Treacherous wording upholds “States” gun rights but not individuals
Aaron Dykes
Infowars.com
July 26, 2012
The text of the anticipated and hotly-contested United Nations Arms Trade Treaty has been leaked, with the treaty itself set to be adopted and signed by member States as early as tomorrow, July 27. President Obama, today joining the chorus for gun control inside the United States in the wake of the Batman massacre, has previously indicated that he would sign the treaty, which would then have to be ratified by the Senate.
Masked behind the language of promoting peace in an international world by preventing genocide, the UN has unleashed a great Trojan Horse that calls upon States to enact national legislation sufficient to meet the minimum goals outlined in this treaty– including gun registries, background checks, import/export controls and more for arms of all types, including small & conventional weapons. “Each State Party shall adopt national legislation or other appropriate national measures regulations and policies as may be necessary to implement the obligations of this Treaty,” the treaty text states in part.
It makes specific note that the treaty places no limit upon greater gun control efforts within individual nations, and additionally places no expiration on the agreement. The scope of this language proves the analysis by Infowars (1, 2, 3, 4), writers at Forbes and many other publications that have been warning about this deceptive encroachment to be correct– there is an effort to disarm America underway.
The devil, as usual, is in the details.
Repeatedly, the treaty obligates States to establish “national control systems” to meet the particulars of the treaty. While the phrase “within national laws and regulations” appears to suggest that the 2nd Amendment would limit the implementation, properly read in the context of the wording and history itself, it really only invites new “regulations” where no “law” can be established.
These international goals will undoubtedly pressure changes in the executive branches’ many policies, as we have already seen with the ATF, who are trying to outlaw most types of shotguns, and who separately placed greater reporting burdens on gun shops in the Southwest border states as a response to the Fast & Furious set-up by Eric Holder & co. to demonize and destroy gun ownership.
The first “principle” outlined in the preamble reads: “1. The inherent rights of all States to individual or collective self-defense.” While the language of the treaty appears to recognize the legal right to keep such arms, the text actually recognizes the “inherent right of States” to “individual and collective” self-defense.
This is NOT the same as individual persons’ inherent right to keep and bear arms as recognized and enumerated in the United States’ Bill of Rights. Instead, it puts the collectivist unit known as the State above the individual, in complete defiance of the system set-up in the United States. Individual defense for a State, for instance, refers to what is known on the international scene as “unilateral war,” while collective defense is recognize in such actions as that of NATO or other allied bodies. The States’ right to maintain internal order has also been recognized by the UN, but all other purposes for arms ownership are seen as illegitimate.
It specifically recognizes [only] the “lawful private ownership and use of conventional armsexclusively for, inter alia, recreational, cultural, historical and sporting activitiesfor States where such ownership and use are permitted or protected by law.” There’s been a great deal of rhetoric from gun grabbers over the years attempting to emphasize gun ownership for legitimate sporting uses, but the real purpose of arms ownership is a balance of power at the individual level in order to discourage tyranny at the State level. THAT is what the founding fathers intended, and that is the historical legacy Americans cherish.
NO SPECIFIC PROTECTION for individual persons is contained in this dangerous treaty, though the same media who’ve been demonizing critics of the UN’s effort as delusional and paranoid will attempt to argue otherwise, clinging to deliberately inserted clauses herein that look like stop-guards and protections for gun rights, but properly read, do no such thing.
While the UN advises States to keep within the scope of their own laws, the end-run assault against American’s 2nd Amendment is unmistakeable.
The text was released two days ago, but has received almost no attention in the press. TheInternational Association for the Protection of Civilian Arms Rights and The Examiner have analyzed the treaty, while pointing out that member states like France have “let slip that their ultimate goal is to regulate legitimately-owned ‘weapons.’”
The United Nations has a sordid history of pursuing “general and complete disarmament,” and individual arms including legally owned arms have always been part of that focus. The United Nations treaty from 2001, known as the “SADC Protocol: Southern African Development Community” is, according to the UN’s own disarmament website, a “regional instrument thataims to curtail small arms ownership and illicit trafficking in Southern Africa along with the destruction of surplus state weapons. It is a far-reaching instrument, which goes beyond that of a politically binding declaration, providing the region with a legal basis upon which to deal with both the legal and the illicit trade in firearms.”
As we have previously noted, U.S. troops have been trained to confiscate American guns, while the confiscation in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina has already set the precedent. The deception over aiming for legal guns while pretending to target “illicit” weapons is continued here in this 2012 monster treaty.
Below is the text in full, as it has been proposed and released. Any changes in the signed version will be noted when that time comes:
————————
UNITED NATIONS ARMS TRADE TREATY TEXT
PREAMBLE
The States Parties to this Treaty.
Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.
Recalling that the charter of the UN promotes the establishment and maintenance of international peace and security with the least diversion for armaments of the world’s human and economic resources;
Reaffirming the obligation of all State Parties to settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered, in accordance with the Charter of the UN;
Underlining the need to prevent, combat and eradicate the illicit trade of conventional arms and to prevent their diversion to illegal and unauthorized end use, such as terrorism and organized crime;
Recognizing the legitimate political, security, economic and commercial rights and interests of States in the international trade of conventional arms;
Reaffirming the sovereign right and responsibility of any State to regulate and control transfers of conventional arms that take place exclusively within its territory pursuant to its own legal or constitutional systems;
Recognizing that development, human rights and peace and security, which are three pillars of the United Nations, are interlinked and mutually reinforcing.
Recalling the United Nations Disarmament Commission guidelines on international arms transfers adopted by the General Assembly;
Noting the contribution made by the 2001 UN Programme of Action to preventing combating and eradicating the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects, as well as the 2001 Protocol against the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in Firearms, their parts and components and ammunition, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime;
Recognizing the security, social, economic and humanitarian consequences of the illicit trade in and unregulated trade of conventional arms;
Recognizing the challenges faced by victims of armed conflict and their need for adequate care, rehabilitation and social and economic inclusion;
Bearing in mind that the women and children are particularly affected in situations of conflict and armed violence;
Emphasizing that nothing in this treaty prevents States from exercising their right to adopt additional more rigorous measures consistent with the purpose of this Treaty;
Recognizing the legitimate international trade and lawful private ownership and use of conventional arms exclusively for, inter alia, recreational, cultural, historical and sporting activities for States where such ownership and use are permitted or protected by law;
Recognizing the active role that non-governmental organizations and civil society can play in furthering the goals and objectives of this Treaty; and
16. Emphasizing that regulation of the international trade in conventional arms should not hamper international cooperation and legitimate trade in material, equipment and technology for peaceful purposes;
Have agreed as follows:
Principles
Guided by the Purposes and Principles of the Charter of the United Nations, States Parties, In promoting the goals and objectives of this Treaty and implementing its provisions, shall act in accordance with the following principles:
The inherent rights of all States to individual or collective self-defense;
2. Settlement of individual disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered;
3. The rights and obligations of States under applicable international law, including international humanitarian law and international human rights law;
4. The responsibility of all States, in accordance with their respective international obligations, to effectively regulate and control international transfer of conventional arms as well as the primary responsibility of all States to in establishing and implementing their respective national export control systems; and
5. The necessity to implement this Treaty consistently and effectively and in a universal, objective and non-discriminatory manner.
Article 1
Goals and Objectives
Cognizant of the need to prevent and combat the diversion of conventional arms into the illicit market or to unauthorized end users through the improvement of regulation on the international trade in conventional arms,
The goals and objectives of this Treaty are:
– For States Parties to establish the highest possible common standards for regulating or improving regulation of the international trade in conventional arms;
– To prevent, combat and eradicate the illicit trade in conventional arms and their diversion to illegal and unauthorized end use;
In order to:
– Contribute to international and regional peace, security and stability;
– Avoid that the international trade in conventional arms contributes to human suffering;
– Promote cooperation, transparency and responsibility of States Parties in the trade in conventional arms, thus building confidence among States Parties,
Article 2
– A. Covered Items
– 1. This Treaty shall apply to all conventional arms within the following categories:
– a. Battle Tanks
– b. Armored combat vehicles
– c. Large-caliber Artillery systems
– d. Combat aircraft
– e. Attack helicopters
– f. Warships
– g. Missiles and missile launchers
– h. Small Arms and Light Weapons
– 2. Each State Party Shall establish and Maintain a national control system to regulate the export of munitions to the extent necessary to ensure that national controls on the export of the conventional arms covered by Paragraph a1 (a)-(h) are not circumvented by the export of munitions for those conventional arms.
– 3. Each State Party shall establish and maintain a national control system to regulate the export of parts and components to the extent necessary to ensure that national controls on the export of the conventional arms covered by Paragraph A1 are not circumvented by the export of parts and components of those items.
– 4. Each State Party shall establish or update, as appropriate, and maintain a national control list that shall include the items that fall within Paragraph 1 above, as defined on a national basis, based on relevant UN instruments at a minimum. Each State Party shall publish its control list to the extent permitted by national law.
– B. Covered Activities
– 1. This Treaty shall apply to those activities of the international trade in conventional arms covered in paragraph a1 above, and set out in Articles 6-10, hereafter referred to as “transfer.”
– 2. This Treaty shall not apply to the international movement of conventional arms by a State Party or its agents for its armed forces or law enforcement authorities operating outside its national territories, provided they remain under the State Party’s ownership.
Article 3
Prohibited Transfers
A State Party shall not authorize any transfer of conventional arms within the scope of this Treaty if the transfer would violate any obligation under any measure adopted by the United Nations Security Council acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, in particular arms embargoes.
A State Party shall not authorize any transfer of conventional arms within the scope of this Treaty if the transfer would violate its relevant international obligations, under international agreements, to which it is a Party, in particular those relating to the international transfer of, or illicit trafficking in, conventional arms.
A State Party shall not authorize a transfer of conventional arms within the scope of this Treaty for the purpose of facilitating the commission of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes constituting grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, or serious violations of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention of 1949.
Article 4
National Assessment
Each State Party, in considering whether to authorize an export of conventional arms within the scope of this Treaty, shall, prior to authorization and through national control systems, make an assessment specific to the circumstances of the transfer based on the following criteria:
Whether the proposed export of conventional arms would:
Be used to commit or facilitate serious violations of international humanitarian law;
Be used to commit or facilitate serious violations of international human rights law;
Contribute to peace and security;
Be used to commit or facilitate an act constituting an offense under international conventions and protocols relating to terrorism or transnational organized crime, to which the transferring State is a Party;
In making the assessment, the transferring State Party shall apply the criteria set out in Paragraph 2 consistently and in an objective and non-discriminatory manner and in accordance with the principles set out in this Treaty, taking into account relevant factors, including information provided by the importing State.
4. In assessing the risk pursuant to Paragraph 2, the transferring State Party may also take into consideration the establishment of risk mitigation measures including confidence-building measures and jointly developed programs by the exporting and importing State.
5. If in the view of the authorizing State Party, this assessment, which would include any actions that may be taken in accordance with Paragraph 4, constitutes a substantial risk, the State Party shall not authorize the transfer.
Article 5
Additional Obligations
Each State Party, when authorizing an export, shall consider taking feasible measures, including joint actions with other States involved in the transfer, to avoid the transferred arms:
being diverted to the illicit market;
be used to commit or facilitate gender-based violence or violence against children;
become subject to corrupt practices; or
adversely impact the development of the recipient State.
Article 6
General Implementation
Each State Party shall implement this Treaty in a consistent, objective and non-discriminatory manner in accordance with the goals and objectives of this Treaty;
The implementation of this Treaty shall not prejudice previous or future obligations undertaken with regards to international instruments, provided that those obligations are consistent with the goals and objectives of this Treaty. This Treaty shall not be cited as grounds for voiding contractual obligations under defense cooperation agreements concluded by States Parties to this Treaty.
Each State Party shall take all appropriate legislative and administrative measures necessary to implement the provisions of this Treaty and designate competent national authorities in order to have an effective, transparent and predictable national control system regulating the transfer of conventional arms;
Each State Party shall establish one or more national contact points to exchange information on matters related to the implementation of this Treaty. A State Party shall notify the Implementation Support Unit (See Article 13) of its national contact point(s) and keep the information updated.
State Parties involved in a transfer of conventional arms shall, in a manner consistent with the principles of this Treaty, take appropriate measures to prevent diversion to the illicit market or to unauthorized end-users. All State Parties shall cooperate, as appropriate, with the exporting State to that end.
If a diversion is detected the State or States Parties that made the decision shall verify the State or States Parties that could be affected by such diversion, in particulate those State Parties that are involved in the transfer, without delay.
Each State Party shall take the appropriate measures, within national laws and regulations, to regulate transfers of conventional arms within the scope of the Treaty.
