Posted on 01/23/2010 11:42:53 AM PST by jmaroneps37
Stealthy but well funded United Nations maneuvers to strip American citizens of their legal right to keep and bear arms are well underway.
The UN agenda is to push countries to adopt a universally binding treaty that would supersede our U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment.
A very important video by NRA investigative reporter Ginny Simone explaining this threat has been removed from youtube, but you can still access it at www.ammonland.com or on the NRA web site. Simone takes viewers to the London headquarters of IANSA-International Action Network for Small Arms- a global network to stop “proliferation and misuse of small arms and light weapons.” She shows us IANSA is plotting to tear down the Second Amendment.
IANSA head Rebecca Peters said, “It’s time (for) tough, tough gun laws,” after she successfully pushed through a binding gun ban treaty in Australia. Simone reports Peters has “an endless supply of dollars” to wage a successful anti gun propaganda campaign here in America.
Seemingly endless amounts of dollars appear available to IANSA from over 800 NGO’s-non governmental organizations- with Japan donating $1.87 million and Britain giving a 2 million dollar grant. “U.S. citizens don’t have the blanket right to use guns as they see fit,” declared Amnesty International’s Henry Smith.
Slow but steady erosion worldwide
In NYC Rick Cowan, a retired hero detective, was stripped of his right to carry after a simple automobile wreck. Even though Cowan infiltrated the mob and got medals for his bravery, he now is on the department’s No Carry list. Law abiding Louisiana citizens saw their guns confiscated after Katrina, and the Philippine government just instituted a nationwide gun ban to stave off violence for an election that won’t happen until May.
A North Carolina anti gun Democratic state senator..
(Excerpt) Read more at collinsreport.net ...
1. The US Constitution DOES have a quirk that allows the Senate to approve an International Treaty (2/3 majority) which COULD be contrary to the Constitution. Normally this would require 2/3 of the Senate AND 2/3 of the States (or, is it 3/4 for the states?).
2. The first "blue helmets" that land on US soil for the purposes of "law enforcement" or, anything other than pure training, will be slaughtered en masse. No prisoners. The precedent MUST be set for posterity...
That's *exactly* what we have. It's called freedom from govt oppression.
Μολὼν λάβε!
It will be the IRS taxing you for your ammo and guns.
Geron
Your post, “The UN cannot supercede the Constitution.” would be correct under a President but odumbo
But look at the different actions he has taken that should upset all reasonable people.
he did authorize the DOD to create a civilian force, mostly consisting of former DOD employees, ostensibly to be ready to assist in emergencies, These people are not hampered by Posse Comitatus as they are not members of the military
Then he granted INTERPOL the ability to SECRETLY investigate any American here in our own country and to arrest a US citizen who would not be accorded the rights given to the Underwear Bomber. So much for the Constitution.
Now we see his agenda for private ownership of guns. Could he authorize the civilian force to seize guns, bypassing local law enforcement?
He must be stopped.
Henry Smith's a brain dead totalitarian...
It will be if we don't stop this slide into a marxist hell hole.
In response to comment #32. YES. Why? NOONE, and I mean NOONE has the right to dictate to me how I see fit to defend my home and family.
If a person feels that they have the authority to deny me and my family the right to be secure in our home and to defend our home and lives with firearms, that person better understand that by doing so, they are authorizing me to deny them a certain fundamental right that they have.
Trying to take my guns would be a very, very bad idea.
And Rebecca “bobble head” Peters can piss up a rope. She’s a mental case and a half.
If anyone shows up at your door proclaiming to be a law enforcement officer from an agency with credentials that you don’t recognize, call the local police and tell them you have armed men at your door, identifying themselves as police from an agency that you don’t think exists.
I, for one, would not all allow anyone claiming to be INTERPOL, seize a citizen of the US, without checking with the FBI to see if they have knowledge of them being in the area, that they have express authorization to conduct their activities, and if the INTERPOL goons did not want to wait, then the better be prepared to arrest me and everyone I can summon as well.
Interpol wasn’t trained to scrap with big city coppers.
I respectfully disagree. It most certainly will not be.
I am the son of an AF vet who is a retired county sheriff’s deputy, and I assure you there is not a snowball’s chance in a blast furnace that he or a simple majority of his fellow LEOs would carry out such an order.
I am willing to confront the fact that not all metropolitan police departments across the US are created or run equally - some (like San Francisco, or Berkeley, or Seattle), I imagine would find many of their officers only too happy to (at least initially) try it.
Their chagrin would rise, I expect, upon their discovery of...the high number of refuse-niks among retired LEOs and retired/non-active duty military members in their communities who are strictly “old school” in their thinking...Those “good ol’ boys” would offer them a quick, firm education in a few key realities.
The fact is, a significant percentage of police, firefighters, and sheriff’s deputies are veterans of the US military. In part this is because most departments offer “veterans preference points” which weigh favorably towards hiring.
However, this is also strongly related to the boot camp basic training, and other military experiences which inculcate a respect for the law, the peace and order it creates and ensures when rightfully administered, and the chain of command authority that is respected when it is rightly based in the law, and protecting the rights of individuals, rather than an individual agenda.
Not all US military vets are politically conservative, but it is among the safest of bets that the majority are, and have always been through our history.
Consider also that there are more people in America living in towns of 50K or less than there are living in towns of 50K or more, and many smaller rural communities are patrolled by deputies who either grew up in the area and live those small town values, or they moved there by choice expecting to find those values.
The majority aren’t about to do something like that to their own neighbors. They could never hold their heads up in their towns again - especially in farming and ranching areas where Sheriff is an elected position.
Any Sheriff’s Department that followed such a directive could expect a full, top-to-bottom housecleaning by voters at the next scheduled election, if not sooner via recall petition where applicable.
