Skip to comments.Disarmament and Destruction -- the United Nations seeks to disarm entire populations "peacefully"
Posted on 02/22/2005 10:00:25 PM PST by Coleus
Disarmament and Destruction
by William Norman Grigg
Under the guise of "peace and safety" the United Nations seeks to disarm entire populations. Never mind that disarmed populations invariably invite tyranny and genocide!
Global disarmament: The United Nations is intent on granting itself a monopoly on the use of force by removing small arms from private hands. History has shown that such monopolies have contributed to tyranny, bloodshed, and genocide.
For when they shall say, Peace and safety, then sudden destruction cometh upon them... and they shall not escape.
I Thessalonians 5:4
According to the United Nations, global "peace and safety" are to be achieved through "general and complete disarmament" with the UN acting as guarantor of international collective security, and UN-approved internal security forces entrusted with keeping the peace at the national level. This is a Utopian vision to be sure, and as such it has broad appeal among the idealistic and undiscerning masses. Behind the soothing internationalist rhetoric, however, is a recipe for a totalitarian future in which peace and safety are achieved not by the complete elimination of weapons, but by the creation of an irresistible United Nations monopoly on the use of force.
Recent history has shown that such a monopoly, built in part on the unsteady foundation of idealism, can lead to genocide. A case in point is Africa, which in the past decade has already witnessed one UN-abetted genocide and may soon witness another.
The blueprint for a disarmed world under UN control is State Department Publication 7277, entitled Freedom From War: The United States Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World. This plan was introduced by President John F. Kennedy in a 1961 speech to the UN General Assembly and is to this day the framework of the federal government's "arms control" policy.
Until recently, the application of this blueprint to civilian disarmament more commonly referred to by the artful euphemism "gun control" was largely inferential. However, in recent years, the UN has dispelled any ambiguity in this matter: "General and complete disarmament" must include UN-imposed measures to control the sale and possession of "small arms" by civilians.
The Rwanda Model
According to the recent United Nations disarmament propaganda film Armed to the Teeth: The World-Wide Plague of Small Arms, only those weapons that are "used by armies and police forces to protect us" can be considered "legal." Small arms in private hands, by way of contrast, constitute a pestilence: "Small arms are not fussy about the company they keep. They can murder indiscriminately. The gun that killed in Africa can do it again in Latin America, or in Asia .... Humankind is beginning a new millennium under the sign of the gun. Small arms are like uninvited guests who won't leave. Once they take over a country, they are virtually impossible to get rid of."
The film proudly displays "peacekeepers" in Africa, Latin America, and the Balkans doing their part to rid the world of the "plague" of privately owned firearms. The weapons are collected, often as part of what would be described in this country as a "gun buy-back," and destroyed. Only by creating global mechanisms to prevent civilians from having access to "illegal weapons," insists the agitprop film, "can genocide as happened in Rwanda be prevented."
In fact, it was precisely the model of "gun control" championed by the UN that facilitated the genocide in Rwanda. In a special supplement to their valuable study Lethal Laws, the group Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO) documents the fact that civilian disarmament was a precursor to the 103-day orgy of violence that killed at least 800,000 people and perhaps as many as 1.1 million in 1994.
"This genocide, like all genocide, was planned," explains the JPFO report. "It did not just 'happen.' The primary intended targets were easily identified in advance by community leaders, by appearance, and by their 'national identity' cards .... In pre-genocide Rwanda, every adult was legally required to have a 'national identity' card, which stated the bearer's ethnicity. These 'national identity' cards became death warrants for tens of thousands of victims." At the time, Rwanda was ruled by a faction drawn from the Hutu ethnic group, which sought to exterminate outright the Tutsi sub-population, along with politically unreliable Hutus.
Once the targeted group had been identified, it was demonized relentlessly as "cockroaches" by the government-controlled media, and killing squads of politically reliable Hutus, called Interahamwe militia, were organized. Most of the lnterahamwe cadres were armed with machetes, rather than firearms. According to the JPFO report, however, "the genocide regime's police and troops had government-issued firearms. The genocide regime also gave firearms and training to trusted civilians. In other cases, the regime issued to its supporters permits to buy firearms."