Article 7
Export
Each State Party shall conduct risk assessments, as detailed in Articles 4 and 5, whether to grant authorizations for the transfer of conventional arms under the scope of this Treaty. State Parties shall apply Articles 3-5 consistently, taking into account all relevant information, including the nature and potential use of the items to be transferred and the verified end-user in the country of final destination.
Each State Party shall take measures to ensure all authorizations for the export of conventional arms under the scope of the Treaty are detailed and issued prior to the export. Appropriate and relevant details of the authorization shall be made available to the importing, transit and transshipment State Parties, upon request.
Article 8
Import
Importing State Parties shall take measures to ensure that appropriate and relevant information is provided, upon request, to the exporting State Party to assist the exporting State in its criteria assessment and to assist in verifying end users.
State Parties shall put in place adequate measures that will allow them, where necessary, to monitor and control imports of items covered by the scope of the Treaty. State Parties shall also adopt appropriate measures to prevent the diversion of imported items to unauthorized end users or to the illicit market.
Importing State Parties may request, where necessary, information from the exporting State Party concerning potential authorizations.
Article 9
Brokering
Each State Party shall take the appropriate measures, within national laws and regulations, to control brokering taking place under its jurisdiction for conventional arms within the scope of this Treaty.
Article 10
Transit and Transshipment
Each State Party shall adopt appropriate legislative, administrative or other measures to monitor and control, where necessary and feasible, conventional arms covered by this Treaty that transit or transship through territory under its jurisdiction, consistent with international law with due regard for innocent passage and transit passage;
Importing and exporting States Parties shall cooperate and exchange information, where feasible and upon request, to transit and transshipment States Parties, in order to mitigate the risk of discretion;
Article 11
Reporting, Record Keeping and Transparency
Each State Party shall maintain records in accordance with its national laws and regardless of the items referred to in Article 2, Paragraph A, with regards to conventional arms authorization or exports, and where feasible of those items transferred to their territory as the final destination, or that are authorized to transit or transship their territory, respectively.
Such records may contain: quantity, value, model/type, authorized arms transfers, arms actually transferred, details of exporting State(s), recipient State(s), and end users as appropriate. Records shall be kept for a minimum of ten years, or consistent with other international commitments applicable to the State Party.
States Parties may report to the Implementation Support Unit on an annual basis any actions taken to address the diversion of conventional arms to the illicit market.
Each State Party shall, within the first year after entry into force of this Treaty for that State Party, provide an initial report to States Parties of relevant activities undertaken in order to implement this Treaty; including inter alia, domestic laws, regulations and administrative measures. States Parties shall report any new activities undertaken in order to implement this Treaty, when appropriate. Reports shall be distributed and made public by the Implementation Support Unit.
Each State Party shall submit annually to the Implementation Support Unit by 31 May a report for the preceding calendar year concerning the authorization or actual transfer of items included in Article 2, Paragraph A1. Reports shall be distributed and made public by the Implementation Support Unit. The report submitted to the Implementation Support Unit may contain the same type of information submitted by the State Party to other relevant UN bodies, including the UN Register of Conventional Arms. Reports will be consistent with national security sensitivities or be commercially sensitive.
ARTICLE 12
ENFORCEMENT
Each State Party shall adopt national legislation or other appropriate national measures regulations and policies as may be necessary to implement the obligations of this Treaty.
ARTICLE 13
IMPLEMENTATION SUPPORT UNIT
This Treaty hereby establishes an Implementation Support Unit to assist States Parties in its implementation.
The ISU shall consist of adequate staff, with necessary expertise to ensure the mandate entrusted to it can be effectively undertaken, with the core costs funded by States Parties.
The implementation Support Unit, within a minimized structure and responsible to States Parties, shall undertake the responsibilities assigned to it in this Treaty, inter alia:
Receive distribute reports, on behalf of the Depository, and make them publicly available;
Maintain and Distribute regularly to States Parties the up-to-date list of national contact points;
Facilitate the matching of offers and requests of assistance for Treaty implementation and promote international cooperation as requested;
Facilitate the work of the Conference of States Parties, including making arrangements and providing the necessary service es for meetings under this Treaty; and
Perform other duties as mandated by the Conference of States Parties.
ARTICLE 14
INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION
States Parties shall designate national points of contact to act as a liaison on matters relating to the implementation of this Treaty.
States Parties shall cooperate closely with one another, as appropriate, to enhance the implementation of this Treaty consistent with their respective security interests and legal and administrative systems.
States Parties are encouraged to facilitate international cooperation, including the exchange of information on matters of mutual interest regarding the implementation and application of this Treaty in accordance with their national legal system. Such voluntary exchange of information may include, inter alia, information on national implementation measures as well as information on specific exporters, importers and brokers and on any prosecutions brought domestically, consistent with commercial and proprietary protections and domestic laws, regulations and respective legal and administrative systems.
4. Each State Party is encouraged to maintain consultations and to share information, as appropriate, to support the implementation of this Treaty, including through their national contact points.
5. States Parties shall cooperate to enforce the provisions of this Treaty and combat breaches of this Treaty, including sharing information regarding illicit activities and actors to assist national enforcement and to counter and prevent diversion. States Parties may also exchange information on lessons learned in relation to any aspect of this Treaty, to develop best practices to assist national implementation.
Article 15
International Assistance
In fulfilling the obligation of this Treaty, States Parties may seek, inter alia, legal assistance, legislative assistance, technical assistance, institutional capacity building, material assistance or financial assistance. States, in a position to do so, shall provide such assistance. States Parties may contribute resources to a voluntary trust fund to assist requesting States Parties requiring such assistance to implement the Treaty.
States Parties shall afford one another the widest measure of assistance, consistent with their respective legal and administrative systems, in investigations, prosecutions and judicial proceedings in relation to the violations of the national measures implemented to comply with obligations under of the provisions of this Treaty.
Each State Party may offer or receive assistance, inter alia, through the United Nations international, regional, subregional or national organizations, non-governmental organizations or on a bi-lateral basis. Such assistance may include technical, financial, material and other forms of assistance as needed, upon request.
Article 16
Signature, Ratification, Acceptance, Approval or Accession
This Treaty shall be open for signature on [date] at the United Nations Headquarters in New York by all States and regional integration organizations.
This Treaty is subject to ratification, acceptance or approval of the Signatories.
This Treaty shall be open for accession by any state and regional integration organization that has not signed the Treaty.
4. The instruments of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession shall be deposited with the Depositary.
5. The Depositary shall promptly inform all signatory and acceding States and regional integration organizations of the date of each signature, the date of deposit of each instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession and the date of the entry into force of this Treaty, and of the receipt of notices.
6. “Regional integration organization” shall mean an organization constituted by sovereign States of a given region, to which its Member States have transferred competence in respect of matters governed by this Treaty and which has been duly authorized, in accordance with its internal procedures, to sign, ratify, accept, approve or accede to it.
7. At the time of its ratification, acceptance, approval or accession, a regional integration organization shall declare the extent of its competence with respect to matters governed by this Treaty. Such organizations shall also inform the Depositary of any relevant modifications in the extent of it competence.
8. References to “State Parties” in the present Treaty shall apply to such organizations within the limits of their competence.
Article 17
Entry into Force
This Treaty shall enter into force thirty days following the date of the deposit of the sixty-fifth instrument of ratification, acceptance or approval with the Depositary.
For any State or regional integration organization that deposits its instruments of accession subsequent to the entry into force of the Treaty, the Treaty shall enter into force thirty days following the date of deposit of its instruments of accession.
For the purpose of Paragraph 1 and 2 above, any instrument deposited by a regional integration organization shall not be counted as additional to those deposited by Member States of that organization.
Article 18
Withdrawal and Duration
This Treaty shall be of unlimited duration.
Each State Party shall, in exercising its national sovereignty, have the right to withdraw from this Convention. It shall give notice of such withdrawal to all other States Parties from this Convention. It shall give notice of such withdrawal to all other States Parties and to the Depositary. The instrument of withdrawal shall include a full explanation of the reasons motivating this withdrawal.
A state shall not be discharged, by reason of its withdrawal, from the obligations arising from this treaty while it was a party to the Treaty, including any financial obligations, which may have accrued.
Article 19
Reservations
Each State party, in exercising its national sovereignty, may formulate reservations unless the reservation is incompatible with the object and purpose of this Treaty.
Article 20
Amendments
At any time after the Treaty’s entry into force, a State Party may propose an amendment to this Treaty.
Any proposed amendment shall be submitted in writing to the Depository, which will then circulate the proposal to all States Parties, not less than 180 days before next meeting of the Conference of States Parties. The amendment shall be considered at the next Conference of States Parties if a majority of States Parties notify the Implementation Support Unit that they support further consideration of the proposal no later than 180 days after its circulation by the Depositary.
Any amendment to this Treaty shall be adopted by consensus, or if consensus is not achieved, by two-thirds of the States Parties present and voting at the Conference of States Parties. The Depositary shall communicate any amendment to all States Parties.
A proposed amendment adopted in accordance with Paragraph 3 of this Article shall enter into force for all States Parties to the Treaty that have accepted it, upon deposit with the Depositary. Thereafter, it shall enter into force for any remaining State Party on the date of deposit of its instrument of accession.
Article 21
Conference of States Parties
The Conference of States Parties shall be convened not later than once a year following the entry into force of this Treaty. The Conference of States Parties shall adopt rules of procedure and rules governing its activities, including the frequency of meetings and rules concerning payment of expenses incurred in carrying out those activities.
The Conference of States Parties shall:
a. Consider and adopt recommendations regarding the implementation of this Treaty, in particular the promotion of its universality; TR
b. Consider amendments to this Treaty;
c. Consider and decide the work and budget of the Implementation Support Unit;
d. Consider the establishment of any subsidiary bodies as may be necessary to improve the functioning of the Treaty;
e. Perform any other function consistent with this Treaty.
3. If circumstances merit, an exceptional meeting of the State Parties may be convened if required and resources allow.
Article 22
Dispute Settlement
States Parties shall consult and cooperate with each other to settle any dispute that may arise with regard to the interpretation or application of this Treaty.
States Parties shall settle any dispute between them concerning the interpretation or application of this Treat though negotiations or other peaceful means of the Parties mutual choice.
States Parties may pursue, by mutual consent, third party arbitration to settle any dispute between them, regarding issues concerning the implementation of this Treaty.
Article 23
Relations with States not party to this Treaty
States Parties shall apply Articles 3-5 to all transfers of conventional arms within the scope of this Treaty to those not party to this Treaty.
Article 24
Relationship with other instruments
States Parties shall have the right to enter into agreements on the trade in conventional arms with regards to the international trade in conventional arms, provided that those agreements are compatible with their obligations under this Treaty and do not undermine the objects and purposes of this Treaty.
Article 25
Depositary and Authentic Texts
The Secretary-General of the United Nations is the Depositary of this Treaty.
The original text of this Treaty, of which the Arabic, Chinese, English, Russian and Spanish texts are equally authentic.
________________________________________
Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
July 26, 2012
Now that Obama has tested the water on government gun control with a speech delivered before the National Urban League, we can expect the divisive issue to play a role in his re-election campaign.
Obama and his globalist handlers – who ultimately want every gun confiscated – understand that the American people by and large support the Second Amendment. This is why the president patronized hunters and shooters with an oily sleight of hand.
“I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals,” Obama said. “That they belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities.”
In fact, according to the founders, guns – including AK47s in the modern context – belong in the hands of the citizens and their state militias, as plainly and eloquently spelled out in the Second Amendment. Thomas Jefferson and the founders did not craft the Second Amendment to protect the right of hunters and target shooters. It was included – right after the First Amendment guareenting political speech – to ensure the right of citizens to violently oppose a tyrannical federal government if need be.
AK47s and other “assault” weapons are the sort of tools that will be used if push comes to shove and the people must violently oppose the government.
Obama supporters and other lovers of the state recoil at the prospect of armed resistance to a tyrannical centralized federal government and refuse to accept that this is what the Second Amendment is all about. “The rights of conscience, of bearing arms, of changing the government, are declared to be inherent in the people,” wrote Fisher Ames, a member of the Massachusetts convention that ratified the Constitution in 1788. This concept is antithetical to the modern liberal who believes government to be a force of good.
“The Second Amendment was to protect the ability of the people to violently overthrow the government,” writes Richard Schrade, an attorney from Georgia and member of the Libertarian National Committee. “Let’s remember that this country was formed in a violent revolution. Let’s remember that at Lexington and Concord citizen fired on and killed government soldiers sent by the central government to confiscate their weapons and arms…. When viewed in this light, it is apparent that a limitation on automatic weapons would be an infringement on the purposes of the Second Amendment.”
If Obama supporters, Democrats, “progressives” and others demanding the government take our firearms in a misplaced effort to stop maniacs from killing people were honest, they would work to repeal the Second Amendment instead of chipping away at it piecemeal. “If we are going to have gun control then let’s not dicker around the fringes. Let those who would limit the law-abiding citizen’s access to arms first repeal the Second Amendment. That would be the intellectually honest way to address the issue,” writes Schrade.