As a general rule, I would expect deputies in such areas to either stand down, or to be an active party to what you term “persistent resistence”.
It is a worthwhile object lesson of history to observe other regimes and note that the lower level “enforcers” who implemented orders like that were eventually seen as disposable.
Stalin’s purge of experienced top Soviet officers to create a cult of personality around himself, Hitler’s balancing of various violent factions within Germany, using one of them against another as he facilitated his rise to power, Fidel Castro’s brutal execution of his proxy executioner, Ernesto “Che” Guevara (reportedly machine-gunned to death as he lay on the ground writhing from the pain of a broken leg) - there are many more examples.
Only the foolish would ignore them. Of course, liberals are notorious fools...
A.A.C.
No. The Constitution clearly puts itself FIRST in line of what constitutes the Supreme law of the land, followed by acts of Congress, THEN treaties. There’s no possible way the Founders would have allowed a treaty to override the Constitution.
The Appleseed project is ok but a little pricey. Going to an NRA match for Rifles and an IDPA for pistols is a little easier and doesn’t cost as much.
There should be at least fifty million gunowners with memberships to a gun group but there isn’t. You can’t even get Freepers to join. The small amount who joined the NRA when it gave away memberships is embarrassing. A gunowner who’s afraid of getting a few letters in the mail isn’t going to watch your back if things get rough.
If someone has childish issues with the NRA, they can at least join in the lawsuits the Second Amendment Foundation has started.
You wrote: “So if “we” the people “or at least 51% of it” deside that guns are a real problem and there for the police/army would be forced to enforce the will of the people. Would you still fire on someone who has “sworn” to defend the values of the US??”
You are not an American, as you say, so you don’t understand the basics of our system. Our government was instituted to ensure the rights that God has given us, not as a voting society to decide what ideas are popular. At any time that the government is no longer activly protecting our god given rights it ceases to be legitimate, and it is our duty to over throw it. (This is laid out in our first founding doucment: The Declaration of Independence).
The Bill of Rights lists the specific god given rights which are to be safeguarded by our government. The right of gun ownership is #2 on the list, right after freedom of speech and religion. The founders already thought about all this.
To legally change our laws to make guns banned you would, at minimum, need to ammend the Constitution. It takes a lot more than a 50% vote. It requires a super-majority of the States to approve the ammendment. It’s not going to happen.
Even if it did many individuals would argue that the Declaration of Independence, and our innate respect for our god given rights, would require us to rebellion and war against any such despotic disarming of the citizens.
So, to answer your question directly: YES! I would oppose someone coming to confiscate my weapons EVEN if he was doing it based on some law passed by 51% of the people withing some political boundary (city, state, Federal). Whether I would move, hide, fight or surrender would be a tactical decision. But my opposition would be total.
Many other Americans feel the same way. We were born here and it’s our country. We enforce the rules, as armed citizens. I realize it is hard for the subjects of other Nations, whose rights are granted by combinations of legislatures, kings, dictators, emirs and Central Committees of the Communist Party, to understand the armed citizenry of the USA, and our view of ‘citizneship’. Which is why I have taken great lengths to do my best to explain it.
You wrote: “So if “we” the people “or at least 51% of it” deside that guns are a real problem and there for the police/army would be forced to enforce the will of the people. Would you still fire on someone who has “sworn” to defend the values of the US??”
You are not an American, as you say, so you don’t understand the basics of our system. Our government was instituted to ensure the rights that God has given us, not as a voting society to decide what ideas are popular. At any time that the government is no longer activly protecting our god given rights it ceases to be legitimate, and it is our duty to over throw it. (This is laid out in our first founding doucment: The Declaration of Independence).
The Bill of Rights lists the specific god given rights which are to be safeguarded by our government. The right of gun ownership is #2 on the list, right after freedom of speech and religion. The founders already thought about all this.
To legally change our laws to make guns banned you would, at minimum, need to ammend the Constitution. It takes a lot more than a 50% vote. It requires a super-majority of the States to approve the ammendment. It’s not going to happen.
Even if it did many individuals would argue that the Declaration of Independence, and our innate respect for our god given rights, would require us to rebellion and war against any such despotic disarming of the citizens.
So, to answer your question directly: YES! I would oppose someone coming to confiscate my weapons EVEN if he was doing it based on some law passed by 51% of the people withing some political boundary (city, state, Federal). Whether I would move, hide, fight or surrender would be a tactical decision. But my opposition would be total.
Many other Americans feel the same way. We were born here and it’s our country. We enforce the rules, as armed citizens. I realize it is hard for the subjects of other Nations, whose rights are granted by combinations of legislatures, kings, dictators, emirs and Central Committees of the Communist Party, to understand the armed citizenry of the USA, and our view of ‘citizneship’. Which is why I have taken great lengths to do my best to explain it.
Don’t worry about the blue helmets, it will be your local PD and sheriffs department doing it. Some of them will feel bad about it, but they will do it anyway. It just depends on how much resistance can be formed and how persistent the resistance is.
I know there are some anti-gun sheriffs, but I really don't see it happening that way. Sheriffs are elected officials and they don't have the manpower to spend on house to house combat missions. If it came down to confiscation, it would be some kind of federal force.
I think trying to cut off the ammo supply is the most likely strategy for the gun banners to try in the near-term future.
even INTERPOL isn’t suicidal enough to try to take firearms from US citizens.
they are going to bring us into the ban and try to subvert our constitution. Then it is time to demand that the states rebel against the fed.
We had a protest outside the UN the last time they tried this, in 2001. Buses came from as far away as Colorado, with the Tyranny Response Team here in force. Don’t make us do it again.
BTTT
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.