Most importantly, the victims "were not armed, even though they knew they were at risk. They had previously been subject to smaller-scale attacks. However, 'gun control' laws enacted on 21 November 1964 and 7 May 1979 kept them from legally buying firearms for self-defense. Many had the money to do so, despite Rwanda's general poverty. Many members of the target groups were of the former political or current business elite .... Almost all the intended victims of Rwanda's genocide regime tried to resist. They did not submit quietly to their murderers. The intended victims used stones, clubs, and improvised weapons. In literally a handful of cases, they used firearms, taken from their would-be murderers."
"They take them [the victims] from this building, this church," declared Jeanne Niwemutesi, a former secretary in the U.S. embassy, to a New York Times reporter. After taking refuge in the Holy Family Church in Kigali, Mrs. Niwe-mutesi watched in horror as the government-controlled mobs annihilated their unarmed victims: "They have guns and knives and machetes, the people from the Government party, so we can't fight back. We don't have arms."
Due in part to Rwanda's strict "gun control" measures, the genocide regime achieved a remarkable efficiency rate, liquidating 80-90 percent of the targeted population and leaving many thousands of survivors maimed. Many victims were left limbless; others had what one Belgian doctor described as "very, very deep [wounds] to the back of the neck."
The UN: Midwife to Genocide
At the time that the Rwandan genocide erupted, there were 2,500 "peacekeepers" deployed in the country to administer a cease-fire between the Hutu government and Tutsi rebels and to supervise a "secure weapons" area in Kigali, the nation's capital. By deploying the blue-helmeted troops most of whom were Belgian or Canadian the UN sought to persuade Rwandans to invest their hopes for "peace and safety" in the UN's Freedom From War formula: The central government and its authorized military and police organs would have a monopoly on firearms, under the supervision of armed representatives of the "world community." The destruction that ensued may have been sudden, but it was anything but unexpected at least to the UN.
On January 11, 1994, three months before the mass slaughter began, Lieutenant-General Romeo Dallaire, commander of the peacekeeping forces, sent an urgent fax entitled "Request for Protection for Informant" to the head of the UN's peacekeeping division in New York. Dallaire informed his superiors that a high-ranking member of the Hutu government was being paid huge sums of money to compile lists of Tutsis. "He suspects it is for their extermination," explained Dallaire. "[The] example he gave was that in twenty minutes his personnel could kill up to a thousand Tutsis."
"The informant had offered to assist the UN force in raiding Interahamwe weapons caches, and all he asked in return was UN protection for himself, his wife, and their four children," reported Philip Gourevich in The New Yorker. Dallaire "announced his intention to raid an arms cache within thirty-six hours, and he recommended that his superiors in New York help the informant be 'evacuated out of Rwanda.'"
A return fax sent out under the name of the head of UN peacekeeping operations forbade Dallaire to conduct the operation or offer protection to his informant. Instead, he was ordered to provide the intelligence provided by the informant to the very Hutu government that was preparing the massacre. He was also instructed to offer a stern warning to that government that its plans to organize the systematic slaughter of the Tutsis "represent a clear threat to the peace process" and constituted a "clear violation" of the "Kigali weapons-secure area" but that no pre-emptive action by the UN peacekeeping force would be taken.
UN spokesman Fred Eckhard told the September 25, 1997 Washington Post that while direct action against the arms caches was ruled out, one option discussed within the peacekeeping directorate was having the peacekeepers form "a cordon sanitaire [barricade] around the area of the operations while the government went in" and seized the weapons once again, a plan which made absolutely no sense in light of the established genocidal intent of that very government. In any case, the instructions issued by the head of the UN peacekeeping division, which were shared with the Hutu government, were little short of a green light for genocide. The official who gave the go-ahead signal is Kofi Annan, who was later appointed UN secretary-general, a post he presently holds.
Belgian Senator Alain Destexhe was left incredulous by the UN's complicity in the Rwandan holocaust. The UN's decision to betray the Hutu defector, share his intelligence with the Hutu regime, and disavow any intention of preventing the slaughter was "like informing a terrorist that you know he's preparing his terrorism and assuring him you're not going to do anything about it," complained Destexhe.
Propaganda campaign: To support its drive to bring about global gun control, the UN has produced the agitprop film Armed to the Teeth: The World-Wide Plague of Small Arms (left). According to the film, only those weapons "used by armies and police forces to protect us" are "legal." In Rwanda the result of such gun control measures as advocated by the UN was genocide, according to a supplemental study (right) by the group Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership.
One year later, a special commission under the leadership of former Swedish Prime Minister Ingvar Carlsson (a co-chairman of the Commission on Global Governance) issued a 57-page report acknowledging Annan's complicity, in spite of his denials. He and his chief deputy, Iqbal Riza, had ignored clear and detailed warnings of the impending genocide, and thereby helped facilitate it.