Such a debate is only possible today because formerly free men no longer have a grasp of history and have been brainwashed by decades of government mandated public education and propaganda. Early on in America, both the Federalists and the anti-Federalists agreed that arms and liberty are inextricably linked. George Mason and others knew reflexively that the most effective way to enslave a people is to disarm them. Mason, in particular, argued that divine providence had given every individual the right of self-defense – including the right to defend against a tyrannical government. Today, we have forgotten all of this.
Obama can easily get away with making an outrageous speech about hunting and target shooting and almost completely ignore criticism and not be called to task. We are told that he is a constitutional scholar. How could a constitutional scholar be completely ignorant of the Second Amendment’s true purpose and the admonitions of the founders? What constitutional scholar would be ignorant of Jefferson’s famous assertion, made in a letter to William Smith in 1787, that the “tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants”?
Obama is not a constitutional scholar. It is a phony title like just about everything else about the man. He is a teleprompter reader for a shadow global elite determined to debar access to weapons and take away those already in our possession. Not because of maniacs in theaters or classrooms, but in order to render us helpless against the violence of the state.
Why are Jews the most aggressive defenders of Firearms Ownership you ask??? Because the Jews remember how Hitler Banned and Disarmed Germany just prior to his mass internment of Jews and his reign of Terror over the rest of the World. With the way the Bush-Obama criminal governments have been talking American people should be worried real worried… It all fits Hitler’s pre WWII plan almost to a tee From the False flag of Hitler’s Reichstag fire = to Bush’s own Twin Towers 911 False flag. Next Hitler’s Enabling Act = to Bush’s Patriot Acts 1&2 Next Hitler’s Law on Weapons March 18 1938 = to Obama NDAA Act Next Hitler’s building concentration Camps with Train access = to Bush-Obama’s FEMA Camps also with Train access… Do you see a pattern forming here Let have a little Review of pre WWII Germany its Politics & the Patriot Act vs. Hitler’s Enabling Act
Patriot Act vs. Hitler’s Enabling Act
Hitler Becomes Dictator
After the elections of March 5, 1933, the Nazis began a systematic takeover of the state governments throughout Germany, ending a centuries old tradition of local political independence. Armed SA and SS thugs barged into local government offices using the state of emergency decree as a pretext to throw out legitimate office holders and replace them with Nazi Reich commissioners.
Political enemies were arrested by the thousands and put in hastily constructed holding pens. Old army barracks and abandoned factories were used as prisons. Once inside, prisoners were subjected to military style drills and harsh discipline. They were often beaten and sometimes even tortured to death. This was the very beginning of the Nazi concentration camp system.
At this time, these early concentration camps were loosely organized under the control of the SA and the rival SS. Many were little more than barbed wire stockades know as ‘wild’ concentration camps, set up by local Gauleiters and SA leaders.
For Adolf Hitler, the goal of a legally established dictatorship was now within reach. On March 15, 1933, a cabinet meeting was held during which Hitler and Göring discussed how to obstruct what was left of the democratic process to get an Enabling Act passed by the Reichstag. This law would hand over the constitutional functions of the Reichstag to Hitler, including the power to make laws, control the budget and approve treaties with foreign governments.
The emergency decree signed by Hindenburg on February 28, after the Reichstag fire, made it easy for them to interfere with non-Nazi elected representatives of the people by simply arresting them.
As Hitler plotted to bring democracy to an end in Germany, Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels put together a brilliant public relations display at the official opening of the newly elected Reichstag.
On March 21, in the Garrison Church at Potsdam, the burial place of Frederick the Great, an elaborate ceremony took place designed to ease public concern over Hitler and his gangster-like new regime.
It was attended by President Hindenburg, foreign diplomats, the General Staff and all the old guard going back to the days of the Kaiser. Dressed in their handsome uniforms sprinkled with medals, they watched a most reverent Adolf Hitler give a speech paying respect to Hindenburg and celebrating the union of old Prussian military traditions and the new Nazi Reich. As a symbol of this, the old Imperial flags would soon add swastikas.
Finishing his speech, Hitler walked over to Hindenburg and respectfully bowed before him while taking hold of the old man’s hand. The scene was recorded on film and by press photographers from around the world. This was precisely the impression Hitler and Goebbels wanted to give to the world, all the while plotting to toss aside Hindenburg and the elected Reichstag.
Later that same day, Hindenburg signed two decrees put before him by Hitler. The first offered full pardons to all Nazis currently in prison. The prison doors sprang open and out came an assortment of Nazi thugs and murderers.
The second decree signed by the befuddled old man allowed for the arrest of anyone suspected of maliciously criticizing the government and the Nazi party. (Sound familiar?)
A third decree signed only by Hitler and Papen allowed for the establishment of special courts to try political offenders. These courts were conducted in the military style of a court-martial without a jury and usually with no counsel for the defense.
On March 23, the newly elected Reichstag met in the Kroll Opera House in Berlin to consider passing Hitler’s Enabling Act. It was officially called the “Law for Removing the Distress of the People and the Reich.” If passed, it would in effect vote democracy out of existence in Germany and establish the legal dictatorship of Adolf Hitler.
Brown-shirted Nazi storm troopers swarmed over the fancy old building in a show of force and as a visible threat. They stood outside, in the hallways and even lined the aisles inside, glaring ominously at anyone who might oppose Hitler’s will.
Before the vote, Hitler made a speech in which he pledged to use restraint.
“The government will make use of these powers only insofar as they are essential for carrying out vitally necessary measures…The number of cases in which an internal necessity exists for having recourse to such a law is in itself a limited one,”Hitler told the Reichstag.
He also promised an end to unemployment and pledged to promote peace with France, Great Britain and the Soviet Union. But in order to do all this, Hitler said, he first needed the Enabling Act. A two-thirds majority was needed, since the law would actually alter the constitution. Hitler needed 31 non-Nazi votes to pass it. He got those votes from the Catholic Center Party after making a false promise to restore some basic rights already taken away by decree.
Meanwhile, Nazi storm troopers chanted outside:”Full powers – or else! We want the bill – or fire and murder!!”
But one man arose amid the overwhelming might. Otto Wells, leader of the Social Democrats stood up and spoke quietly to Hitler.
“We German Social Democrats pledge ourselves solemnly in this historic hour to the principles of humanity and justice, of freedom and socialism. No enabling act can give you power to destroy ideas which are eternal and indestructible.”
Hitler was enraged and jumped up to respond.
“You are no longer needed! – The star of Germany will rise and yours will sink! Your death knell has sounded!”
The vote was taken – 441 for, and only 84, the Social Democrats, against. The Nazis leapt to their feet clapping, stamping and shouting, then broke into the Nazi anthem, the Hörst Wessel song.
Democracy was ended. They had brought down the German Democratic Republic legally. From this day onward, the Reichstag would be just a sounding board, a cheering section for Hitler’s pronouncements.
Interestingly, the Nazi party was now flooded with applications for membership. These latecomers were cynically labeled by old time Nazis as ‘March Violets.’ In May, the Nazi Party froze membership. Many of those kept out applied to the SA and the SS which were still accepting. However, in early 1934, Heinrich Himmler would throw out 50,000 of those ‘March Violets’ from the SS.
The Nazi Gleichschaltung now began, a massive coordination of all aspects of life under the swastika and
the absolute leadership of Adolf Hitler. Under Hitler, the State, not the individual, was supreme.
From the moment of birth one existed to serve the State and obey the dictates of the Führer. Those who disagreed were disposed of.
Many agreed. Bureaucrats, industrialists, even intellectual and literary figures, including Gerhart Hauptmann, world renowned dramatist, were coming out in open support of Hitler.
Many disagreed and left the country. A flood of the finest minds, including over two thousand writers, scientists, and people in the arts poured out of Germany and enriched other lands, mostly the United States. Among them – writer Thomas Mann, director Fritz Lang, actress Marlene Dietrich, architect Walter Gropius, musicians Otto Klemperer, Kurt Weill, Richard Tauber, psychologist Sigmund Freud, and Albert Einstein, who was visiting California when Hitler came to power and never returned to Germany.
In Germany, there were now constant Nazi rallies, parades, marches and meetings amid the relentless propaganda of Goebbels and the omnipresent swastika. For those who remained there was an odd mixture of fear and optimism in the air.
Now, for the first time as dictator, Adolf Hitler turned his attention to the driving force which had propelled him into politics in the first place, his hatred of the Jews. It began with a simple boycott on April 1, 1933, and would end years later in the greatest tragedy in all of human history.
Maybe there is a connection???
At half past six on the evening of April 20th, 1889 an innocent child was born in the small town of Braunau Am Inn, Austria. The name of the child was Adolf Hitler. He was the son a Customs official Alois Hitler, and his third wife Klara. Initially Alois had taken his mother’s name, Schicklgruber, but changed it in 1876 and became Hiedler, or Hitler. Quite important – it is hard to imagine tens of thousands of Germans shouting “Heil Schicklgruber!” instead of “Heil Hitler!”
THOSE WHO DO NOT STUDY HISTORY ARE CONDEMNED TO LETTING IT REPEAT ITSELF
AND WILL BE A VICTIM OF IT OVER AND OVER AGAIN MY FRIENDS IT SEEM TO ME THAT HUMANITY IS ON THE VERGE OF DESTRUCTION
________________________________
Aaron Dykes
Infowars.com
July 27, 2012
“Today Americans would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order … tomorrow they will be grateful.” -Attributed to Henry Kissinger during the 1991 Bilderberg meeting
For those who’ve been wondering how the domestic gun grabbers or the United Nations think they’re going to get away with gun control here at home, one need look no further than Article 15 of the UN’s Arms Trade Treaty.
Many American troops are patriots who understand their oaths to uphold the Constitution, so they can’t be counted upon to confiscate guns. But foreign troops are another story.
Article 15 of the UN Arms Trade Treaty, if ratified, provides for foreign “assistance to implement the Treaty,” and mandates that nations who can provide requested support mustdo so if requested by member nations. That includes legal, financial, technical as well as “material” assistance to enforce a treaty that declares “recreational, cultural, historical and sporting activities” to be the “exclusively” recognized reasons for lawful private ownership, and which further recognizes the “inherent rights” of the State (i.e. nations under the treaty) to self-defense, but makes no mention of the rights of the individual.
Read the language of Article 15 for yourself:
Article 15
International Assistance
In fulfilling the obligation of this Treaty, States Parties may seek, inter alia, legal assistance, legislative assistance, technical assistance, institutional capacity building, material assistance or financial assistance. States, in a position to do so, shall provide such assistance. States Parties may contribute resources to a voluntary trust fund to assist requesting States Parties requiring such assistance to implement the Treaty.
States Parties shall afford one another the widest measure of assistance, consistent with their respective legal and administrative systems, in investigations, prosecutions and judicial proceedings in relation to the violations of the national measures implemented to comply with obligations under of the provisions of this Treaty.
Each State Party may offer or receive assistance, inter alia, through the United Nations international, regional, sub regional or national organizations, non-governmental organizations or on a bi-lateral basis. Such assistance may include technical, financial, material and other forms of assistance as needed, upon request.
Will foreign troops be going door-to-door to ensure compliance with new gun registry policies, imposed limits on ammunition and magazines, or in enforcing outright confiscation? Joint training exercises conducted between U.S. armed forces and various foreign armies have trained to do just that.
In 2010, the Infowars crew covered Operation Vigilant Guard, a joint training exercise in Chicago, in which U.S. troops drilled with Eastern bloc troops to partner in stopping terrorism, dealing with meth dealers and WMDs, as well as in gun confiscation. Countless other exercises have taken place on U.S. soil involving similar joint operations for a martial law occupation with the participation of foreign troops:
Foreign Troops Training To Confiscate Guns of Americans
American troops were ordered to conduct door-to-door gun confiscation sweeps after Hurricane Katrina, and while it has emerged that at least one unit stood down and refused the order, many more carried out the unconstitutional mission. That precedent has been followed by other exercises training American soldiers for gun seizures, along with other martial law measures.
Infowars Nightly News co-host Rob Dew underscored the history of training to take American guns in his recent viral report:
Troops Ordered To Kill All Americans Who Do Not Turn In Guns
Meanwhile, the United Nations itself has forcibly disarmed numerous African nations using foreign troops, and the vacuum of power has led in several cases to genocidal atrocities as a direct result of taking away arms. The genocide in Rwanda was enabled by forcible disarmament. As Republic Magazine writes, the mass murder was “carried out by government-aligned Hutu tribal militias against a targeted ethnic population – the Tutsis – who had been disarmed with the help of UN “peacekeeping” forces under the supervision of future UN Secretary General Kofi Annan.” The Darfur crisis in Sudan also has its roots in UN-led population disarmament, as does the Burma (Myanmar) massacre, again the result of disarmament. Armed troops representing international interests including the World Bankburned down homes and killed children in effort to forcibly evict some 40,000 Ugandans on the basis of conserving lands to combat climate change.
