All this hype about Gun control is Agenda 21 not letting a crisis go to waste. U.N., NWO, CRAPOLA.

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 07:41 AM
link   
All this hype about Gun control is Agenda 21 not letting a crisis go to waste. U.N., NWO, CRAPOLA.

you know why they want to get rid of American small arms_ Because we have the most of them, and small arms are predominantly held by private citizens. More than the military, much more than police, and many times more than any armed opposition groups.

It is all linked to the UN and sustainable development. We all know or should smell the rat that is agenda 21....well this is part of it.

this was the link to a pdf that showed some information that I found intriguing. The fact it was disabled made me more curious and so I checked the archive snap shot of it. The language echoes that of agenda 21. The forcible removal of half of the population in the US so as to establish a bread basket for the world, the new world. That is the part about agenda 21 we should be worried about as Americans.

They are worried about the fact that we have more small arms than the military. Like the soviets in the middle east, outnumbered and out gunned they were forced to withdraw even though they had all the sophisticated and heavy hardware they wanted.
www.controlarms.org...

here is the archive snapshot
web.archive.org...://controlarms.org/documents/chapter1_colour.pdf

here is the map of areas where they want to depopulate. They want to turn the US into a wild land.

Our world population is already shrinking. Birth rates are down and so our future population in 50 years WILL be sustainable. They still want to reduce the possibility of the US growing again and remaining an industrialized nation.
In order to enforce these areas of "no people" allowed they need for us to be unarmed.
here is a video explaining agenda 21.


I would ask that you take a look at this break down of Agenda 21 and the need for a disarmed world. The new version of peace will be a quasi slavery with no formal nations. All force only authorized to the world army. The future EU army from our perspective, later to become the world army.



Agenda 21 - Eminent Domain -Confiscation of Private Property
Agenda 21-Sustainable Development-Re-wilding
Lorraine Day, M.D.

A NEW DEFINITION OF PEACE
The report then explains that we are approaching a point in history where the old formulas may no longer work. Why? Because it may now be possible to create a world government in which all nations will be disarmed and disciplined by a world army, a condition which will be called peace. The report says: “The word peace, as we have used it in the following pages, … implies total and general disarmament.” (3)

Under that scenario, independent nations will no longer exist and governments will not have the capability to wage war. There could be military action by the world army against renegade political subdivisions, but these would be called peace-keeping operations, and soldiers would be called peace keepers. No matter how much property is destroyed or how much blood is spilled, the bullets will be “peaceful” bullets and the bombs – even atomic bombs, if necessary – will be “peaceful” bombs.

The report then raises the question of whether there can ever be a suitable substitute for war. What else could the regional governments use – and what could the world government itself use – to legitimize and perpetuate itself? To provide an answer to that question was the stated purpose of the study.

The Report from Iron Mountain concludes that there can be no substitute for war unless it possesses three properties. It must (1) be economically wasteful, (2) represent a credible threat of great magnitude, and (3) provide a logical excuse for compulsory service to the government.


Please read the next part VERY CAREFULLY. I wanted to highlight and showcase it for its very clear wording.


A SOPHISTICATED FORM OF SLAVERY
" We will examine … the time-honored use of military institutions to provide anti-social elements with an acceptable role in the social structure. … The current euphemistic clichés – “juvenile delinquency” and “alienation” – have had their counterparts in every age. In earlier days these conditions were dealt with directly by the military without the complications of due process, usually through press gangs or outright enslavement. …

Most proposals that address themselves, explicitly or otherwise, to the postwar problem of controlling the socially alienated turn to some variant of the Peace Corps or the so-called Job Corps for a solution. The socially disaffected, the economically unprepared, the psychologically uncomfortable, the hard-core “delinquents,” the incorrigible “subversives,” and the rest of the unemployable are seen as somehow transformed by the disciplines of a service modeled on military precedent into more or less dedicated social service workers. …

Another possible surrogate for the control of potential enemies of society is the reintroduction, in some form consistent with modern technology and political processes, of slavery. … It is entirely possible that the development of a sophisticated form of slavery may be an absolute prerequisite for social control in a world at peace.

As a practical matter, conversion of the code of military discipline to a euphemized form of enslavement would entail surprisingly little revision; the logical first step would be the adoption of some form of “universal” military service. (4)


The following is what people like David Rothschild, the Eco warrior are spearheading. It is social engineering plain and simple.