Genocide on the Horizon?
Rwanda's 103-day orgy of fratricide was the 20th century's last genocide; Zimbabwe displays every symptom of being the site of the inaugural genocide of the 21 st. This time the targets would be the tiny minority of white farmers who remained after the former Rhodesia was delivered into the hands of Robert Mugabe's Communist junta in 1980, and any black Zimbabwe residents who are deemed politically unsuitable. Recent events in Zimbabwe duplicate, with unsettling precision, the course followed by Rwanda as it descended into hell.
Mugabe is already accomplished at genocide, having conducted a lengthy campaign to exterminate the politically troublesome Ndebele tribe during the 1980s. In 1985, with Zimbabwe's white population reduced from 200,000 to 100,000, Mugabe announced: "We are going to do a clean-up operation so that we remain only with the whites who want to work with the Government." After 20 years of Marxist rule, white-owned farms constitute the only productive sector of the Zimbabwean economy. Although the farmers represent less than I percent of the population, they are responsible for twenty-five percent of all employment in the country, and 40 percent of the nation's export earnings.
In predictable Communist fashion, Mugabe has decided to confiscate those farms and kill any farmers who resist expropriation. Just as predictably, his regime is making use of an inherited gun registration law to disarm his potential victims. In an echo of the Rwandan lnterahamwe killing squads, Mugabe has unleashed armed mobs called the War Veterans of Zimbabwe (wvz) upon white farmers and their black supporters. And the official who is organizing the terror calls himself "Hitler."
Mugabe's mayhem: Zimbabwe may be the scene of the first genocide of the new millennium. President Robed Mugabe (left) has sought to create a government monopoly on firearms. He has also allowed the militant War Veterans of Zimbabwe under the leadership of Chenjerai "Hitler" Hunzvi (above) to forcibly seize white-owned farms, murder their owners, and terrorize all who oppose the carnage.
The thugs who call themselves the "War Veterans of Zimbabwe" are a very familiar type to former soldier of fortune Michael Peirce. "If these guys are war veterans," commented Peirce to THE NEW AMERICAN, "I'm a monkey's uncle." Peirce, a software developer in Atlanta and an essayist whose work is featured on the LewRockwell.com website, is a veteran of the Rhodesian war. From 1978 to 1980, Peirce fought as a volunteer on behalf of the anti-Communist forces. "I'm 50, which is the age of most of the veterans of that war," observes Peirce. "I was inspired to join up after I read a story about a woman defending her farm. The photos of the so-called veterans generally show a bunch of kids in their 20s or young men in their 30s who would have been too young to fight. They're simply a pack of Communist rabble. They're not militia; they're terrorists and murderers who should be hung."
Unleashing the Terror
Beginning in March 2000, Mugabe authorized the WVZ to begin seizing farms; at present more than 1,000 have been occupied, and more than 30 farmers have been killed. The London Daily Telegraph for March 4, 2000 described how, following Mugabe's announcement that he intended to "deport the whites back to Britain," dozens of farms were overran "by mobs armed with spears and axes, many of [the squatters] drank or under the influence of drags." Rob Brown, a farmer whose land was seized, described how some 90 armed, drunken thugs were bussed in from the capital city of Harare to drive him off his land.
"We will do what the people of Zimbabwe want and they want the land," declared Chenjerai "Hitler" Hunzvi, head of the WVZ, as the expropriations began. "These whites who claim to be Zimbabwean, we will just deport them back to Britain." When asked by a reporter about the violence and bloodshed that were certain to occur if the seizures continue, "Hitler" Hunzvi replied: "This is war. It's an economic war to transform the means of production. Economic war is more bitter than political war."
Hunzvi played a significant role in bringing about the economic collapse that provided a pretext for the farm seizures. The April 8, 2000 issue of the London Telegraph pointed out that Hunzvi was among the officials implicated in 1997 when it was revealed that the veterans' pension fund had been pilfered. Along with several other WVZ representatives Hunzvi delivered an ultimatum to Mugabe: Pay us off, or die. Mugabe raided the treasury to provide an $850 payment to 50,000 veterans. "The payment began a slide towards high budget deficits, high inflation, a collapse of the currency, high unemployment and a crisis in foreign currency reserves, leading to severe fuel shortages," noted the Telegraph.