Indeed, genocide and disarmed populations go hand-in-hand through history– just look at the history of Democide (death by government). R.J. Rummel at the University of Hawaii is the leading academic on the subject, and has estimated that more than 262 million unnatural deaths in the 20th Century alone were caused by government, and most were at the hands of despots preying upon their helpless peoples. From Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia, to Turkey, Armenia and beyond, gun bans have created a shift in the balance of power towards the state, creating an atmosphere of victim disarmament.
Blue helmets or foreign uniforms have no place on foreign soil, yet the UN Arms Trade Treaty text reveals a mechanism to impose just that type of control– even in America.
Read the treaty text for yourself and see our report from yesterday: Bombshell: Leaked UN Treaty Does Ban Guns
Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
July 26, 2012
Now that Obama has tested the water on government gun control with a speech delivered before the National Urban League, we can expect the divisive issue to play a role in his re-election campaign.
Obama and his globalist handlers – who ultimately want every gun confiscated – understand that the American people by and large support the Second Amendment. This is why the president patronized hunters and shooters with an oily sleight of hand.
“I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals,” Obama said. “That they belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities.”
In fact, according to the founders, guns – including AK47s in the modern context – belong in the hands of the citizens and their state militias, as plainly and eloquently spelled out in the Second Amendment. Thomas Jefferson and the founders did not craft the Second Amendment to protect the right of hunters and target shooters. It was included – right after the First Amendment guareenting political speech – to ensure the right of citizens to violently oppose a tyrannical federal government if need be.
AK47s and other “assault” weapons are the sort of tools that will be used if push comes to shove and the people must violently oppose the government.
Obama supporters and other lovers of the state recoil at the prospect of armed resistance to a tyrannical centralized federal government and refuse to accept that this is what the Second Amendment is all about. “The rights of conscience, of bearing arms, of changing the government, are declared to be inherent in the people,” wrote Fisher Ames, a member of the Massachusetts convention that ratified the Constitution in 1788. This concept is antithetical to the modern liberal who believes government to be a force of good.
“The Second Amendment was to protect the ability of the people to violently overthrow the government,” writes Richard Schrade, an attorney from Georgia and member of the Libertarian National Committee. “Let’s remember that this country was formed in a violent revolution. Let’s remember that at Lexington and Concord citizen fired on and killed government soldiers sent by the central government to confiscate their weapons and arms…. When viewed in this light, it is apparent that a limitation on automatic weapons would be an infringement on the purposes of the Second Amendment.”
If Obama supporters, Democrats, “progressives” and others demanding the government take our firearms in a misplaced effort to stop maniacs from killing people were honest, they would work to repeal the Second Amendment instead of chipping away at it piecemeal. “If we are going to have gun control then let’s not dicker around the fringes. Let those who would limit the law-abiding citizen’s access to arms first repeal the Second Amendment. That would be the intellectually honest way to address the issue,” writes Schrade.
Such a debate is only possible today because formerly free men no longer have a grasp of history and have been brainwashed by decades of government mandated public education and propaganda. Early on in America, both the Federalists and the anti-Federalists agreed that arms and liberty are inextricably linked. George Mason and others knew reflexively that the most effective way to enslave a people is to disarm them. Mason, in particular, argued that divine providence had given every individual the right of self-defense – including the right to defend against a tyrannical government. Today, we have forgotten all of this.
Obama can easily get away with making an outrageous speech about hunting and target shooting and almost completely ignore criticism and not be called to task. We are told that he is a constitutional scholar. How could a constitutional scholar be completely ignorant of the Second Amendment’s true purpose and the admonitions of the founders? What constitutional scholar would be ignorant of Jefferson’s famous assertion, made in a letter to William Smith in 1787, that the “tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants”?
Obama is not a constitutional scholar. It is a phony title like just about everything else about the man. He is a teleprompter reader for a shadow global elite determined to debar access to weapons and take away those already in our possession. Not because of maniacs in theaters or classrooms, but in order to render us helpless against the violence of the state.
_______________________________________
Democratic senators offer gun control amendment for cybersecurity bill
By Ramsey Cox – 07/26/12 07:29 PM ET
Democratic senators have offered an amendment to the cybersecurity bill that would limit the purchase of high capacity gun magazines for some consumers.
Shortly after the Cybersecurity Act gained Senate approval to proceed to filing proposed amendments and a vote next week, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), a sponsor of the gun control amendment, came to the floor to defend the idea of implementing some “reasonable” gun control measures.
The amendment was sponsored by Democratic Sens. Frank Lautenberg (N.J.), Barbara Boxer (Calif.), Jack Reed (R.I.), Bob Menendez (N.J.), Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.), Schumer and Dianne Feinstein (Calif.). S.A. 2575 would make it illegal to transfer or possess large capacity feeding devices such as gun magazines, belts, feed stripes and drums of more than 10 rounds of ammunition with the exception of .22 caliber rim fire ammunition.
The amendment is identical to a separate bill sponsored by Lautenberg. Feinstein was the sponsor of the assault weapons ban, which expired in 2004.
The proposed amendment would only affect sales and transfers after the law took effect.
Schumer defended the Brady law and assault weapons ban on the floor Thursday evening, perhaps in preparation for the coming fight with Republicans and gun rights activists.
Schumer suggested that both the left and right find common ground.
“Maybe we could come together on guns if each side gave some,” Schumer said.
He suggested that Democrats make it clear that their goal is not to repeal the Second Amendment.
“The basic complaint is that the Chuck Schumers of the world want to take away your guns,” Schumer said of the argument made by gun lobbies. “I think it would be smart for those of us who want rational gun control to make it know that that’s not true at all.”
Schumer also pointed out that it would be reasonable for the right to recognize that background checks on those buying guns is necessary — as called for in the Brady law. He also said average Americans don’t need an assault weapon to go hunting or protect themselves.
“We can debate where to draw the line of reasonableness, but we might be able to come to an agreement in the middle,” Schumer said. “Maybe, maybe, maybe we can pass some laws that might, might, might stop some of the unnecessary casualties … maybe there’s a way we can some together and try to break through the log jam and make sure the country is a better place.”
Next week the Senate is expected to debate and vote on proposed amendments to the cybersecurity bill.
___________________________________
51 US senators voice concerns with UN arms treaty
Associated Press
Posted on July 26, 2012 at 6:01 PM
Updated Thursday, Jul 26 at 6:02 PM
WASHINGTON (AP) — A bipartisan group of 51 senators on Thursday threatened to oppose a global treaty regulating international weapons trade if it falls short in protecting Americans’ constitutional right to bear arms.
In a letter to President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, the senators expressed serious concerns with the draft treaty that has circulated at the United Nations, saying that it signals an expansion of gun control that would be unacceptable. Gun control is a politically explosive issue in the U.S., where it has re-emerged since last week’s shooting a Colorado cinema killed 12 people.
The world’s nations are pressing to complete the first legally binding treaty dealing with arms trade and preventing the transfer of weapons to armed groups and terrorists. The 193-member U.N. General Assembly is expected to approve the treaty this month.
The senators said as the negotiations continue, “we strongly encourage your administration not only to uphold our country’s constitutional protections of civilian firearms ownership, but to ensure — if necessary, by breaking consensus at the July conference — that the treaty will explicitly recognize the legitimacy of lawful activities associated with firearms, including but not limited to the right of self-defense.
“As members of the United States Senate, we will oppose the ratification of any Arms Trade Treaty that falls short of this standard,” they wrote.
The lawmakers insisted that the treaty should explicitly recognize the legitimacy of hunting, sport shooting and other lawful activities.
They also raised concerns that the draft defines international arms transfers as including transport across national territory while requiring the monitor and control of arms in transit.
The National Rifle Association, the powerful U.S. gun lobby, opposes the treaty, saying its members will never surrender the right to bear arms to the United Nations.
The treaty has been in the works since 2006. Abandoning the Bush administration opposition, the Obama administration supported an assembly resolution to hold this year’s four-week conference on the treaty.
In April, the U.S. assistant secretary of state for international security and nonproliferation, Thomas Countryman, reiterated U.S. support for a treaty.
“We want any treaty to make it more difficult and expensive to conduct illicit, illegal and destabilizing transfers of arms,” he said. “But we do not want something that would make legitimate international arms trade more cumbersome than the hurdles United States exporters already face.”
The U.N. General Assembly voted in December 2006 to work toward a treaty regulating the growing arms trade, now valued at about $60 billion, with the U.S. casting a “no” vote. In October 2009, the Obama administration reversed the Bush administration’s position and supported an assembly resolution to hold four preparatory meetings and a four-week U.N. conference in 2012 to draft an arms trade treaty.
Adoption of a treaty requires consensus among the 193 U.N. member states — a requirement the United States insisted on in 2009 — and diplomats said reaching agreement will be difficult.
With the conference scheduled to end on Friday, negotiators have been trying to come up with a text that satisfies advocates of a strong treaty with tough regulations and countries that appear to have little interest in a treaty including Syria, North Korea, Iran, Egypt and Algeria.
A U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly, told The Associated Press earlier this week that the U.S. wants export controls to prevent illicit transfers of arms and has been making clear its “red lines, including that we will not accept any treaty that infringes on Americans’ Second Amendment rights.” The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms.
___
Associated Press writer Edith Lederer contributed to this report from the United Nations.
Kurt Nimmo and Alex Jones
Infowars.com
July 29, 2012
Opponents arrayed against the United Nations’ anti-gun effort prematurely celebrated on Friday as the treaty stalled due to member states failing to reach an agreement on revised language in the text. The treaty went into limbo after the United States, Russia and China called for more time to consider revisions.
NGOs and gun-grabber groups portrayed the stall as “stunning cowardice” and a “staggering abdication of leadership” and attributed the supposed failure to the Obama administration. A nameless diplomat went so far as to claim the U.S. had “derailed the process” and complained that there is little hope the treaty will be revived after the U.S. election.
The U.S. State Department, however, said in a statement released at the conclusion of the negotiating conference that the effort will indeed be revived after the election in November. “While we sought to conclude the month’s negotiations with a treaty, more time is a reasonable request for such a complex and critical issue,” said State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland.
The extended timeframe will give Second Amendment opponents time to ramp up their propaganda campaign in favor of gun control following the suspiciously timed mass shooting in Colorado.
A number of establishment intellectuals – with CFR member Joe Klein leading the pack at Time Magazine – are now pushing “sensible” and “moderate” approaches to disarming the American people. Klein’s Time article, set to roll out on August 6, features a photo of a 100-round ammo drum of the sort James Holmes supposedly used in Aurora. Gun-grabbers in Congress have set their sites on extended round clips and other firearm accessories.
Although Bloomberg in New York and Chuck Schumer in the Senate ads others are talking up outlawing armor-piercing ammunition and semi-automatic weapons, the establishment has responded to the bureaucratic snafu at the United Nations by playing possum or playing dead.
After the election finale in November and the installation of Romney or the re-installation of Obama as chief teleprompter reader in January, not only will there be a push for a new round of restrictive gun laws in America, but the stalled United Nations treaty will be dusted off and the bickering between nations will finally end with a gun-grabbing consensus.
As Al Benson, Jr., notes, careerist politicians are reluctant to press forward on legislation for fear of their cushy jobs. “As for the Senators, this is, after all, an election year and if they antagonize their gun-owning constituency many of them will be in big trouble, so they have to try to placate us, at least for now, until they get back into office. Then all bets are off, especially if Comrade Obama gets a second term (notice I didn’t say “wins” a second term),” he writes.
The corporate media has portrayed those of us concerned about a United Nations treaty outlawing our guns as conspiracy kooks and paranoids. They insist the Constitution trumps any internationalist treaty and there is nothing to worry about, so we need to relax.
But as CFR minion Joe Klein knows, the one-world government crowd has no respect for the Constitution and works relentlessly to undermine it.
“For decades, apostles of one-world government have endeavored to convince the American people that treaties, rather than the Constitution, embody the supreme law of the land. In 1952, Secretary of State and Council on Foreign Relations member John Foster Dulles told the American Bar Association that ‘Treaty law can override the Constitution…Treaties, for example…can cut across the rights given the people by the constitutional Bill of Rights,” writes Doug Book.
Book notes that even if the courts decide against the treaty after it is ratified in the Senate, Obama will undoubtedly move to ignore any such decision as he has done with Fast and Furious and other laws enacted by Congress, in particular his decision to ignore a law to deport illegal aliens.
“If the president says we’re not going to enforce the law, there’s really nothing anyone can do about it,” University of Pennsylvania constitutional law professor Kermit Roosevelt told Politico in June. “It’s clearly a political calculation.”
Disarming America is undoubtedly a front and center “political calculation” for the globalists.