ENVIRONMENTALISM A SUBSTITUTE FOR WAR
It is beyond the scope of this study to prove that currently accepted predictions of environmental doom are based on exaggerated and fraudulent “scientific studies.” But such proof is easily found if one is willing to look at the raw data and the assumptions upon which the projections are based. More important, however, is the question of why end-of-world scenarios based on phony scientific studies – or no studies at all – are uncritically publicized by the CFR-controlled media; or why radical environmental groups advocating collectivist doctrine and anti-business programs are lavishly funded by CFR-dominated foundations, banks, and corporations, the very groups that would appear to have the most to lose. The Report from Iron Mountain answers those questions.


There is SO much more to that link. Please look it over and see what we are potentially up against. Even if it is all far fetched, there are people in power who do believe this and actively hope the most hard line avenues of Agenda 21 are carried out in full.

www.goodnewsaboutgod.com...

A disarmed United states is an easy country to dismantle and empty of everyone but farm hands. WE MUST NOT GIVE IN. You are here on sites like ATS and other alternative media sources because we know something sinister is afoot. We must not lose sight of the reason for our suspicions. We must not forget why we know what we know. They will not let ANY CRISIS go to waste. They will pull at our heart strings and push every one of our buttons. We must not become emotional and illogical. That is when we begin to lose.

We have had our guns since the birth of our country. We have nothing going on now to merit changing the very nature of our country. weapons aside, we have changed more of what is sacred to us in the last decade than all of our history.

That should be a wake up call to all of you. This is not a drill. This is not a simulation. This is your real life and that of everything we are. DO NOT GO DOWN WITHOUT A FIGHT.

They do this BECAUSE WE HAVE ALREADY WON. We just need to realize it.

Some more that I thought I would throw in.


What is Sustainable Development?

According to its authors, this is the cover story. The objective of sustainable development is to integrate economic, social, environmental policies in order to achieve reduced consumption, social equity, and the preservation and restoration of biodiversity. Sustainablists insist that every societal decision be based on environmental impact, focusing on three components: global land use, global education, and global population control and reduction.

Social Equity (Social Justice)

Social justice is described as the right and opportunity of all people (except the elitists, of course) “to benefit equally from the resources afforded us by society and the environment.” That means the Redistribution of wealth. Private property is considered a social injustice (except for the elitists, of course) since not everyone can build wealth from it. National sovereignty is a social injustice. Universal health care (controlled by the elitists, of course) is a social justice. These are ALL part of Agenda 21 policy.



I want everyone to think to the doom and gloom we have been programmed into swallowing whole. We ourselves at some point consider, "well, what IF the world ends?". It is social programming, plain and simple. We remain scared and in a state of shock. The fear of nature turning on us will replace all boogeymen as the reason to fear your shadow. The ecosystem is not going to melt down. Our world might seem like it due to artificial means.


HUMANITY ITSELF IS THE TARGET

The Club of Rome is a group of global planners who annually release end-of-world scenarios based on predictions of overpopulation and famine. Their membership is international, but the American roster includes such well-known CFR members as Jimmy Carter, Harlan Cleveland, Claiburne Pell, and Sol Linowitz.

Their solution to overpopulation? A world government to control birth rates and, if necessary, euthanasia. That is a gentle word for the deliberate killing of the old, the weak, and of course the uncooperative. Following the same reasoning advanced at Iron Mountain, the Club of Rome has concluded that fear of environmental disaster could be used as a substitute enemy for the purpose of unifying the masses behind its program. In its 1991 book entitled The First Global Revolution, we find this:

In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. … All these dangers are caused by human intervention. … The real enemy, then, is humanity itself. (19)

Collectivist theoreticians have always been fascinated by the possibility of controlling population growth. It excites their imaginations because it is the ultimate bureaucratic plan. If the real enemy is humanity itself, as the Club of Rome says, then humanity itself must become the target. Fabian Socialist Bertrand Russell expressed it thus:

I do not pretend that birth control is the only way in which population can be kept from increasing. … War, as I remarked a moment ago, has hitherto been disappointing in this respect, but perhaps bacteriological war may prove more effective. If a Black Death could be spread throughout the world once in every generation, survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full. …


It should be noted that our population IS shrinking globally and that if we lose our last resort trump card ( The US´s Guns), we will be completely under control by environmental fears and weakened by constant relocation until our country is just wilderness and farm land for the world.
edit on 19-12-2012 by zedVSzardoz because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 08:12 AM
link   
The conspiracy theories surrounding Agenda 21 are nothing more than fear porn.