In familiar fashion, Mugabe sought to shore up his political position by seizing upon a scapegoat the "racist" farmers, who are supposedly the salient of an international white racist conspiracy to impoverish Zimbabwe. On April 17th of last year, shortly after the WVZ was unleashed, a delegation from the Commercial Farmers Union met with Mugabe to urge him to call off the assault. According to Mugabe's account of the meeting, he told the farmers that "you are our enemies, because you have behaved as enemies of Zimbabwe and that we are full of anger. Our entire community is angry and this is why you see the war veterans seizing land."
The gravest "offense" committed by the farmers, according to Mugabe, was their success in persuading a majority of black Zimbabwe voters to oppose a referendum that would have amended the constitution to permit the seizure of farms without compensation. Although the referendum was defeated, it was passed by the parliament and signed by Mugabe on April 18, 2000 the 20th anniversary of the fall of Rhodesia to Communism. On the same day, 43-year-old farmer Martin Olds was murdered by an armed mob 70 men, according to one account. The mob surrounded his farm, pinned him in the bathroom of his home, set the house aflame with Molotov cocktails, gunned him down when he tried to escape, and mutilated his dead body. During the battle Olds used a radio to call for an ambulance; the mob turned the ambulance away when it arrived.
On the same day that Olds was murdered, Zimbabwe's central police agency began a crackdown on firearms possession by the white farmers. Mugabe's Information Minister Chen Chimutengwende told the April 18th Telegraph that the crackdown was provoked by "military activity on farms. So many white farmers have applied for licenses to train security guards. But we know that this is for military purposes and it includes firearms training. They have so many unlicensed firearms." According to Chimutengwende, police had orders to search all 4,000 white-owned farms for weapons and diesel fuel the latter commodity being very valuable, in light of the ever-worsening fuel shortage.
"We Will Cut Your Limbs"
This is not to say that the Zimbabwe national police and WVZ are fastidious about saving diesel fuel. Shortly after Mugabe commenced his anti-farmer rampage, WVZ thugs abducted farmer David Stevens, a supporter of the Movement for Democratic Change, the nation's chief opposition party. As recounted by the January 21st edition of 60 Minutes, Stevens was taken to police headquarters in Murewa for interrogation. He was then taken to a nearby cave, forced to drink diesel fuel, and shot twice in the face. Asked by reporter Leslie Cockburn about the deaths of Olds, Stevens, and other farmers, Mugabe smirked and replied, "They provoked it. They should have been more careful." Mugabe has granted a blanket amnesty for all crimes committed by the WVZ against the farmers and black political dissidents.
Cockbum and a camera crew were present at the farm of Harry Milbank when a WVZ contingent arrived. "We are not doing this on our own, but we are following the orders from a superior, that is from the government," the gang leader explained on-camera. Asked if his group intended to drive Milbank from his land, the goon replied: "If he is going to argue with us he is committing suicide. Mr. Milbank is very stubborn and we are going to take this farm whether he likes it or not." To the 60 Minutes reporter the thug issued a crude warning: "Don't put yourself into danger. If you misquote us, then I will know, we will cut your limbs, and will get you."
Similar threats were issued to farmer Melville Hubbard, who owns a farm about 15 miles from the scene of Martin Olds' murder. In December of last year the WVZ cadres who killed Olds sent Hubbard the following warning: "We don't want to see you, or your family. Your friend Martin was our breakfast for Independence Day [April 18], so you are going to be our breakfast for Christmas. We want you to know we are coming to destroy your home. With your wife, we will fix you. We don't want to kill you at your work. We want you at home."
The New Year brought another escalation in the campaign and another echo of the Rwandan genocide. According to the January 3rd issue of South Africa's Financial Gazette, high-ranking officers of the Zimbabwe Republic Police (the nation's centralized police agency) "have clandestinely released firearms from the police armoury to independence war veterans"; many of those firearms, according to the report, are being stored in arms caches around the country, perhaps in anticipation of Mugabe's final solution to the problems presented by his domestic opposition.
The UN has admonished Mugabe to halt his illegal seizure of white-owned farms but only because the campaign has alienated international support for the "peaceful" confiscation of those farms through "land reform." In a letter to Mugabe, Mark Malloch Brown, administrator of the UN Development Program (UNDP), warned that "neither the Secretary-General nor I will be able to secure any donor financial support until outstanding law and order issues are brought under control. Every donor I have consulted has been adamant."