Infowars.com
July 29, 2012
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who is often characterized as the most “conservative” member of the Court, said on Sunday the Second Amendment allows government to regulate firearms.
“It will have to be decided in future cases,” Scalia said on Fox News Sunday. He claimed there are legal precedents from the days of the Founding Fathers that outlaw “frightening weapons” that must be recognized.
Scalia was vague, but said that although the Second Amendment specifies the right to own firearms, during the time of the founders there were “some limitations on the nature of arms that could be borne.” In response to a question about limiting so-called assault rifles and large ammunition magazines, he said it “will have to be decided” if the government will outlaw them.
Scalia’s remarks arrive as the government gears up an intense propaganda campaign to reimpose the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004.
Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
July 29, 2012
Joe Klein, writing for Time Magazine, is surprised that the neocon Bill Kristol would come out against the Second Amendment.
“People have a right to handguns and hunting rifles,” Kristol told Fox News. “I don’t think they have a right to semiautomatic, quasi–machine guns that can shoot hundred of bullets at a time. And I actually think the Democrats are being foolish as they are being cowardly. I think there is more support for some moderate forms of gun control.”
Klein and other apologists for the coercive power of the state over the individual often feign misunderstanding of their supposed political opponents on the other side of the false left-right paradigm. Kristol and the neocon faction supported by the ruling elite, of course, are on the same page as Klein and supposed “moderate” or liberal Democrats, although they usually pretend to be ideologically opposed.
Democrat senator Chuck Schumer and the gun-grabbers in Congress say the Second Amendment protects hunters and people who buy handguns and rifles for self-defense. This is, however, nothing more than a cynical effort to placate and distract millions of Americans who believe they have a right to own guns, for whatever reason (many Americans are ignorant of the reason the Second Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights). Schumer and Kristol and the gun-grabber crowd in Washington are moving to reinstall Clinton’s assault weapons ban that expired in 2004.
The Second Amendment, of course, has nothing to do with deer hunting or home invasions. The founders knew self-defense was not only a natural right, but a duty. The Second Amendment was designed to put a stop to tyrannical government.
“The question is: Why would anyone need an assault rifle?” asks Jim Shea of the Hartford Courant. “As far as I can determine, the answer is: We the people need assault rifles in case the government tries to take away our assault rifles.”
Shea skirts the issue ignored by the defenders of the state’s monopoly of violence like Bill Kristol and Chuck Schumer. He falls short of actually understanding why the Second Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights, although his op-ed hints that he may actually have a clue.
Council on Foreign Relations member and Guggenheim fellow Joe Klein is a bit more circumspect and strives to come off as a “moderate” on gun control. After admitting that gun violence is at a historically low level, he writes that “mass shootings have exploded in frequency since the 1970s” while ignoring the fact that multiple victim homicides are so small as to be almost insignificant. 0.1% of mass shootings involved five or more victims, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Moreover, Klein’s characterization that mass shootings have exploded is a gross exaggeration – the proportion of homicide incidents involving two victims increased slightly from 2.7% in 1980 to 3.7% in 2008. Homicide incidents involving three or more victims increased during this same period, but remained less than 1% of all homicides each year. This hardly qualifies as an explosion.
The inability of government “to have this conversation now,” Klein writes, “says a lot about the paralytic dysfunction of our political system” and its inability to radically clip the Second Amendment. Outlawing semi-automatic weapons “should be a no-brainer,” the world government club member argues.
The game plan of the global elite, represented in the corporate media by Joe Klein, should be a no-brainer as well. It may be so-called “assault weapons” today – that Kristol idiotically states “can shoot hundred of bullets at a time” – but it will be all weapons tomorrow. The anti-gun treaty now before the United Nations includes provisions for the registration and licensing, micro-stamping ammunition, and restrictions on the private transfers of guns.
The highly suspicious mass shooting in Colorado arrived at exactly the right time for the globalists and their corporate media scriveners. Outlawing semi-automatic weapons with brand spanking new assault weapons legislation will now take center stage and will be used as a stepping stone for more draconian legislation down the road.
Infowars.com
July 30, 2012
Alex talks about how the global elite and the anti-gun fanatics in Congress and the White House are now playing possum and plan to reintroduce a raft of anti-gun legislation on law-abiding Americans who exercise their Second Amendment right.
Susanne Posel
Infowars.com
July 28, 2012
Breaking: United Nations Small Arms Treaty Not Dead
Surveillance drones have a new mission. According to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) they will be used for “public safety”. Janet Napolitano, Secretary of the DHS, told a House Committee meeting on Homeland Security that the more than 30,000 drones that will be deployed into American skies are just arbitrarily watching out for US citizens.
Napolitano stated : “With respect to Science and Technology, that directorate, we do have a funded project, I think it’s in California, looking at drones that could be utilized to give us situational awareness in a large public safety [matter] or disaster, such as a forest fire, and how they could give us better information.”
Secretly, DHS have been taking bid for contractors who can install “aerial remote sensing” which uses light detection and ranging (LIDAR) that would be part of the unmanned drone missions within domestic US territory.
“DHS believes these airborne images are essential for homeland defense missions, such as planning for National Special Security Events (Super Bowls or a national political conventions come to mind); enhancing border, port and airport security; as well as performing critical infrastructure inventories and assessments” and has spent over $50 million to employ contractors, as well as processors for images and dissemination throughout the DHS.
Coincidentally, the Federal Protective Service (FPS) has been given the responsibility to protecting federally owned property while preparing for civilian led riots expected in the near future.
Part of the preparatory measures was an order of 150 sets of riot gear that was requested to be filled exponentially – within 15 days.
The items requested were:
– 147 “Upper Body and Shoulder Protection” which are brand name or equal to “Centurion Soft Shell Riot Control System (CPX2500)”
– 152 “Thigh-Groin Protector” brand name or equivalent to “Centurion TPX200”
– 156 “Forearm Protectors” brand name or equivalent to “Centurion (FP100)”
– 147 units of “Hard Shell Shin Guards” brand name or equivalent to “Centurion (TS70)”
– 147 carry bags brand name or equivalent to Exotech (E4), 147 tactical gloves brand name or equivalent to “Damascus (DMZ333)”
– 147 riot helmets brand name or equivalent to “MaxPro (TR1000)”
The FPS is anticipating that police or military wearing the gear would encounter “blunt force trauma” to the upper torso, as well as potential beatings with “blunt objects”. To compliment these outfits, are required riot helmets with “tactical face shield” equipped with “liquid seals”.
In addition, the US military are ready to assist with local law enforcement “if called upon”.
Five hundred military police and dogs will be allocated on civilian matters, as reported by mainstream media (MSM) have included the reallocation of hundreds of military police officers being trained to “assist local authorities” in investigation, crime scene and case building. These same soliders were just stationed in combat areas like Afghantistan.
Meanwhile, the TSA have been patrolling trains stations and bus terminals in California.
According to one whistleblower : “We’re doing patrols in the parking lot with dogs, we’re even going as far out to the train station because the train station is connected to the airport here and we have guys walking around the train station, walking around the rental cars, we’re inspecting cars coming into the parking garage, I mean we’ve fully expanded – we’re no longer just at the gate and just at the security checkpoint.”
The preparations that DHS and FPS are making for civil unrest may be tied to Article 15 of the UN Arms Trade Treaty (ATT). This part allows foreign troops (preferably NATO forces) to offer assistance in implementing the ATT. As the ATT does not specify an adherence to the 2nd Amendment, but rather make vague definitions of who can own a gun, what type of gun and for what purpose, the Constitutional rights we take for granted now will be stripped from us once the ATT is signed.
To downplay the severity of our American right to bear arms against tyrannical dictators foreign and domestic, President Obama stated at a National Urban League meeting that: “We recognize the traditions of gun ownership that passed on from generation to generation, that hunting and shooting are part of a cherished national heritage. I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals. That they belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities.”
Richard Schrade, attorney and member of the Libertarian National Committee commented on the 2nd Amendment: “The Second Amendment was to protect the ability of the people to violently overthrow the government. Let’s remember that this country was formed in a violent revolution. Let’s remember that at Lexington and Concord citizen fired on and killed government soldiers sent by the central government to confiscate their weapons and arms…. When viewed in this light, it is apparent that a limitation on automatic weapons would be an infringement on the purposes of the Second Amendment.”
Wayne LaPierre, vice president of the NRA, has called out Obama as being part of “conspiracy to ensure re-election by lulling gun owners to sleep. All that first term, lip service to gun owners is just part of a massive Obama conspiracy to deceive voters and hide his true intentions to destroy the Second Amendment during his second term.”
LaPierre states that upon re-election, Obama will be “busy dismantling and destroying our firearms freedom, erase the 2nd Amendment from the Bill of Rights and excise it from the US Constitution.”
Susanne Posel’s post first appeared on the Occupy Corporatism website.
Not only DHS but the ARMY is to
Follows DHS in preparation for domestic disorder
Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
Monday, July 30, 2012
It’s not just the Department of Homeland Security that is gearing up for the prospect of civil unrest in America. The U.S. Army also recently purchased a stock of riot gear including batons, face masks and body shields.
As we reported last week, the DHS has put out an urgent solicitation for hundreds of items of “riot gear,” in preparation for expected unrest at the upcoming Republican National Convention, Democratic National Convention and next year’s presidential inauguration.
In a previous solicitation, the U.S. Army also put out a contract for riot gear to be delivered to the United States Military Academy at West Point in New York.
The contract, which was eventually awarded to A2Z Supply Corp, included requests to supply riot shields, face shields, batons and body protection.
Fears that the U.S. military would be used to quell domestic unrest in violation of Posse Comitatus have raged over recent years.
A recently leaked US Army Military Police training manual for “Civil Disturbance Operations” outlines how military assets are to be used domestically to quell riots, confiscate firearms and even kill Americans on U.S. soil during mass civil unrest.
On page 20 of the manual, rules regarding the use of “deadly force” in confronting “dissidents” are made disturbingly clear with the directive that a, “Warning shot will not be fired.”
The manual includes lists of weapons to be used against “rioters” or “demonstrators,” including “antiriot grenades.” It also advises troops to carry their guns in the “safe port arms” stance, a psychological tactic aimed at “making a show of force before rioters.” Non-lethal weapons and water cannons are also included.
Preparations for using troops to deal with mass civil unrest on U.S. soil have been in the works for years.
Back in 2008, U.S. troops returning from Iraq were earmarked for “homeland patrols” with one of their roles including helping with “civil unrest and crowd control”.
In December 2008, the Washington Post reported on plans to station 20,000 more U.S. troops inside America for purposes of “domestic security” from September 2011 onwards, an expansion of Northcom’s militarization of the country in preparation for potential civil unrest following a total economic collapse or a mass terror attack.
A report produced that same year by the U.S. Army War College’s Strategic Institute warned that the United States may experience massive civil unrest in the wake of a series of crises which it termed “strategic shock.”
“Widespread civil violence inside the United States would force the defense establishment to reorient priorities in extremis to defend basic domestic order and human security,” stated the report, authored by [Ret.] Lt. Col. Nathan Freir, adding that the military may be needed to quell “purposeful domestic resistance”.
*********************
Saman Mohammadi
Infowars.com
July 30, 2012
“Goodness is something to be chosen. When a man cannot choose he ceases to be a man.” – The Prison Chaplain from Stanley Kubrick’s 1971 film, “A Clockwork Orange.” Watch the review of the film by Alex Jones here.
Near the end of 1999, a Memphis court held the “trial of the century” that resolved the lingering questions surrounding the 1968 assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. Attorney and author William F. Pepper represented the King family. Watch his opening statements at the trial here.
After the 30-day trial was over, the jury concluded that Martin Luther King Jr.’s death was caused by a government conspiracy, not a lone gunman. The government’s version of King’s murder was proven to be fake. A citizen jury legally put to death the myth of the “lone gunman” that has overshadowed America’s recent political history.
Fast forward to the year 2012. The “lone gunmen” of the world are being manufactured by the mind control technicians in the U.S. deep state like microchips. The secret “manufacture-a-patsy” government industry has become so advanced and sophisticated that it has enabled the hijacked U.S. government to get away with the most atrocious of crimes against the American people and humanity.
Whenever a state crime is committed by the deep state a patsy mysteriously rises to the surface from the shadows.
There is disturbing evidence that suggests the “Dark Knight” shooter James Holmes is a shadow patsy who was involved in a secret government mind control program. He was catapulted onto the scene of the crime in the Colorado movie theatre after professional government killers finished off massacring movie goers in the dark of night.
One of the most startling pieces of evidence is that Holmes was under the stewardship of an ex-government psychiatrist named Dr. Lynne Fenton, who is currently the “medical director for student mental health services at the University of Colorado-Denver Anschutz Medical Campus,” (National Post, “Colorado shooting suspect James Holmes was seeing university psychiatrist”).