The President of the United States cannot enact a "complete ban on all weapons for US citizens through the signing of international treaties with foreign nations." The right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed in the Constitution of the United States, and in the 1957 case Reid v. Covert, the U.S. Supreme Court established the the Constitution supersedes international treaties ratified by the U.S. Senate.

There is no "legal way around the 2nd Amendment" other than a further amendment to the Constitution that repeals or alters it, or a Supreme Court decision that radically reinterprets how the 2nd Amendment is to be applied.


Snopes

I suggest reading the whole article to help get a grip.



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 08:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74
The conspiracy theories surrounding Agenda 21 are nothing more than fear porn.


The President of the United States cannot enact a "complete ban on all weapons for US citizens through the signing of international treaties with foreign nations." The right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed in the Constitution of the United States, and in the 1957 case Reid v. Covert, the U.S. Supreme Court established the the Constitution supersedes international treaties ratified by the U.S. Senate.

There is no "legal way around the 2nd Amendment" other than a further amendment to the Constitution that repeals or alters it, or a Supreme Court decision that radically reinterprets how the 2nd Amendment is to be applied.


Snopes

I suggest reading the whole article to help get a grip.


effin dope. Thanks for the post and link.
(STAR)



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 09:44 AM
link   
I'm sure they'll find a way to be gone with the second amendment, just as the Canadian government is finding a way out of aboriginal treaties as we speak. Get enough people to loathe guns, or in the Canadian case, enough people to loathe aboriginal "rights", and well, I think anythings possible. Brace yourself.



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 10:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


I was going to let it go, seeing as you are well informed enough to know why the POTUS and congress cant ban guns, but you don't understand hype and crisis, and are dangerously naive about agenda 21-

I am not in fear of congress or the POTUS doing anything. Even if they were banned on a federal level completely, the state constitutions still have provisions for them. In fact the second amendment of the national constitution simply mirrors the state constitutions.

What can happen is that an exception is made by public support like was done in the UK.

Agenda 21 is not "fear porn". If it wasn't taken so seriously and pushed by so many important and influential people I might put it in the 2012 ascension, magnetic pole shift bin.

It is the framework for all international policy and individual national policy we are seeing come to fruition.

Where do you think that the speculative carbon market idea came from? Carbon emission taxes, and all that? It is another way to sky rocket public debt by imaginary numbers of emissions directly tied into each regions tax system for compensation.

Where do you think that all the standards for ecological safety that all our countries are already signed into agreement on came from?

I mean if you don't know what agenda 21 is, or haven't read it, then please do. I am sure that no matter where you are in the western world, no matter how small the town or community, that you have at least 1 official group directly tied to the UN and agenda 21 working for its implementation on a local level.

I am shocked that for someone playing the skeptic that you are so naive as to the ramifications of agenda 21 and its intended goal / ideal. Not to mention that you think it is a myth when there is no denying it at this point in the game.

Also did you know that the US has already agreed to the provisions in it for private weapon ownership? Agenda 21 does cover it in the same language as private property rights and other very important subjects. The limits are by our standard UNCONSTITUTIONAL, yet we have agreed to them unofficially like the rest of the global community. They would effectively end private gun ownership.

What that means is that we are looking for a means to implement them, not a way of providing more domestic security. That is white wash. This crisis school shootings is being galvanized like was done in the UK to make the population demand for massive gun reform.

if you can't see that, then I am sorry, you are addicted to fantasy "all is well" porn. I don't like doom and gloom either mind you, since it is a tool of social programming, but damn. This is clear. It is no myth.


edit on 19-12-2012 by zedVSzardoz because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 11:16 AM
link   
Great find.

I fully support and appreciate your write-up and this post.

The ideas behind Agenda 21 are serious and being slowly implemented.
State by state, city by city, these people are trying to teach it's "necessity".
When, in actuality, it's just another form of a meaningless control grab.

We don't need what it's proponents are pushing.







posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by zedVSzardoz
 




but you don't understand hype and crisis, and are dangerously naive about agenda 21-


I perfectly understand hype and crisis, it's comical for you to say that though seeing as you're the victim of such here.

Nor am I naive about agenda 21. You understand that it hasn't been signed, right? Did you read the link I provided?



What can happen is that an exception is made by public support like was done in the UK.


How exactly do you see that playing out? We are not the UK. Millions could march to DC to demand a ban on guns only to be met by other millions carrying signs that read 'From my cold dead hands'. Furthermore even if both clashed in DC an actual law would still need to pass or the 2nd Amendment repealed.