The London Daily Telegraph for January 7th noted that Brown's letter criticized the seizures for being carded out by Mugabe's supporters, who have "no farming experience." "It is our professional view," declared the UNDP administrator, "that the approach of immediate resettlement with investment and services to follow is unlikely to succeed in achieving its goal, particularly in the economic environment." In other words, the seizures have alienated UN "donor support" because they're chaotic and economically nonviable not because they involve crimes against persons and property and represent an overture to genocide. And of course, Brown's letter as summarized in the press made no mention of UN disapproval for Mugabe's moves to disarm the prospective victims of genocide.
Then again, why would Annan and his comrades find fault with Zimbabwe's "micro-disarmament" campaign against the white farmers? Apart from the unfortunate irregularities that have accompanied the farm seizures, Mugabe has done little to deviate from the Freedom From War program. He is taking steps to ensure that the central police force and military, along with its duly deputized "select" militia, the WVZ, have a monopoly on firearms. Assuming that he is able to work out his disagreements with the UNDP regarding the details of land reform, Mugabe could find himself in the UN's good graces again perhaps just in time for a "peacekeeping" contingent to arrive to help with any mopping-up operation that might be necessary.
UN Target: Our Firearms
"Communism is almost boring, it's so predictable," former Rhodesian freedom fighter Michael Peirce remarked to THE NEW AMERICAN. "It proceeds in stages, and disarmament of the demonized population is one of those stages. And this inevitably leads to a stage in which the Communists kill a lot of people." For that final stage to occur, he points out, "the Communists have to take the guns away from their victims."
Propaganda disseminated by the UN in support of its campaign for global civilian disarmament makes prominent use of the horrifying human cost of the wars and bloodshed that have ravaged Africa. Having fought in an African civil war and having witnessed first-hand the global political machinations that have advanced the cause of the total state Michael Peirce offers a perspective informed by personal experience.
"The UN complains that Africa is 'flooded' with small arms and light weapons, which is certainly the case," he points out. "But the problem isn't the presence of weapons. Rhodesia before it was turned over to the Communists was one of the most heavily armed societies on earth, and it was far more civilized and peaceful than some parts of the United States are today."
"If Mugabe decides to confiscate all the farms and brutalize the farmers, there will be a lot of political pressure for the West to intervene, either through the UN or in some coalition," Peirce predicts. "And this would probably be a lose-lose situation, because it will be used to reinforce the idea that the tragedy is another illustration of the need to control the possession and availability of firearms. The UN has an obvious interest in taking away our weapons not just those in Africa or elsewhere, but those owned by Americans as well. Make no mistake about it: They are after our guns, and heaven help us if we don't wake up and stop them before it's too late."
Gun Grab: UN headquarters, which features this statue, will be the site of the world body's Conference on Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons, which is scheduled to take place this July. On the agenda will be "micro-disarmament," more commonly known as gun control.
Let them start with Muslim countries and then communist ones.
"...From My Cold DEAD Hands!"
Ping for later read. The nerve of them.
That's a good place for them to start, I agree, unfortunately, the UN doesn't have the guts to do that, or, they are in the sack with Islamists, and concentrate of freedom loving westerners, who, because of heavy loony leftist peace freak infestation, weak governments, are easy targets who would willingly lay down arms while the enemy advances.
It reminds me of the fall of the Roman empire; they became infested with lazy socialists.
I would like to see the UN crumble
Freakin UN won't be happy until they can crack the whip on the USA and turn this place into a gun control "utopia" like England or Australia. The time to get out of the UN is now.
Rev 6:2 And I saw: and behold, a white horse, and he that sat upon it having a bow; and a crown was given to him, and he went forth conquering and that he might conquer.
Folks, the #1 issue now is stopping the Law of the Seas Treaty dead cold in the Senate. Lobby Sen. Bill Frist and the Repubs on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Also, your own senators, too. Keep pounding away, it MAKES the difference!
H.R. 1146 will withdraw the USA from the United Nations madhouse/cesspool.
Go to: http://www.getusout.org/un/index.html . Then go lobby at http://www.conservativeusa.org/megalink.htm . Email President Bush at email@example.com . White House comment line is 202-456-1111.
The United Nations is a corrupt disgrace and it is time for the USA to WITHDRAW from and defund the United Nations. Please tell your senators, congressmen and everyone you know to support H.R. 1146 which would WITHDRAW the USA from the United Nations, prohibit US funds going to the UN and prohibit US troops serving under UN command. H.R 1146 is the American Sovereignty Restoration Act.
