UN/Obama vs Gun Owners

"262 million people were murdered by their own government during the last century"

Gun owners might not feel besieged right now, but they should be very concerned. Last week the Obama administration announced its support for the UN Small Arms Treaty. This treaty poses real risks for freedom and safety in the United States as well as the rest of the world.

It's important to note that TPTB will use the Supremacy clause in the Constitution to allow this treaty to Nullify the 2nd Amendment.

According to the U.N., guns used in armed conflicts cause 300,000 deaths worldwide every year. Their proposed solution is a simple one. Keep rebels from getting guns by requiring that countries “prevent, combat and eradicate” what those countries define as “the illicit trade in small arms.”

The UN’s solution isn’t too surprising when one looks at the long list of notorious totalitarian regimes, such as Syria, Cuba, Rwanda, Vietnam, Zimbabwe, and Sierra Leone, which support these “reforms.” But not all insurgencies are “bad.” To ban providing guns to rebels in totalitarian countries is like arguing that there is never anything such as a just war.

In hindsight, during World War II, should the French or Norwegian resistance movements simply have given up? Surely this would have minimized causalities. But that is hardly a one-time event. What about Afghanis in their fight against the Soviet Union or Nicaraguan rebels fighting communist dictators during the 1980s? Was it wrong to help out? What about totalitarian governments that massacre their citizens? Don’t they have a right to protect themselves?

Many countries already ban private gun ownership. Rwanda and Sierra Leone are two notable examples. Yet, with more than a million people hacked to death over the last decade-and-a-half, were their citizens better off without guns?


Political scientist Rudy Rummel estimates that 262 million people were murdered by their own government during the last century -– that is 2.6 million per year. This includes genocide, the murder of people for political reasons, and mass murder. Even if all 300,000 deaths from armed conflicts can be blamed on the small arms trade, an obviously false claim, people have much more to worry about from their governments. Adding the U.N.’s estimated deaths from gun suicides, homicides, and accidents still provides a number that is only a ninth as large.

"262 million people were murdered by their own government during the last century." Even if those numbers were off by 100,000,000 it's still stagering.

Could this happen in America?

Remember the American Indians? They were forced off their land and some were just massacred. The US Government also used Bioligocal warfare on them as well.

Second, the treaty is a backdoor way to get more gun control laws adopted in the US. “After the treaty is approved and it comes into force, you will find out that it has this implication or that implication and it requires the Congress to adopt some measure that restricts ownership of firearms,” Former UN Ambassador John Bolton warns. “The [Obama] administration knows it cannot obtain this kind of legislation purely in a domestic context. … They will use an international agreement as an excuse to get domestically what they couldn’t otherwise.”


In addition, to keep track of guns, licensing and registration will be pushed, despite their complete failure to trace crime guns in the places in the US that have tried it or Canada. One also just needs to look no further than how Mexican President Felipe Calderon has blamed his country’s crime problems on the sun setting of the US “assault weapons” ban. Somehow semi-automatic guns, essentially deer hunting rifles that have a cosmetic outside that look like AK-47s or other similar weapons, are being painted as military weapons. The same claims now being made for Mexico will be made even more forcefully under the UN treaty.

The Militia Act of 1902 basicaly says a Citizen that is not serving in the land or naval forces is militia, and has a legal right to own any type or amount of small arms he deems necessary. (Including a .50 cal Minigun should you feel the need too.)

Third, gun bans also produce another problem: increased murder rates. UN gun control advocates don’t want to acknowledge that everyplace in the world that we have crime data for has seen that gun bans result in higher murder rates. Americans have seen the increase in murder rates in DC and Chicago after their bans, and the sudden 25 percent drop in DC’s murder rates last year after their ban was removed. But as recent research shows, gun bans have consistently lead to higher murder rates around the world. Even island nations, who can’t blame some neighbors for their supply of guns, have seen increases in violent crime rates.

The Small Arms Treaty is just a back door way for the Obama administration trying to force through gun control regulations. With the huge standing ovation that House and Senate Democrats recently gave Mexican President Calderon for his advocacy of a new so-called “Assault Weapons Ban,” Americans who care about self-defense have been put on notice. The threats to gun ownership are as real as ever.

So the Question is what can we do once this has been signed and ratified by the Senate?

I have a few ideas, but I would like to hear yours!


Source

[edit on 4-6-2010 by SWCCFAN]

The senate can ratify the treaty,there is not much we can do to stop them.(health care bill etc.) They still have to convince the american gun owning public to give the guns up. That is something that we can stop ,is the confiscation of weapons.
It is a sad day when our government would become the enemy of freedom!!!

[edit on 4-6-2010 by daddyroo45]

I say over-run DC. But It would have to be done sooner than later, especially before this is signed. The longer we wait, the more prepared the government will be. Can't give them time to call in U.N. troops to stop civil unrest and call martial law.

We need to become united and more organized.

Gun owners hiding in their homes littered throughout the land waiting for a group to knock on their door to confiscate isn't exactly going to work.