Let's say that people shut up about guns for moment let it fade a bit then in 2014 when the Republicans lose the house it gets brought up again, passes both the House and the Senate with 2/3 majority... to repeal the 2nd Amendment it still has to go State by State and again 2/3 majority of States would have to approve... and even then it would only take an appeal to SCOTUS to stop it from being repealed.



Agenda 21 is not "fear porn"


No but the conspiracy theories surrounding it are.



If it wasn't taken so seriously and pushed by so many important and influential people


Taken so seriously by whom?
Pushed by whom?

I'm not entirely sure you yourself know what the Small Arms Treaty is.



Where do you think that the speculative carbon market idea came from?


Capitalists that were taking advantage of a stupid proposal to curb global warming.



Where do you think that all the standards for ecological safety that all our countries are already signed into agreement on came from?


I'm anti-globalist however our economy is global, our nation industrializes other nations it makes sense to apply global standards to a global economy. If you don't like it perhaps you should tell Big Business to get out of the rest of the world. Also any treaty we sign onto has to pass both houses of Congress, if you have issue write to your reps.



Also did you know that the US has already agreed to the provisions in it for private weapon ownership?


Can you please provide proof of this, considering we haven't signed the treaty as of yet?



you are addicted to fantasy "all is well" porn.


A brief glance of my post and thread history will show this to be laughable.



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


well bear with me I am responding in between trying to do some actual work here, lol

ok, so who signed it and agreed to it you ask? I said it was unofficially accepted. It was, because the language it uses isn't a mandate, since the UN can be told to go to hell. That is BS though. If all member states are urged to adopt it, then they do. It is just word play to say that you should do it, instead of saying you better do it.

so who actually signed it, well hundreds of nations, and on our behalf, you guessed it, a bush. THE bush.

It IS being implemented since there is not a city in the US that doesn't have actual infrastructure in place with personnel, training, funding (we pay for), software, hardware, and all sorts of connections your local city council would kill for.


Who is Behind It?

ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability (formally, International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives). Communities pay ICLEI dues to provide “local” community plans, software, training, etc. Addition groups include American Planning Council, The Renaissance Planning Group, International City/ County Management Group, aided by US Mayors Conference, National Governors Association, National League of Cities, National Association of County Administrators, and many more private organizations and official government agencies. Foundation and government grants drive the process.

Where Did It Originate?

The term sustainable development was first introduced to the world in the pages a 1987 report (“Our Common Future”) produced by the United Nations World Commission on Environmental and Development, authored by Gro Harlem Brundtland, VP of the World Socialist Party. The term was first offered as official UN policy in 1992 in a document called UN Sustainable Development Agenda 21, issued at the UN’s Earth Summit—today referred to simply as Agenda 21.

What Gives Agenda 21 Ruling Authority?

More than 178 nations adopted Agenda 21 as official policy during a signing ceremony at the Earth Summit. US president George H.W. Bush signed the document for the US. In signing, each nation pledged to adopt the goals of Agenda 21.

In 1995, President Bill Clinton, in compliance with Agenda 21, signed Executive Order #12858 to create the President’s Council on Sustainable Development in order to “harmonize” US environmental policy with UN directives as outlined in Agenda 21.

The EO directed all agencies of the Federal Government to work with state and local community governments in a joint effort “reinvent” government using the guidelines outlined in Agenda 21. As a result, with the assistance of groups like ICLEI, sustainable development is now emerging as government policy in every town, county and state in the nation
www.offthegridnews.com...

Executive Order #12858, that my friend is NO MYTH. It has placed a system of policy and given structure to agenda 21 in the US, designed by the VP of the world socialist party aimed now at the US´s policy and direction. THAT IS HUGE.


-----------------

how were hand guns banned in the UK that avoided the million man march as you say?
Well they did it slowly in two phases. Much like now they are going ape for restrictions on a certain caliber and design. Then comes the outright ban. The UK was divided on the issue much like we are. They were in agreement that large caliber and what incorrectly deemed as military grade weapons. They took what they could immediately get which was some form of restriction and confiscation.

Then after the hype was played up some more, and when promises could be made, they went after the smaller caliber weapons and hand guns. Public opinion was made out to be powerful and by dividing the population in left VS right paradigms they made those opposed to guns feel like they were on a quest to end the "barbaric" reign of the "old timers". The NEW VISSION of the UK was to be a utopia of peace. Look at the language being puked into our ears now by the MSM. It sounds like if we were to get rid of guns the sun would shine brighter somehow.