The whole mission of the UN is to take power, money and national sovereignty from the USA. Thus the United States must withdraw from and defund the UN, a worthless organization, and if we go, if we are lucky, the whole thing will implode.
It's already started. TX has conceal carry, right? You must get permission from the government to carry. This was unheard of in our fathers' day. Gun control is so incremental you won't notice until it's gone. Read Walter Mitty's Second Amendment if you haven't already.
Can you tell me who the hell is trying to bring up the LOST Treaty? I want to know. That piece of global control crap didn't attempt to surface again by itself did it?
I invite you, Kofi, to come to my house FIRST to attempt to take my guns.
I can promise you, for a FACT, you won't attempt to take any more.
...It's already started. TX has conceal carry, right? You must get permission from the government to carry...
You are so right. Our freedoms are removed from us in a very discreet manner.
People need to wake up to the agenda of the UN, how corrupt it is, and infested with Islamic fundamentalists. They are using the UN to destroy all religion of the world, while the UN builds a perfect platform for the Islamic fundamentalists to quickly take over once it is done. This Gaia worship crap is just perfect for that to happen.
Why the heck are all these rogue islamic dictatorships even allowed in the UN as members in the first place is beyond me. The UN's own charter forbids membership of countries who are not democratic, free nations.
Anyways, I'm right behind, or in front withj you demanding the UN be scrapped, or at the very least gutted and rebuilt into a much smaller, more effective place.
I see the UN as being a rented board room, a long table with several chairs around it, in which the leader of each country sits and discuses the problems of the world with each other. That's it. No need for all these uelected NGO's which are just fronts for elitists to control the world.
Let them try to take my 13y/o sons Remington Mountain Rifle (7mm-08) from him....they'll have a tiger by the tail with that one!
Let them start with Muslim countries and then communist ones."
They started with the U.S. a long time ago.
I gaurantee, when they disarm the U.S. population, they will send in "peaceful" muslim troops to protect us.
Unfortunately, along with the control of the internet, the UN is setting up a global gun registry, where manufacturers have to report every firearm they sell, and where they sell it.
This treaty is supposed to be written by september, when the UN will hold its conference on global security. At this conference they also plan to announce that it is the UNs duty to go into countries that are experiencing strife or civil war, and take over the natural resources of those countries to "protect" them.
a conversation which a citizen reported he had with a local police officer. This transcript reveals something of the mentality among the police--and other public servants. The Nuremberg Principle mentioned in the conversation refers to the Nuremberg War Crime Tribunal. The principle is that public servants are legally obligated to disobey illegal orders
RE: A CONVERSATION WITH A POLICE OFFICER
I live in Sebastopol, California, which is approximately 60 miles north of San Francisco and approximately 8 miles east of the Pacific coast line. Sebastopol is a bedroom community of approximately 8,000 people. It is in Sonoma County. Sebastopol and Sonoma County have repeatedly voted for Clinton, Gore, Feinstein--champions of more victim disarmament laws [i.e., gun control]. Sonoma County has one major daily newspaper, The Press-Democrat, which strongly supports more victim disarmament laws.
What follows is true. The date was late 1999. The scene was a beautiful, sunny day...in Sebastopol, California.
I was walking my dog when I saw a man, in civilian clothes, walking his dog, coming toward me. When this man and I crossed each other's path, I started a conversation with this man. The following is a faithful, paraphrased, recreation of this conversation, not an exact quote.
In the dialogue that follows, PM stands for me, [I deleted the author's name], and RS stands for [police officer's name deleted], who was the other man walking his dog.
This RS is a white male; approximately 5'9"; approximately 145-150 pounds; approximately 50-55 years old. He is wiry; athletic, trim looking; he has a flat abdomen; medium brown hair; bushy mustache; a gaunt look; and tight facial skin with deep smile lines (diagonal lines along nose, above mouth.)
PM: Excuse me. May I please talk to you briefly?
PM: Are you a Sebastopol Police Officer?
PM: I thought so. I normally see you from the chest up, in blue uniform, behind the steering wheel of a patrol car.
RS: [No comment.]
PM: What's your name?
PM: Have a question for you. How do you feel about gun control?
RS: I don't have any problem with most people having guns. It is a mistake to over rely on the police. We cannot be every where. You have a right to guns. You should get proper training. I own guns. I like to shoot. I can understand how others would like to keep their guns. I think some people in Sebastopol might be unsafe with guns, but it is their right. They make me nervous about how they handle their guns.
