we come to the death of the United States.

    My suggestion is that to the degree you can afford it, every citizen buy and conceal guns now, while you still can.

    Around 43 AD, an ancient Celtic tribe of Britain, the Iceni (among others) were finally and formally brought into the Roman Empire by the legions of Claudius. As per usual, this tribe, in exchange for an agreement not to fight against Rome, was allowed a remarkable degree of independence as a border state between Roman territory and unconquered territories further north.

    Part of the agreement involved the giving up of weapons used in combat; only hunting weapons were allowed to be retained.

    Sound familiar?

    Well, apparently the Iceni didn't take that part of the agreement seriously, and they hid a lot of their weapons "just in case." Besides, many of them were heirlooms and their owners were very proud of them.

    Upon the death of her husband, Boudica was under the (mistaken) impression that this more-or-less autonomous arrangement would continue. Such was really not the custom, so when the Procurator (tax collector to you and me, and in this case, a pretty nasty guy) came to make the arrangements for the change of status, she said not just "no," but "hell no."

    That resulted in her being flogged, and when that didn't work, her daughters, probably about ages 12 and 14, were repeatedly raped, and the tribal elders were taken into slavery in lieu of money. Boudica and her daughters were left to their own devices.

    Bad decision. When the dust had settled, Boudica made a decision. About a year later, the decision was implemented, and she led a coalition of tribes in a really effective war against the Romans. She utterly wiped out one legion, burned three cities to the ground (and a large number of veterans who had taken refuge in the Temple of Claudius).

    She wreaked such havoc that Nero, then emperor, seriously considered abandoning Britain as a province. He would have done so, had not Suetonius, a "general's general" with a lot of experience, completely destroyed Boudica's forces. Apparently, the Celts got a little too confident with their success, and relaxed a little too much before the final battle, after which Boudica, who had heard of Cleopatra's suicide in Egypt, decided to follow her example rather than be taken prisoner to Rome.

    Ah, but I ramble on; the point is, don't let the UN disposess you of your Constitutional right to bear arms. You may not know this, but the intent of that particular Amendment (the Second) was included precisely to give the citizens a means of protecting themselves against a government that stepped out of line. It was NOT there for "hunting" or even self-defense against burglars etc.

    I could be terribly politically incorrect here.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home