The ban on the private possession of handguns in Great Britain came into effect in two stages. A Conservative Government banned all large-calibre handguns from July 1, 1997, with a period up to the end of September, in which all such guns had to be handed to the police. Following a general election in May 1997, the Labour Government extended the ban to all small-calibre (.22 rimfire) handguns, which had to be handed in before the end of February 1998. More than 162,000 handguns and 700 tonnes of ammunition was handed in. More than £UK80 million was paid in compensation and the cost of the confiscation scheme to police and government cost tens of millions more.

Both governments promised that Britain would thereafter be a safer place. A few handguns remained for people such as slaughtermen, those who could prove a special need for a pistol for the humane despatch of quarry animals and a few people who had pistols of special historical interest, but in general, handguns could not legally be possessed. The hand-in was complete for all practical purposes because of the system of individual authorisation.
dvc.org.uk...

-------------------


SO you see agenda 21 is a socialist invention. It is a proposal of limiting the affluent nations into a state of dependence on a central authority rather than increasing interconnectedness. It is a system of sanctions tied directly into each regions tax system through an ever increasing limit on carbon emotions. So no car, no house, no anything that will take you over your limit and you then have to pay. You can drive up debt by having the entire system be an open speculative market.

In essence the only people who will be able to afford the carbon points a house and car will consume (in this system of equal point assignation, the ones with more access to wealth generated by the markets and their schemes will drive cars, live in houses and all that, and the others will live in little apartments, take public transportation and be good little drones.

That is a socialist utopia. Then to calculate all their various expenditure of carbon points for their running appliances, and using anything that requires energy you monitor all activates. So you can say, sir your EZ pass registered that you traveled across town over such and such tolls but your cars black box marks x amount of miles. You owe us x amount of tax dollars for the emissions produced as well as a fine for tricking the black box to not register the extra miles.

and on and on.

In this sort of situation you cannot have an armed population. You need total control. The only force that can be used must come from the accepted universal army and security force. People must not defend themselves. That undermines the central authority in such a complete hive.


edit on 19-12-2012 by zedVSzardoz because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 12:30 PM
link   
reply to post by zedVSzardoz
 


Executive Order 12858

By the authority vested in me as President of the United States by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including sections 1104 and 1105 of title 31, United States Code, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Purpose. It is essential to guarantee that the net deficit reduction achieved by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 is dedicated exclusively to reducing the deficit.

Sec. 2. Deficit Reduction Fund.

(a). Establishment of the Fund. There is established a separate account in the Treasury, known as the Deficit Reduction Fund, which shall receive the net deficit reduction achieved by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 as called for in subsection (b) of this order.

(b)
Amounts in Fund. Beginning upon enactment of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, the Deficit Reduction Fund shall receive any increases in total revenues resulting from enactment of such Act on a daily basis. In addition, on a daily basis, the Secretary of the Treasury shall enter into such account an amount equivalent to the net deficit reduction achieved as a result of all spending reductions resulting from such Act. The cumulative fiscal year amounts for the combination of all such revenue increases and spending reductions shall be equal to:
(1)
for fiscal year 1994, $60,292,000,000;
(2)
for fiscal year 1995, $70,437,000,000;
(3)
for fiscal year 1996, $92,061,000,000;
(4)
for fiscal year 1997, $125,881,000,000;
(5)
for fiscal year 1998, $146,939,000,000. Within 30 days of enactment of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act
of 1993, the foregoing amounts may be adjusted by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget to reflect the final scoring of such Act.
(c)
Status of Amounts in Fund. (i) The amounts in the Deficit Reduction Fund shall be used exclusively to redeem maturing debt obligations of the Treasury of the United States held by foreign governments in the amounts specified in subsection (b).
(ii) The amounts in the Deficit Reduction Fund as set forth in subsection (b) that result from increases in total revenues and spending reductions shall not be available for new spending or to finance measures that increase the deficit for purposes of budget enforcement procedures under the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 901– 922).
(d)
Effect on Other Funds. Establishment of and transfers to the Deficit Reduction Fund shall not affect trust fund transfers that may be authorized or required by provisions of the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1993 or any other provision of law.
Sec. 3. Requirement for the President To Report Annually on the Status of the Fund. The Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall include in the President’s Budget transmitted under section 1105 of title

31, United States Code, information about the Deficit Reduction Fund, including a separate statement of amounts in and Federal debt redeemed by that Fund.