[edit on 4-6-2010 by Scarcer]

If British gun owners were as brave as Iraqi gun owners, Brits would
still enjoy the freedom to keep and bear arms! (see article quoted
below)

Another thought: it has been claimed many times that the ability of
the people to own weapons is irrelevant as far as defense of their own
country is concerned. The gun haters would say, what can a small AK-47
or an RPG do against an armada of attack helicopters, submarines and
tanks.

Well, it turns out that civilians in a well armed nation can fight
invaders better than its own army. Turns out that you cannot control a
country with attack helicopters or submarines.

Source

We need to organize more, and come to an agreement and understanding that we need to stick together, and form a front of resistance.

[edit on 4-6-2010 by Scarcer]

reply to post by daddyroo45


I hope we don't get to that point. Just say No comes to mind, But how many are willing to back it up with force?

It's not really an option when a SWAT team hits your house at 3 am.

I have a wife and a young son but she know where I stand on the issue.

I also have a few friends that are on the Local SWAT team, they told me if it came to collecting peoples weapons, they would quit.

I would have to say thats where the UN troops would come in and they are out numbered.

Does anyone have an idea for a civil defense platform to get the majority of people onboard and paying attention to this issue?

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Declaration of Independence

This is what everyone one in this country needs to memorize and take to heart.

A government that takes away the rights of its people without consent or discussion is not acceptable

SM

Their proposed solution is a simple one. Keep rebels from getting guns by requiring that countries “prevent, combat and eradicate” what those countries define as “the illicit trade in small arms.”

Wow.

I am completely pro 2nd amendment. And I see absolutely no problem here.

I think this is a case of your source (famously biased) taking this WAY out of context. There is absolutely nothing in the UN treaty that targets legitimate gun owners. The only reason you should be concerned is if you own or deal with illicit weapons.

The UN is not making any attempts to infringe upon our rights to own firearms legally in the US. The entire article is fear-mongering, and very detached from the reality of the situation. It is a collection of hypotheticals and 'what-ifs', and nothing more.

Simply put, you have nothing to worry about. There is absolutely no way any administration in the US is going to allow the confiscation of legal firearms. It would be a deathblow to the political party, as second amendment rights are overwhelmingly supported by US citizens. Not to mention the very act would likely result in armed revolts across the country.

The UN doesn't want your guns. Obama doesn't want your guns. You can relax now.

Tell me if this would work.

1. you buy all the guns you think you will ever need

2. make sure you take pictures of them in the gun case.

3. a few months later you stage a robbery at your home, hide the guns, include other expensive items like a flat screen, jewelry etc...

4. get a police report.

5. When/if "they" come to collect your registered weapons you show them "them" police report.

6. when they leave you open up your secret underground cache and grin like the Cheshire cat.

Would this work?

reply to post by Just Wondering


Probably, but if I wouldn't even let them take the guns they know I have. Give them NO LEWAY

Some fear is health to have, it helps keep things in balance.

But there is an obvious realization I had.

Gun confiscation when it happens wont be obvious.

It will take place in the middle of a catastrophe when it's unexpected.

Originally posted by Scarcer
Some fear is health to have, it helps keep things in balance.

But there is an obvious realization I had.

Gun confiscation when it happens wont be obvious.

It will take place in the middle of a catastrophe when it's unexpected.

Hurricane Katrina is a perfect example of this. It already happened.

Originally posted by Just Wondering

Originally posted by Scarcer
Some fear is health to have, it helps keep things in balance.

But there is an obvious realization I had.

Gun confiscation when it happens wont be obvious.

It will take place in the middle of a catastrophe when it's unexpected.

Hurricane Katrina is a perfect example of this. It already happened.

Exactly, that was the testing grounds.

TPTB have this thought out all right. That's why we need to form better networks.

Originally posted by Scarcer


Gun confiscation when it happens wont be obvious.

It will take place in the middle of a catastrophe when it's unexpected.

Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans 2005.

Oil spill LA, MS, AL, Fl .... 2010?

Chances are if there is a forced evacuation the will search all the houses. They will take the guns It's in FEMA's SOP.

What if we had a Jericho like Incident with mass evacuations?

Could you take your guns?

Originally posted by Scarcer

TPTB have this thought out all right. That's why we need to form better networks.

On my profile there is a Link.

I am the site Admin for it but it is being shut down in July.

You may be able to make a connection with other like minded people there.

However I would caution on forming a large group.

Here in MS out groups are small but they are everywhere. Most are not known to even exist.
When the SHTF we will all be on the same page.

reply to post by drwizardphd


What happens when the UN or Obama designate your guns as "illicit"?

Justification can be made up on the spot.

Of course the UN doesnt want your guns.

Thats why they have this nice statue of one outside their building.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/91aa7ed9a752.jpg[/atsimg]

They can have my guns one bullet at a time, when they pry them from my cold dead hands. This goes for my extended family too, as they have all commented on this upon reading it.

If the UN small arms treaty is made law, it will result in Civil War in this country. No questions asked.. Do not pass go, do not collect $200, Go straight to Civil War.

This would be the most ignorant thing the POTUS could do at this point.

Don't tread on me!

reply to post by brainwrek


Yeah I guess you're right the UN don't want guns that still work.

When I run out of ammo I will use it as a club, when it no longer funtions as a club, I will use a knife. I have done it before, and if needed will do it again.


Guns don't kill people. people Kill people.