Psychiatrists and psychologists have been involved in developing torture techniques for the CIA, so to believe in their “professionalism” and “morality” is blind foolishness. We live in an age of moral bankruptcy and mass mind control. Professional psychologists help the government in many ways, from lending their expertise to improve the mental conditioning of the public to performing outlandish research on government subjects, mostly from the military and universities.
II. The Extraordinary League of Shadow Patsies
The U.S. shadow government’s love affair with patsies has really gotten out of hand. Oswald was only a prototype. Washington has created an extraordinary league of shadow patsies. Holmes could be the next-generation model of mind control assassins; the T-1000 of government patsies.
Paul Joseph Watson describes the similarities between Holmes and another manufactured patsy in his article, “James Holmes Is Behaving Like Sirhan Sirhan,” writing:
“The parallels between alleged Colorado shooter James Holmes and Sirhan Sirhan are staggering. Both appear to have been drugged, both cannot remember the shootings they were accused of carrying out, and in both cases other shooters were reported by eyewitnesses.”
It is super convenient that individuals who are connected to some of the biggest crimes in U.S. history are mentally incapacitated at the moment the crime is committed and never seem to remember pulling the trigger in the days and weeks after the event.
Moreover, the political ramifications of the “Dark Knight” massacre are beginning to be felt as establishment media pundits, Supreme Court judges, and the President attack the legitimacy of gun rights and the honored American tradition of self-defense.
Kurt Nimmo examines the bipartisan war on American gun ownership in his article, “Establishment Media Circles the Wagons on Gun Control.”He writes:
“The highly suspicious mass shooting in Colorado arrived at exactly the right time for the globalists and their corporate media scriveners. Outlawing semi-automatic weapons with brand spanking new assault weapons legislation will now take center stage and will be used as a stepping stone for more draconian legislation down the road.”
The dangerous path to all-out gun confiscation begins with government brainwashing and media propaganda that gain steam after ritualistic events like the “Dark Knight” shooting. The fascist tyrants begin with baby steps, as always, but their sight remains on their larger goal: instituting a global totalitarian regime run by criminal private international banks and corporations.
For this dangerous and tyrannical goal to be realized the American people must first be disarmed.
Guns, Guts and Goons
By Sartre
theintelhub.com
July 30, 2012
Gun ownership in America is the primary reason why the internationalists fear the wrath of an armed citizenry.
The destruction of the Bill of Rights is a prime objective of the beltway statists. Conversely, the elimination of the remnants of an American federalist constitutional republic is the key eliminate required for imposition of the global Illuminati matrix.
The primal reason to foster a society that bears weapons is to maintain the means to fight tyranny on your native soil.
The United Nations is a subversive and diabolical appendage of world despotism. The choice has never been clearer. Lock and load or kneel and grovel. Guns are mere instruments of force or defense, while government oppression is the reason why the public must possess the means of accountability.
Government of, by and for the people has become domination, coercion and submission to the State.
The inarguable linkage that private gun ownership has given pause to the most abusive authoritarianism, has served this nation well. Since the founding of the country, the clear lesson of history, that an armed population counteracts and checks the effective ambition of despots, protected our liberty.
Now the proposed UN backdoor gun registration and eventual confiscation is exposed. The most basic of common law rights are the target for destruction. The excellent research of Aaron Dykes in Leaked UN Treaty Does Ban Guns, provides the evidence.
“NO SPECIFIC PROTECTION for individual persons is contained in this dangerous treaty, though the same media who’ve been demonizing critics of the UN’s effort as delusional and paranoid will attempt to argue otherwise, clinging to deliberately inserted clauses herein that look like stop-guards and protections for gun rights, but properly read, do no such thing.
While the UN advises States to keep within the scope of their own laws, the end-run assault against American’s 2nd Amendment is unmistakable.
The text was released two days ago, but has received almost no attention in the press. The International Association for the Protection of Civilian Arms Rights and The Examiner have analyzed the treaty, while pointing out that member states like France have “let slip that their ultimate goal is to regulate legitimately-owned ‘weapons.’”
For a shocking report on the ongoing effort of the UN, watch the Infowars video, Troops Ordered To Kill All Americans Who Do Not Turn In Guns.
The clock is running down and the American public needs to suck up the guts and nerve to oppose such a blatant assault on the natural rights of individuals, and resist repression from an international cabal of globalists. The Alger Hiss culture within the State Department has betrayed an authentic America First policy for over a century.
Under this Marxist Obama administration, the true sentiments for enslavement are visible for all to see. Fortunately, a voice of sanity is speaking out. U.S. Senator Rand Paul urges immediate action to defeat this treasonous treaty. Start by registering your opposition on the Official Firearms Sovereignty Survey.
Gun-grabbers around the globe believe they have it made.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently announced the Obama Administration will be working hand-in-glove with the UN to pass a new “Small Arms Treaty.”
Disguised as an “International Arms Control Treaty” to fight against “terrorism,” “insurgency” and “international crime syndicates,” the UN’s Small Arms Treaty is in fact a massive, GLOBAL gun control scheme.
If passed by the UN and ratified by the U.S. Senate, the UN “Small Arms Treaty” would almost certainly FORCE the United States to:
*** Enact tougher licensing requirements, making law-abiding Americans cut through even more bureaucratic red tape just to own a firearm legally;
*** CONFISCATE and DESTROY ALL “unauthorized” civilian firearms (all firearms owned by the government are excluded, of course);
*** BAN the trade, sale and private ownership of ALL semi-automatic weapons;
*** Create an INTERNATIONAL gun registry, setting the stage for full-scale gun CONFISCATION.
In order to understand the methods used to control public perception, one needs the courage to face the harsh reality of the dark side of subversive manipulation. The long record of domestic intimidation and manufactured threats all point to the sub-rosa agencies. The connection and excuse used from the Batman slaughter to pass the UN Gun Treaty is right out of their playbook.
The timing of the latest black ops is examined in Theater Shooting in Aurora Colorado Screams ‘False Flag’.
“There is every indication that Holmes is a CIA mind control subject that was simply carrying out his programming. MK-Ultra is not a theory, it is a fact and the mind altering drugs used to assist in the effect are now being handed out for every ailment by doctors across our country like candy at a parade. Of course the school shooting in Columbine and the American flag were brought up front and center as a part of the propaganda blitz following the shooting.
For we in the know, this operation and its purpose is blatant as Obama stands poised to sign the UN Small Arms Treaty on the 27th of this month. The international soviet socialists who want the American people disarmed jumped on the scene to begin their attack on our 2nd Amendment immediately following the shooting.”
If you still have doubts or are unfamiliar with the forces behind the enslavement of humanity, listen to Brother Nathanael and watch the video, Obama & UN Coming For Your Guns!
Now do you have the intellectual integrity to face the facts that the United Nations was the invention of international globalists? The connection and significance of the role of the Rothschild Bankers in the creation of the world government and the elimination of guns in the hands of the oppressed, is crucial.
“On February 17, 1950, James Paul Warburg confidently declared to the United States Senate: “We shall have World Government, whether or not we like it. The only question is whether World Government will be achieved by conquest or consent.” [1] James Paul Warburg (1896-1969) was the son of Paul Moritz Warburg, and a nephew of both Felix Warburg and Jacob Schiff, both associated with Kuhn, Loeb & Company (BANK) which financed the Russian Revolution through James’ brother Max, banker to the government of Germany. [2]
A world government is a world without borders, national sovereignty, constitutions, privacy, autonomy, individual liberties, religious freedoms, private property,the right to bear arms, the rights of marriage and family and a dramatic population reduction (two thirds). A world (BANK) government establishes a slave/master environment wherein the state (BANK) controls everything.”
Jump to today’s multimedia mogul, NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg, for the latest sentiment of the official attitude towards public safety – preserve and protect. Mr. “Gun Control”, Bloomberg, true to his tribe roots only wants the thugs and goons that enforce the dictates of the NWO to be armed. Within this context, an unarmed public would be stripped of their self-protection rights.
“I don’t understand why the police officers across this country don’t stand up collectively and say we’re going to go on strike,” Bloomberg told the “Piers Morgan Tonight” host. “We’re not going to protect you unless you, the public, through your legislature, do what’s required to keep us safe.”
In addition to the UN Treaty, the forces of Zionist Jews in New York Congress, Mayor Bloomberg and Atty. General Holder Move Against Second Amendment, are active in destroying the Second Amendment.
“Senator Gillibrand and Representative McCarthy have introduced the Gun Trafficking Prevention Act of 2009. Ostensibly designed to prosecute gun traffickers, the bill would also deny the Second Amendment to anybody on the so-called terror watch list. The legislation is supported by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, New Yorkers Against Gun Violence, and the Brady Campaign.”
Finally, the POTUS, aka – Cheka/NKVD enforcer-in-chief applies his Gestapo tactics to the gun war against private citizens.
“A lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals,” Mr. Obama said at the annual National Urban League convention in New Orleans. “They belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities.”
The missing logic from Barry Soetoro is that the true patriotic soldiers are the citizen militia, righteously endowed with the natural right of self-defense against tyrannical despots.
‘Guns and Guts’ are needed to defeat ‘Government Goons’.
For anyone who still trusts in your federal demons, Fast and Furious dispels any lingering loyalty.
The traitor-in-chief is creating the conditions for a battlefield that deploys in the streets of the country. The Federal Government has forfeited any claims of legitimacy. The United Nations is the nemesis of soveriegn states. Any country that observes their globalist mandates hands over their body politic into the paws of tyrants.
Foreign interests never serve or benefit the interest of our own people. Only an America First philosophy, founded on constitutional principles and based upon the Declaration of Independence can advance survival as a free nation. There is no wiggle room. Liberty requires that the Inherent Autonomy of each person is the basis of consent for authority.
Sartre writes for BATR
YA Some GOOD NEWS The UN ATT HAS CRASHED
YEH!!!!!!
UN Conference Fails to Agree to Arms Trade Treaty (ATT)
Written by Thomas R. Eddlem
The month-long United Nations conference to draw up a global Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) failedto achieve consensus after the United States, Russia, and China requested more time to consider a draft treaty, according to the United Nations. The draft treaty, which would have required national gun registration, required unanimity among the nations assembled in order to advance.
“I am disappointed that the Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) concluded its four-week-long session without agreement on a treaty text that would have set common standards to regulate the international trade in conventional arms,” UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said. Ban termed the lack of agreement a “setback.” Ban said that the UN’s commitment to signing “a robust ATT is steadfast” and that the global body would continue to work toward what he termed “a noble goal.”
Proponents of the global gun control measure argued that the ATT draft treaty would not have impacted private firearms ownership in the United States under the Second Amendment, as the treaty was nominally directed to international transfer of firearms. Of course, assurances that gun ownership will not be impacted by the UN treaty fell on deaf ears to the National Rifle Association and other supporters of the Second Amendment. While draft versions of the ATT did not explicitly call for the ban on privately held firearms, they did call for national gun registration and vague “control” measures that could be implied to include gun collection. From an administration that recently argued in court that not purchasing health insurance constituted interstate “commerce” that Congress can regulate under the Constitution, gun owners were not about to give the federal government a loophole that allowed for confiscation of firearms — even an improbable loophole.
Moreover, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon sold the idea of a gun treaty to enhance the prestige and power of the United Nations. “A strong treaty would rid the world of the appalling human cost of the poorly regulated international arms trade,” the Secretary-General said. “It would also enhance the ability of the United Nations to cope with the proliferation of arms.”
The Obama administration had reversed a U.S. vote at the UN in 2006 (under the Bush administration) against an ATT on condition that the ATT be unanimously adopted. The Obama administration’s ambassador even delivered a July 12 speech at the convention in support of the agreement, but after the draft treaty was released, the Obama administration asked for more time to consider the treaty, effectively killing the agreement.
Anti-gun organizations were crestfallen, and blamed the Obama administration for caving to domestic political pressure as the reason for the ATT conference failure. Scott Stedjan, senior policy advisor at Oxfam America said:
Today the United States did not grab the golden ring: an international arms treaty that would have bolstered our country’s reputation as a leader on human rights. The White House’s failure of courage to press this treaty to conclusion today and is a loss for hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians that die each year from armed violence fueled by the unregulated transfer of arms. Moving forward President Obama must show the political courage required to make a strong treaty that contains strong rules on human rights a reality. It was this courage that was missing from this week.
Susanne Posel
Infowars.com
August 3, 2012
The US government has been scheming on how to provide for continuity of government for many decades now. According to Peter Santilli, an informant who is an ex-marine and worked on portions of the contingency plans known as Rex 84, civil unrest will come after a financial collapse.
The Readiness Exercise 1984, a.k.a. Rex 84, outlines continuity of government wherein the US Constitution is suspended, martial law is declared and the US military command take over state and local governments in order to ensure stabilization of our nation at any cost. Any American who is deemed a “national security threat” would be detained in an interment or FEMA camp.