PM: Have another question for you. If civil authority gave you an order to go house to house to disarm law- abiding citizens who never misused their firearms, what would you do? And why?
RS: Don't worry about that. I do not think that will ever happen. I've been a cop for 25 years. I do not anticipate receiving that order before I retire. I do not believe our chief [recently retired deleted] would ever give that order. I think the chief would be extremely reluctant to issue us that order. I just don't think he would do it. I am very confident that I will retire before I ever get that order.
PM: Thank you for sharing that with me, but please do not avoid the question. The question is (and I repeated it.) If you were given that order, what would you do? Assume that you were given that order, what would you do? (For several minutes Officer [deleted] gave me evasive, non-responsive answers, while I did my best to keep him focused on giving me a direct answer responsive to my specific question.)
RS: (Eventually) I would carry out the order.
PM: Why? RS: Because it is an order?
PM: Any other reasons?
RS: Yes. I've been a cop for 25 years. I have worked hard. I have put up with a lot--stress, danger, heartache, etc. I would not like doing it but I would do it (enforce the order).
PM: What if the home owner citizen (who is otherwise law-abiding) tells you something like this, "Officer. I respect your title. Thank you for your service. But I am not going to give you my guns. Society and the courts have gone off the deep end. They are wrong. I have rights. My rights limit your duty, regardless of what society says. I am going to stand up for those rights. I am not going to let you cross the threshold into my home to confiscate my guns. I have never misused my guns. I am not responsible for what criminals do with their guns. I am not a criminal. I wish you well. I harbor no animosity toward you. Please. Just leave in peace, without my guns. Stay on that side of my door, and you are a peace officer. Cross the threshold to my home to confiscate my guns, and you are a government goon. I will support and obey a peace officer. I will not support and I will not obey a government goon," what would you do then?
RS: I would not leave. I would enforce the order.
PM: What if the citizen then made it politely and tactfully clear to you that if you want the guns, you will have to use lethal force because he (or she) is willing to use lethal force to resist? What would you do then?
RS: In that case, the situation is no longer academic. I would not leave without that citizen's guns. I would enforce the order.
PM: Even after the citizen warns you of the personal physical risk you take? Even after the citizen urges you to leave in peace?
RS: I have received an order. I am a cop. It is my job to enforce the law. This hypothetical citizen you've described is a gun nut. He is willing to risk his life and his freedom for his damn guns. When it comes down to his guns and my retirement benefit, I am not going to give my department any excuse for terminating me, for keeping me from retiring and collecting my retirement benefit. I am not going to let my fellow officers down. I will carry my weight. I will do my job. If necessary, I will become a vicious bull dog to enforce that order. I want to collect my retirement. I want to keep my job. My wife and I are counting on me keeping my job. We need the money. I am not going to let my family or my department down.
PM: So, would you be willing to kill that otherwise law-abiding citizen to disarm him? To enforce your order?
PM: And, assuming you did that and that you survived that encounter, would you then go to the next house hold to enforce your order?
PM: And what if that citizen told you the same thing as the other one that you just killed? What would you do then?
RS: I would enforce my order.
PM: Including using lethal force to kill that citizen, too?
PM: And after you do that, would you then move on to the next house? And the next?
PM: Is that how you treat citizens who paid your salary via their taxes for 25 years? Would you really do this? Shift after shift until Sebastopol was a gun free zone?
RS: Hey! Do not get upset with me. I would just be doing my job. If anyone has a problem with me doing my job, they should obey my command to surrender their guns to me and then take it up with a judge. They have a legal duty to obey my order. If they threaten me with lethal force, I will take care of myself, which will be bad for whomever resisted my order.
PM: Have you ever heard of the "Nuremberg Principle"?
PM: Do you know what that principle is?
PM: Have you ever received any training about the "Nuremberg Principle"?
PM: So you would just continue going from house to house, shift after shift, day after day, enforcing that order, killing everyone who refused to surrender their guns?
RS: Do not get upset with me. I am just a small cog in a big piece of machinery. If the citizens want to stay alive, they simply just have to surrender their guns, as ordered.
PM: Is there any order you would not enforce to keep your retirement benefit? To protect your income?
RS: I do not want to continue this conversation. (Officer [deleted] then walked away.)