Sec. 4. Implementation. The Secretary of the Treasury and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall each take such actions as may be necessary, within their respective authorities, promptly to carry out this order.

Sec. 5. Effective Date. This order shall take effect upon enactment of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993.

William J. Clinton
THE WHITE HOUSE,
August 4, 1993.


Source

I don't see anything scary in there, if you do please point them out, maybe I'm missing something. I don't see anything even relative in there.



so who actually signed it, well hundreds of nations, and on our behalf, you guessed it, a bush. THE bush.


Bush did not sign it. Neither has Obama. In fact the US was one of two member nations to not sign it.



It IS being implemented


I see no proof of it being implemented. Most nations and local governments have their own sustainability programs in place, always have always will... it's kind of common sense. "Sustainable Development" is not a term first introduced to the world in a 'socialists' report... that is more fear porn (oh noes socialism!) It is a common concept implemented by anyone responsible for the development of a community/city/nation since the dawn of civilization, it's called don't waste/use up your resources, or long term planning.

References to how the UK did it are irrelevant as they do not pass laws the same way we do. And regardless of the current debate on guns, Agenda 21 has nothing to do with it. It has nothing to do with US private ownership of guns, the only thing it has to do with (The Small Arms Treaty portion) is international trade, legal trade and how to safeguard weapons shipments from falling into the wrong hands.

Again, please read the link I gave you in my 1st reply.



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


it most certainly is being implemented. That much is not debatable. I am not even arguing that at this stage in the game. They have set aside all this funding, made all these agencies, complex bureaucracy, and have all these town planning and city planners nation wide to just not to do exactly what agenda 21 entails, AFTER they said they would?

I think you are blindly defending it too much for my taste. I like logic and reason but this is just disingenuous. First you say its fooey, then you say it is benign....which is it?

Did you see the map of the US where more than half is not allowed for human habitation and think that all those places that have towns and cities are just going to be picked up and moved?

MORE THAN HALF of the continent is going to be declared unfit for human use. AND we will live under a hell of a market we have no control over with SUPER rich living the good life and the vast majority being like some sort of drone to the production for the systems needs for the hope of a greater credit limit in carbon points so you can own a car or a house, or run your computer a few hours more a day....!

Like a mix between in-time and hunger games....little zones with uncrossable red zones, policed by global peace keeping forces, and the very carbon emission we exhale putting us in greater debt in our little holes.

THAT is why we must not give into the first or the second phase of gun collection. Regulate them all you want but don't ask us to turn anything in. We should be able to produce them without hassle as well for domestic use. Sign the UN small arms treaty, see if we care that you give Chinas black market arms free reign in the world. The only thing it does is eliminate their competition. (which is ALL it does)


edit on 19-12-2012 by zedVSzardoz because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by zedVSzardoz
 





I think you are blindly defending it too much for my taste. I like logic and reason but this is just disingenuous. First you say its fooey, then you say it is benign....which is it?


I'm not blindly defending it, I've read about it...obviously. I'm not being disingenuous either, I've given my interpretation and opinion. It is both. The fear surrounding it is fooey because one, we haven't signed nor implemented anything regarding it and two because it is benign.



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 






we haven't signed nor implemented anything regarding it and two because it is benign.



More than 178 nations adopted Agenda 21 as official policy during a signing ceremony at the Earth Summit. US president George H.W. Bush signed the document for the US. In signing, each nation pledged to adopt the goals of Agenda 21.


so we have allocated TRILLIONS upon TRILLIONS of dollars and employed vast assets and personnel nationwide, FOR NOTHING? We are doing nothing with all that is what you are saying. Either you have the biggest thumb in the universe or we have the smallest sun in the universe.

and I don't see how any of it can be seen as positive, unless you hate your country as is, or the fact that you have your country. For a self proclaimed skeptic, you fall rank and file with David Rothschild's eco war against the world, OR you see it is all BS but dont want to get in trouble....

if you agree with him and his families bankers cabal, then fine. I could actually respect that. Honestly. But to say you "know" from a point of skepticism and yet accept that either 1, it is phooey and not worth fussing over someone else's cool aid, or 2. it is not as bad as it seems and somehow Mr. David Rothschild is doing good and acting in our best interest and against the hegemony of his family and their associates that they hold over the world.....he just loves nature....and we should too.....I cant take you serious. I have read it too. I do read sir.

You see, I did go through your profile like you told me to as well.

I see a fence and a path you like.