The author of Rex 84 was Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North, National Security Council (NSC) White House aids and NSC liaison to FEMA.
Rex 84 is the plan; the triggers are a series of executive orders . It is the continuity of government under specific contingency strategies that are laid out in various operations guide manuals.Operation Garden Plot is a subprogram of Rex 84.
Twice before, Rex 84 was implemented – during the LA riots and on 9/11. In these scenarios, only small portions of the entire set of documents were used. Within the series of contingency plans, implementation of them depends on the severity of the situation.
Some of the plans include internment camps where all or portions of the active or inactive military bases would be transformed into work camps where all considered to be dissonant would be held. The NORTHCOM army manuals clearly state that NATO forces will be used in every phase of the operation.
According to Santilli, procedures to move conventional, chemical and nuclear bombs across the nation without detection have been facilitated without notice by the US military.
Back in 1986, during his military service where he was involved with weapons transportation, Santilli describes how an unmarked refrigerated trailer driven by a civilian driver was used to transport chemical or conventional weapons to various strategic bases both above and underground.
Santilli was a specialist in aviation deployed weapons, which made him the perfect candidate to the assignment of weapons transportation.
The refrigerated truck, allocated by the administration department on base, was directed to the commissary, where the unsuspecting driver believed that he was transporting food. The weapon was placed at the head of the trailer, and covered up with either food stores (like cans of soup) or body bags. In the event that the truck is stopped en route, the weapon would be well hidden and go undetected by inspectors on the public highways.
A US Marine Corp bill of lading was the paperwork necessary to move the commercial refrigerated truck through weigh stations on public highways without any question. Santilli remembers that there was not one incident where he had to enact any security measures to ensure the delivery was made.
Santilli, who was assigned to ride in the cab of the truck with the driver, says that his orders were to make sure the truck arrived at its destination. He was informed by his superiors that if there were problems concerning potential civil unrest, he was to radio into his superiors for aid by either air or ground support.
Should the situation warrant serious attention; crowd control methods would be implemented.
One possible scenario was the use of cluster bomb units (CBUs) that will emit upon detonation, a “sleep and kill” chemical weapon that will not disturb infrastructure, but is lethal to all living things within the effected zone. Santilli describes these particular 3 unit CBUs as shaped like water-heaters with a coned top and plunger-like device. Once deployed in the air, a parachute assists these CBUs to the targeted area. And when detonated, a deadly chemical gas will kill every human and animal in the specified cordoned area.
This is just one example, says Santilli, as to the lengths the US armed forces are trained to make sure continuity of government is preserved.
Santilli explained that the use of foreign troops on US soil, as described in Rex 84 and other subsequent manuals, would have a two-fold purpose.
Firstly, to provide extra security in designated areas, cities or highways; and secondly, as scapegoats were violent action used against American citizens should the US military be directed to attack civilians.
The refrigerated truck, carrying the chemical or conventional weapon with Santilli riding shotgun travelled to underground bases like the one at Yuma Proving Ground which is a ammunitions testing range for pilots. Nestled underneath the ground is a secret military base.
Santilli explains that his knowledge of Rex 84 provides that within the document, one of the scenarios that would cause a complete suspension of the US Constitution, Bill of Rights and implement martial law would be a financial collapse. He says once the collapse occurs, the US government and defense agencies estimate they have a 72 hour window to activate all procedures to ensure continuity of government as well as a lockdown of the general population as civilian unrest, riots and outbreaks of violence are anticipated.
A source in the Deutsche Bank claims that in 2008 our financial and monetary system completely collapsed and since that time the banking cartels have been “propping up the system” to make it appear as if everything was fine. In reality our stock market and monetary systems are fake; meaning that there is nothing holding them in place except the illusion that they have stabilized since the Stock Market Crash nearly 5 years ago.
Since this time, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in conjunction with FEMA and other federal agencies have been quickly working to set in place their directives of control under a silent martial law.
The Deutsche Bank informant says that the cause for the bailout of the banks was a large sum of cash needed quickly to repay China who had purchased large quantities of mortgage-backed securities that went belly-up when the global scam was realized. When China realized that they had been duped into buying worthless securitized loans which would never be repaid, they demanded the actual property instead. The Chinese were prepared to send their “people” to American shores to seize property as allocated to them through the securitized loan contracts.
To stave this off, the American taxpayers were coerced by former President Bush and former US Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson. During that incident, the US Senate was told emphatically that they had to approve a $700 million bailout or else martial law would be implemented immediately. That money was funneled through the Federal Reserve Bank and wired to China, as well as other countries that were demanding repayment for the fraudulent securitizations.
To further avert financial catastrophe, as well as more debt or property seizure threats by the Chinese, the Euro was imploded there by plunging most of the European countries into an insurmountable free-fall for which they were never intended to recover.
All the money that those banks claimed they needed to avert collapse was also sent to the Chinese to add to the trillions of dollars lost during the burst of the housing bubble on the global market.
The only saving grace has been the US dollar being the global reserve currency. However, now this prop is showing signs of wear as foreign nations like China, Russia, India and Iran are dealing in gold as currency and purchasing gold on the market at an exponential rate.
In 1970, Henry Kissinger made a deal with the Saudi Arabian government that American debt would be purchased in exchange for cheap oil. Since then Iran has taken control over theOrganization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) by their use of gold as currency which has threatened the direct value of the US dollar as the global reserve currency.
This scenario with Iran coupled with the massive leaps forward in US military presence on American streets and the emergence of FEMA camps across the nation pose an obvious turn of events and explains exactly why we are witnessing the silent implementation of martial law.
The war with Iran has to do with gold, its use as currency and its exposure of the central banking cartel’s lack of gold which defines a fiat currency’s worth. And right now, the US dollar is absolutely worthless.
The Deutsche Bank informant says that the financial collapse that happened in 2008 will be realized here in America very soon. Once that happens, there must be full implementation of marital law to control the potential riots and control over citizens that will be desperate to feed their families.
The attacks of recent on the 2nd Amendment play a significant role in attempting “amicably” to remove the possibility of civilian retaliation against the US military’s presence throughout the nation. However, if they cannot remove the guns from our hands in time, they will continue on with the guidelines set out in Rex 84 with directives to kill any dissenters that refuse to obey.
Susanne Posel’s website is Occupy Corporatism.
Mac Slavo
SHTFPlan.com
Aug 5, 2012
“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms…disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one.”
Thomas Jefferson
While anti-gun advocates put forth every argument under the sun for why you should not be able to own a “high capacity” magazine that holds more than 10 rounds, or that you shouldn’t be able to buy ammunition online, or that police should stop going to work until guns have been completely banned, the evidence for disarmament of law abiding citizens as a failed policy is overwhelming.
In Chicago, where guns have essentially been banned for personal defense, the murder of innocents has risen so sharply in recent months that Mayor Rahm Emanual has been left with no other option but to call on criminals to look to their morals and values to stop the carnage. Washington D.C., which bans the carrying of concealed weapons, has maintained one of the highest gun crime murder rates in the country for over three decades – since the legislation was passed in 1975. As the Washington Post notes, the disarming of local residents has been wholly ineffective noting that the “guns kept coming, and bodies kept falling.”
These localized examples of the detrimental effects of restrictive gun policies are nothing, however, when compared to what’s happened in Australia, where the government implemented a “buy back” program in 1997 that completely banned gun ownership for the general population. While Australia’s politician promised a lower crime rate once the ban was in place, the disarming of its citizens has led to exactly the opposite effect.
A right stolen by their government, promising safety in return for its gun ban. But now citizens know the frightening truth. The cost of lost liberty can be measured in the loss of life.
“It’s become very, very obvious… that the expenditure of half a billion dollars has done absolutely nothing to reduce crime.”
“It certainly didn’t do what the government touted it would do, which was to reduce crime. It hasn’t done that at all. In fact, there has been more.”
…
“What’s happening today is that the offender, the bad buys, are happy to break into somebody’s house. They’re not frightened to break into somebody’s house while they’re at home.”
…
“It’s very bad at the moment. It’s never been worse.“
Here are the cold hard facts from Australia that anti-gun forces can no longer escape:
Armed Robberies are UP 69%
Assaults Involving Guns are UP 28%
Gun Murders are UP 19%
Home Invasions – a crime for which Australia didn’t even have laws before the gun ban because it never happened – are UP 21%
Like Chicago and Washington D.C., Australia’s gun laws have back fired. The statistics above are rarely if ever reported by mainline news channels in America because the evidence is clear: If you take away guns from law abiding citizens, the only people with guns will be the criminals.
Not only is the evidence regularly buried, but harrowing stories of self defense where individuals have taken it upon themselves to protect their lives and property are often downplayed. When a 65 year old jewelry shop owner took matters into her own hands and opened fire on five gun-toting armed robbers recently, what did the local CBS affiliate mention repeatedly in their report?
“As much as those cops like seeing bad guys having the tables turned on them, they still caution everybody that down-range, beyond the target, there’s often an innocent bystander.”
Video via The Daily Sheeple:
There is always a risk of an innocent bystander being hit by a rogue bullet, but not one example of such an outcome is ever identified by news reporters citing such information. More often than not, it’s the criminals who shoot indiscriminately that maim or kill a child or other innocent passer-by.
Explaining to the anti-gun activists that the benefits far outweigh the risks is like pulling teeth. But, as the 65 year old jewelry store owner, or the patron of an internet cafe, or the mom who acted to save her kids by shooting an armed intruder show, one person with a gun is all it takes to prevent scores of others from being hurt or killed.
We can continue down this road of stripping Americans of their liberty and right to defend themselves, and we can be assured that we’ll continue to measure the subsequent fallout by counting it in the loss of innocent life. Or, we can put the power back into the hands of the people and send a message to those who would do harm to others. In Australia, criminals are more empowered than ever before when they see statistics like armed robberies being up 69% or murders being up 21%, because they know the people have no ability to defend themselves.
But what if the statistics reported by the media were more like those of Detroit, whereself defense killings have jumped 2200% and justifiable homicide is up 79% year-over-year?
If local and national news agencies were reporting that crime was falling and more would-be criminals were ending up taking celestial dirt naps when engaged in violent criminal activity, the psychological effects of being aware of these statistics would be a very powerful deterrent indeed.
The American people are perfectly capable of defending themselves, they need only to have the boot removed from their throats and be allowed to breathe.
Mathew T. Williams
Infowars.com
August 9, 2012
On July 20th, 2012 James Holmes committed an act of maniacal and lethal aggression towards a group of movie patrons. 12 dead, 59 injured…America was shocked.
Politicians ran to heat the debate of gun control, but something different happened… It fell on deaf ears. America opted for the red pill.
We no longer have closed eyes in dreams fed to us by the powers that be. The only true defense against a methodical madman, immediate retaliation!
Hey, you can huddle up in the fetal position and beg for your life. You can run into jams of crowded people who reacted the same. Or you can be prepared.
Let’s talk.
Let’s examine some informative details the mainstream media purposely avoids telling you.
– Colorado is a state which has Concealed Carry Licensing. Only the state government can issue an order for a location to be off limits to licensed carry. It is described to the letter of the law as government building and makes no mention of commercial or residential locations. C.R.S. 29-11.7-103
– The Century Movie theater (owned by Cine-mark of Plano, TX) has a nationwide “gun free” policy. Widely known to the awakened as “Kill Zones.” Since when did corporate policies super cede state law?
– The theater did not provide proper security to its patrons. Especially if it were to demand they come stripped of their rights.
– One well trained man or woman could have stopped the shooter and saved so many lives. We don’t shoot to kill, we shoot so others may live.
We cannot un-invent the gun. To conceive that we can ensure that they will be placed in the right hands at all times is just foolish.
The answer is to accept it as a tool. Not much different than what you would find in your garage or shop. It is the person who wields it that is to be in question.
How do we eliminate this infection of lunatics that go on rampages? Where is our new drug of immunity? New laws? Banned weapons? No.
There is no way to make it go away. You cannot cure evil. It is the inherent curse of man and will forever follow us. Our forefathers knew this when they founded our nation, so much so they saw it fit to instill constitutional rights to ensure we as free Americans can bear arms.
So what can you do to stand your ground? Well there are two different types of shooters: those that have and those that have not. However the solution is the same.
Bring your wallet.
A quality handgun can be had from as low as $300. Go to your local gun shop and ask questions regarding your rights to own and carry a handgun for self defense.
Ask to see different models until you find your pistol. Remember, the comfort you have with your gun’s grip will be the developing foundation of your marksmanship abilities.
Find a Certified Firearms Instructor. You will be surprised to find out what you don’t know. These individuals or groups are also excellent resources for local or state weapons laws.
In particular, for the new shooter, they can train you from the ground up in a relatively short time frame.