Almost a year after this exchange with Officer [deleted], I am still disturbed. The implications of this exchange are alarming. I did not like how quickly Officer [deleted] was willing to reduce me, and people like me, to gun nut status. I do not like Officer [deleted's] mind set that his retirement benefits are more important than the rights and lives of gun nuts.
Sebastopol Police Officer [deleted] exists. I did not make him up. It is a mere coincidence that his last name is [deleted]. I described him with particularity on purpose. Good citizens need to know what Officer [deleted] told me, and they need to know what he looks like so they will have a fighting chance to stay alive and remain free.
For more information:
It cannot be said loudly or often enough.
"From My Cold DEAD Hands!"
And let the U.N. be assured, that is not just a slogan.
Kick them out to Haiti.
Once they have fixed conditions there, then- maybe- we will listen to them again.
That's big talk, and I know you mean it, but, it's hard to resist if you are standing alone.
Hitler disarmed his nation before he rearmed it, just like the UN did in Rwanda. So did Stalin disarm his subjects, as did Castro, And many other popular world tyrants.
Many people then said the same thing as you are now? I can tell you many did, and many died.
As Americans, we are supposed to have a RIGHT, a constitutional RIGHT to bear arms, WE are the militia if need be, to control our government who we elect to SERVE us.
California, and some other states need to be smartened up regarding these rights. We must make it clear, just as the president swears to protect abide by the constitution, so will and do we.
The UN should be nothing more than a gathering place for the worlds governments to discuss worldy issues. Each nation should contribute as they are able, toward solving world troubles, such as disasters, stopping wars, etc. But, at the same time remain independant free nations, as long as the people within them are free as well, and have their rights of freedom of choice etc.
We must, as a nation, make sure this place, the UN, does not exceede it's limits, which it has been doing for far too long. Time for a clean up. Boot them off our lands. Cut off funding.
If the UN does not want to return to it's real purpose, namely a meeting room for the Nations, then it must be disbanded. Annan must go, as well as his team of genocide supporters. Sweep out all those NGO's who want to run the world. It's nothing but a plateform for a world dictator, and guess who, or rather what wants that job. "Allah"
I will never bow to a rock.
I know, HOW do we fix California's gun laws? Take them to court. People of the USA against the state of California. Use the NRA to launch it. Write now and voice your opinion, buy a membership, donate to the legal costs.
This should be spread across the "blogishere" with fervor.
As far as the UN goes, they are stifled through their own indiscretions right now and this isn't going to disappear any time soon.
Big talk perhaps. But every man must know himself. I would rather die on my feet before I live on my knees. Be it alone or not.
Agreed. You won't be alone, you have my word on that.
I hate this stuff. I watched Hotel Rwanda last night with my girl friend.
It's a good movie ~ go and see what happens to people when they give up there protection of life and liberty less than ten years ago in another part of the world.
Take some notes
Do NOT ever get rid of your guns.
"Sebastopol Police Officer [deleted] exists"
I have met very similar version of this man In Milwaukee WI two years ago and had a very similar conversation. He was a police officer as well.
Curious coincidence that I have a couple of rifles that fire UN rounds.
UN troops can be a resource after all.
I used to use the U.N. flag to wipe my boots. The last time I saw it was during a big rainstorm, I think it washed down the storm drain. I don't miss it.
Go on the UN website and look for LOST.
Demos' have been trying to pass this, especially during the Clinton Admin. Heavy support from the Lib section of both parties.
My comments were an observation only. and in no way do I support the UN or disarmament.
Senator Lugar is pushing it with all the usual suspects behind him.
Agreed. They may as well give up trying to take our guns. That would be a definite civil war.
The UN and a ton of NGOs that we love to hate like the Sierra Club are pushing for LOST. Sen Richard Lugar (R) is a big supporter.
The key is to get a lot of email/phone volume to Senate Repubs, esp Frist and Lugar, and tell them to vote NO on LOST. LOST is a backdoor way for the UN to tax everyone and we must stop it.
http://www.conservativeusa.org/megalink.htm is a great master link for emailing.
Thanks for the links. Nobody in their right mind could support this (LOST). Jeff Sessions laid it out at the CPAC Reagan Banquet as priotity number one that it be stopped dead in its tracks.
Frist and Lugar will hear from me, and so will my state and local reps. Thanks again.
Might want to throw those boots away now that they are soiled by that flag.
Koffi, you and the boys come on by I've got something for you.
No more UN for US-list
If people want on or off this list, please let me know.