This is not a dual cake having and eating zone.


edit on 19-12-2012 by zedVSzardoz because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by zedVSzardoz
 


I don't find trying to problem solve global warming as having anything to do with David Rothschild or any Rothschild, I don't follow any Rothschild conspiracies. However, I have been pretty outspoken against 'the banker cartel' as you are no doubt aware having browsed my post history. I also love my country, if I didn't I wouldn't be here and I wouldn't be posting in politics or social issues as I wouldn't give a rats ass about either if I didn't love my country. I also am not a professed skeptic, I'm skeptical about Agenda 21 being harmful, that doesn't make me a skeptic. Isn't everyone a skeptic about somethings anyway? You say it like it's a bad thing.

You see a fence and a path that I like?
Do tell.

And it's m'am.

ETA The US has not signed the UN Arms Trade Treaty.

And...


Baer also claims that the U.S. Forest Service, the U.S. National Parks Service, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture — agencies founded more than 100 years before Agenda 21 — are “all out of the UN to have these wonderful little furry animal organizations to cut our land away from us.”
In fact, the Agenda 21 language explicitly states that countries and local communities have “the sovereign right to exploit their own resources pursuant to their own environmental and developmental policies.”
So what do these historically-challenged and completely inaccurate claims have to do with the Republican party? The Republican National Committee has officially adopted these conspiracy theories as its national platform. In January, the RNC adopted a resolution calling Agenda 21 “insidious” and “covert.”
The United Nations Agenda 21 is being covertly pushed into local communities throughout the United States of America through the International Council of Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) through local “sustainable development” policies such as Smart Growth, Wildlands Project, Resilient Cities, Regional Visioning Projects, and other “Green” or “Alternative” projects
The Republican National Committee recognizes the destructive and insidious nature of United Nations Agenda 21 and hereby exposes to the public and public policy makers the dangerous intent of the plan.
Interestingly, Agenda 21 activist Victoria Baer is a big supporter of Florida Tea Partier Ted Yoho, a man who unseat Republican Representative Cliff Stearns in a major upset during a primary race yesterday. Along with supporting the Agenda 21 conspiracy, Yoho also believes we should abolish the Department of Energy — the agency tasked with protecting our nuclear waste and nuclear weapons arsenal.
This is where the mainstream Republican party is headed.
So what are the origins of this bizarre shift in policy? And why have Agenda 21 activists gained such prominence within mainstream politics?
To explore the issue, I spoke with Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center. Potok has been tracking the rise of the Agenda 21 movement, which is rooted in the John Birch Society — a radical right-wing group that opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because they said it infringed on states’ rights. But Potok says that the issue is much broader than one single conspiracy and one single group.


think progress
edit on 19-12-2012 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74
The conspiracy theories surrounding Agenda 21 are nothing more than fear porn.


The President of the United States cannot enact a "complete ban on all weapons for US citizens through the signing of international treaties with foreign nations." The right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed in the Constitution of the United States, and in the 1957 case Reid v. Covert, the U.S. Supreme Court established the the Constitution supersedes international treaties ratified by the U.S. Senate.

There is no "legal way around the 2nd Amendment" other than a further amendment to the Constitution that repeals or alters it, or a Supreme Court decision that radically reinterprets how the 2nd Amendment is to be applied.


Snopes

I suggest reading the whole article to help get a grip.


All true, however, I would also suggest that the second amendment does not protect much if nobody is willing to stand up to a law based on second amendment grounds. One must have the political will to make the legal challenge, which is why the tragedy in CT is an opportunity that the gun banners have been waiting for. As Axlerod said, " Never let a crisis go to waste."

Another thing they could do, without passing a law, is have the BATF place all semi-autos under the NFA system which has been held up as not an infringement of the 2nd amendment. You would need to pay a $200 dollar tax, get BATF permission, and written permission from your chief LEO to own one. Since the registry was closed in 1986, you woudn't be able to pay the tax and thus you get a backdoor gun ban until someone has the political will to challenge.



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


well m'am,

I don't see our points expanding any further. It was a pleasure chatting you up a bit. I see we do have many things we agree on, and I really do think that is more than enough.

The path I was referring to by the way is indecision. It is natural and I wouldn't believe someone that didn't reserve a little doubt.

I am not absolutely certain of anything. I just take a pragmatic approach to the things I allow into my noggin.

in any event, I look forward to some more exchanges in the future. This conversation actually did me a world of good.

Have a good one. Cheers.

edit on 19-12-2012 by zedVSzardoz because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


very true.

we can see the path taken in the UK as a two pronged attack on Gun ownership. The first was the larger caliber weapons. Later, smaller caliber and hand guns followed riding on the wave of public sentiment. A divide was made in the population that placed the traditional conservatives against the "new" leftist side. The "Sanity" was awarded to those that just churned out the atrocities committed in rabid "security" babble. They had a similar incident as in the US and by a school shooting, the opposition was left with no support.

Thus by taking what they could they got what they ultimately wanted.

I don't think we can afford any sort of confiscation in the US. Not semi autos, or any caliber. We have to play the regulation game and keep the power in the states hands. State constitutions have never been worth so much in the face of encroaching federal regulations to what is now a symbolic validity of the constitution. It really is our last straw.

Nothing can so galvanize the US for or against constitutionality and they know that. This really is the money shot for us. It is also a war of attrition. We can not let up. They work with time and playing to the emotions of our weakest links. Those of us that want to be seen as social "heroes" and defenders of a cause they create.

edit on 19-12-2012 by zedVSzardoz because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


Wouldn't the registry need to exist in order to change the guidelines? I'm not familiar with much of what you are saying, but that backdoor shenanigan stuff (not sure how applicable it is here but...) needs to be done away with. I think that if what you are saying is factual it warrants a very serious discussion. I'd love to see you do a thread on it.



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


yes we have not signed the UN small arms treaty, which is focused mostly on making our weapons industry not profitable for domestic small arms, since it is geared towards exports. It doesn't touch the Chinese small arms trade though.

That is just trying to cripple our manufacturing capability domestically for domestic sale. Without exports it might be more profitable to just focus on large official contracts and less so for a limited consumer base in the US. Not to mention that they wont be able to compete with the Chinese who are not as restricted under it.

Then this came along and they might not need to sign that. They may just take longer but ultimately get what they really want. An unarmed civilian population in the US. ( like Agenda 21 demands)


edit on 19-12-2012 by zedVSzardoz because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


Wouldn't the registry need to exist in order to change the guidelines? I'm not familiar with much of what you are saying, but that backdoor shenanigan stuff (not sure how applicable it is here but...) needs to be done away with. I think that if what you are saying is factual it warrants a very serious discussion. I'd love to see you do a thread on it.


I will, if I get some time. (Novel #2 is almost done and I've got a holiday crunch).

In short, the NFA (National Firearms Act) of 1934 was not a "ban" but a "tax" on machineguns (as well as supressors, short barreled shotguns and rifles, and so forth). You could still own a machine gun, but you had to pay a $200 tax (a hell of a lot of money in 1934 and the tax was designed to "price" the guns out of the reach of the average citizen...the wealthy could still arm their bodyguards of course), get written permission from the local chief of police, and get permission and background check from the ATF.

When you did all of those things, your gun and its serial number and you as the owner were put in the "registry," which was a list of all of the "papered" guns (papered meaning you had government papers for it). Those are legal to own and transfer as long as the person you transfered it to did all of the above things (tax, permission, letters, background).

As time went on, people added weapons to the registry: if grandpa died and had a machinegun captured from the Nazis and brought home, you could still own it as long as you went through the process--same for a newly manufactured one. In 1986, the registry was closed. No new guns could be added to it. Anything that was discovered since 1986 would be confiscated and destroyed. This happened to several historical firearms that were found in attics and estates. Since nothing could be added to the registry, the value of those already "papered" skyrocketed. A thousand dollar thompson, if you can find one someone is willing to sell, now runs about 20K. In the NE a full auto Maxim gun that Alvin York brought back as a war trophy in WWI was found, not registered, and the ATF was going to destroy it, but the intervention of several congressmen got them to make an exemption and get it disabled and placed in a museum.

Like the current administration is using the regulatory powers of the FDA to bring down coal power, they could use the regulatory powers of the ATF to make a semi-automatic ban. No laws needed. No votes needed. Just re-define semi-autos as coming under the NFA rubrick and all of the same rules apply. Since the registry is closed, and nothing new can be added to it, they would be illegal to own, no matter if you were willing to pay the tax or not.



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 04:37 PM
link   


The conspiracy theories surrounding Agenda 21 are nothing more than fear porn.


You mean like gun control is nothing but fear porn be it UN, or federal government who exports death everyday, and who has no problems selling death to whoever pays.

People die everyday in the world from small arms, guess it's only bad when it happens to Americans.





top topics
 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join