Follow four simple safety rules and be able to operate using combinations of them:
1. ALL firearms are considered loaded until both visually and physically checked.
2. NEVER point a firearm at anything you are not willing to destroy.
3. NEVER place your finger on the trigger until you are on target.
4. ALWAYS be aware of your target and its surroundings.
From the layout provided of the theater itself, and the description as to how James Holmes engaged the crowd, those in the front rows were the immediate attack.
After that he lobbed chemical canisters to the rearward upper level areas. Then he marched up the left side sweeping the audience. In this instance, an unarmed victim has little to no choice but to fight or flee.
Those that fled bottle-necked the exits. Those trapped in the center seating areas had nowhere to go. They suffered the brunt of the attack.
How do you survive a theater style shooting? Well if you’re unarmed you’re at the mercy of your attacker for at least 5 minutes until the police arrive. Avoid any seating that places obstacles (people or objects) between you and your exit. If you are next to the attacker, you do have the choice of utilizing force to attempt to subdue him, but this is almost as risky as running.
For those of you that choose to exercise your rights it’s a whole different approach. In this instance, if you were anywhere but the front row, you would have time to draw your weapon and fire. Being that this nut job had body armor on, one shot is not going to do it.
You will also need a weapon of 9mm or greater. Preferably a .40, .45 or .357. With a firm grip you will need to fire into both chest and head (Mozambique drill) consecutively while you approach the threat. Your approach speed should be determined by steadiness, not haste. Feel free to step on the unarmed if need be; they are probably used to it, and frankly, you are saving their lives.
Once you have reached the assailant, try to assess his movement, especially in the hands. You are now at point blank range with your would-be killer. If he moves finish him. Remember once you draw your weapon and fire off that first round, there is no turning back. Get into the fight! Your job is to stop, control or neutralize the threat.
In this and many other mass shooting incidents, with all the vivacious level of carnage that comes with them, only lethal force can ensure your safety and the safety of others.
There are over 70 million gun owners that killed no one yesterday. To fight for your life and the life of your loved ones is not a super human trait. It’s your duty!
– The Gunfighter’s Prayer
Lord, lord make me fast and accurate.
Let my aim be true and my hand faster
than those who wish to harm me and mine.
Let not my last thought be,
“If only I had my gun”,
and lord…
If today is truly the day you are to call me home…
Let me die in a pile of brass
This article first appeared on the Planet.Infowars.com Social Network.
http://www.thepatriotexchange.com/articl34.htm
What Do These People Have In Common?
Josef Stalin Adolf Hitler Mao Zedong
Pol Pot Gordon Brown John Howard
George Soros Charles Schumer Michael Bloomberg
Diane Feinstein John Conyers Nancy Pelosi
“A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity.”
– Sigmund Freud, General Introduction to Psychoanalysis
and so:
There are others of course, like Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, Rep. Louise Slaughter, Rep. Jerold Nadler, Sen. Frank Lautenberg, Sen. Joseph Biden, Sen. Barabara Boxer, Sen. Hillary Clinton, Sen. John Kerry, Sen. Teddy (Chappaquiddick) Kennedy and many more. Why do they want to disarm America? Possibly it is because, as long as Americans are armed, the gun grabbers can’t carry out their socialist agenda. They who control the arms, control America. Once the general population is disarmed, only the government and the criminals, who of course will not give up their arms, will jointly control the country.
In a recent article, The Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, confirms that reducing gun ownership, by law-abiding citizens, does nothing to reduce violence worldwide. See article HERE. To read the original study GO HERE.
“Government is not reason; it is not eloquence. It is force. And force, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”
– George Washington
INTENDED CONSEQUENCES
In 1929, the Soviet Union disarmed their citizens. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. By 1987 that figure had risen to 61,911,000.
In 1938, the Nazis confiscated all civilian arms. Then, on November 9, 1938, came the “Kristalnacht” and the world changed forever. From 1938 to 1945, 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1958 Mao initiated his misconceived “Great Leap Forward,” which resulted in the deaths of 20-30 million souls. In 1966, to secure his position against rivals, he launced the “Cultural Revolution” that took another 1 million plus lives.
In 1975, after banning and confiscating all guns, Pol Pot began his purge of “intellectuals,” that lasted from 1976 to 1979, killing between 1 and 2 million people.
That is the short list. In the 20th Century, between 200 and 300 million people were simply erased because they had no means of defending themselves. If you would like to see what has historically happened to people who have been forced to give up their guns, go here.
CURRENT GUN GRABBERS
George Soros an Hungarian born billionaire, wishes to destroy our Constitution and ban the private ownership of all small arms, not only in America, but world wide. Thereby, placing all unarmed citizen under the thumbs of their armed governments. That is the reality and intended result, of all citizen disarmaments.
Diane Feinstein, a hypocrite, who has a concealed carry permit, commented after the 1994 citizen disarmament: “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an out right ban, picking up every one of them…” “Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ’em all in,” “I would have done it.”
Then….the following comments were made by U.S. Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) during U.S. Senate hearings on terrorism held in Washington, D.C. on April 27, 1995:
“Because less than twenty years ago I was the target of a terrorist group. It was the New World Liberation Front. They blew up power stations and put a bomb at my home when my husband was dying of cancer. And the bomb didn’t detonate. … I was very lucky. But, I thought of what might have happened. Later the same group shot out all the windows of my home.”
“And, I know the sense of helplessness that people feel. I know the urge to arm yourself because that’s what I did. I was trained in firearms. I’d walk to the hospital when my husband was sick. I carried a concealed weapon. I made the determination that if somebody was going to try to take me out, I was going to take them with me.” You see, she gets it, but would deny the rest of us the same protection. Don’t do as I do, do as I say!
Since Nancy Pelosi has been in the Senate she has voted against gun owners and for more citizen disarmament at every opportunity. “Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the McCarthy amendment. Citizen disarmament laws are not the problem. The problem is citizen disarmament loopholes. Let’s close the loopholes.”
Looking ahead to the approaching end of the 1994 Clinton citizen disarmament, which banned guns simply for how they looked, not how they functioned, Charles Schumer, a major player in the citizen disarmament, had this to say: “The fact of the matter is that there is no legitimate use for these weapons….”
— Senator Charles Schumer, Source: Press Release `ATF data’ Nov 5, 2003.
The Schumer quote exhibits a bit of naiveté, if not outright dishonesty, especially for a man who hires armed body guards. Charles Schumer has been exposed as a world class hypocrite who has been working overtime for years to deprive honest, law-abiding Americans the means with which to defend themselves from violent crime,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “Yet, here is Schumer unmasked, protected by an armed New York police detective, a luxury not available to average working class Americans. If Schumer is convinced that his fellow Americans don’t need firearms, why does he feel the need for an armed bodyguard?” Does the Senator think that a Kristalnacht can’t happen here? Do you want to trust your life and the lives of your family, to that assumption? Not I!
New York Mayor Bloomberg and his “Mayors Against Guns” and his so-called “Congressional Task Force on Illegal Guns” want all confidential BATF information on gun owners made available to them. This information is available exclusively to federal, state and local law enforcement agencies for good reason. If the data is made available to Bloomberg’s groups they would then have access to who owns what and where it is located, a prerequisite to confiscation. This data has nothing to do with his so-called war on “illegal” guns and MUST remain confidential.
Most people who favor citizen disarmament are either misinformed and/or deluded individuals who know absolutely nothing about guns and think they are doing the right thing. They see law abiding gun owners in the same light as criminals, because they focus on the gun, an inanimate object, rather than the person behind the gun. I can only advise these people to watch out for unintended consequences.
Image, in part, from http://www.a-human-right.com/
The elitist, anti-gun socialists, who lead the fight to take away our guns are neither misinformed, nor deluded. They know, that guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens, reduces crime. Where gun ownership is highest, crime rates are lowest. They know that guns are used more often to stop crime, than in the commission of a crime. It is therefore, in times like this, that owning a gun is the patriotic and socially responsible thing to do. The anti-gun socialists such as George Soros, Sen. Charles Schumer, Sarah Brady, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Sen. Diane Feinstein, Sen. Frank Lautenberg and all the other self righteous, anti-gun, hypocrites, would deprive us of our natural, God given right to self defense. We should all be asking why these people, who know that guns are beneficial to a free society, who hire their own private bodyguards, or personally carry a gun, want to strip them away from us. Obviously they have an unspoken agenda. I wonder what it is? Perhaps they simply consider us inferior to themselves.
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES
(UNTIL PROVEN OTHERWISE)
Lindisfarne Priory, 793 A.D…. An early “Weapon Free Zone”. Lets ask a monk how well it worked? Oh, we can’t! (They were all massacred by armed attackers!)
The statistics used here are all available on the internet and are from official sources. Crime statistics for England and Wales can be found here. and those of the U.S.A.here. Statistics used are from 2005 and/or 2006 depending on last recorded updates. Also, what gets recorded as a “violent” crime varies from country to country, but not enough to alter the numbers by much. NOTE: “Gun” homicides are lower in the U.K, but this doesn’t reflect total gun crime. Violent crime, homicide, attempted homicide, assaults, rape etc. in the U.K. are up dramatically, guns or no guns.
A comparison between the U.S. and the U.K.: The population of the United Kingdom just passed 60 million. However the crime statistics reported are for England and Wales only so I will use the population figure of 53 million. The population of the United States is 300 million. Therefore, the population of England and Wales is only 17.7% that of the U.S.A., but they have more than 4.2 times (they admit two times) as many violent crimes per capita. England and Wales experienced 1,059,931 violent crimes “against the person” reported 2005-2006. The U.S. experienced 1,390,695 reported in 2005 for a rate of 469 violent crimes per 100k population and the U.K. is 1,999.9 (2005-06) per 100k population and that, as noted, only includes reported crime in England and Wales which was under reported by an additional 2 million plus violent crimes, making the actual violent crimes over 3 million, or three times the reported total. In the four years from 1998-99 to 2002-03, the overall violent crime rate in the U.K. was up 118% (300% plus with adjusted totals), the result of unintended consequences. These are facts, which the government of the U.K. attempts to keep from their people, who are prohibited from owning guns. Despite government efforts to hide the problem, some in the U.K. get it.
In their desperation, the U.K. has banned air guns and toy guns, including Star Trek phasers, believe it or not. Next on the list for banning must be knives, Cricket bats, sticks and rocks, but even that will not change anything, because the problem lieswithin society itself, not the tools it uses.
The same problem plagues Australia, for the same reason. As a matter of fact, recent research published in the British Journal of Criminology finds that Australia’s mandated gun turn-in program—which netted 640,000 guns at a cost of some $500 million—failed to make the country safer.
After the 1996 Port Arthur massacre in which a lone psychopath killed 53 people, Australia banned semiautomatic long guns and began a 12-month amnesty period for gun owners to turn in their property and receive compensation.
The rate of all violent crime in Australia is up 32% since 1996 and armed robbery is up 74%. The violent crime rate is 873 per 100k population, the result of unintended consequences.
Even our neighbor to the north, Canada, after tightening their gun laws, finds that in the past 20 years, their violent crime rate is up 52% with a rate of 940 violent crimes per 100k population, twice that of the United States, the result of unintended consequences.
GUN FREE ZONES
“The Crime Control Act of 1990” was viewed by most as unimportant anti-crime legislation, but the “unintended consequences” have been tragic. It was the “The Crime Control Act of 1990” that established “gun free school zones.”
Between the first school killings and the second, 195 years went by without incident. See the list below. Between the Poe Elementary attack and the Stockton School shootings, the “reason” for “gun free school zones,” another 30 years went by, with six intervening incidents. In the 225 years between and including the Enoch Brown school massacre and the Stockton shootings there were a total of nine incidents.
You remember Pres. George H.W. Bush, the man who gave us the “New World Order,” right? Well, it was he who signed the 1990 crime bill into law, establishing “gun free school zones.”
Since “gun free school zones” were established seventeen years ago, there have been an additional sixty-seven incidents. That is more than seven times as many, in the past 17 years, as in the preceding 225 years. Those sixty-seven incidents account for an additional 135 dead and 182 wounded. Apparently psychotics prefer killing zones where no one is likely to shoot back. It is time to do away with “gun free school zones.”
-
Enoch Brown school massacre – Franklin County, Pennsylvania, July 26, 1764
-
Poe Elementary School Attack – Houston, Texas, September 15, 1959
-
University of Texas at Austin massacre – Austin, Texas, August 1, 1966
-
Jackson State killings – Jackson, Mississippi, May 14-15, 1970
-
California State University, Fullerton Library Massacre – Fullerton, California, July 12, 1976
-
Parkway South Junior High School shooting – Saint Louis, Missouri,
-
January 20, 1983
-
Laurie Dann – Hubbards Woods Elementary School; Winnetka, Illinois, May 20, 1988
-
Stockton massacre – Stockton, California, January 17, 1989
It was the Stockton shootings by Patrick Purdey that prompted the gun free zone legislation. Five children were killed and 31 were injured by Purdey, who used a legally purchased AK-47, to commit the deed. California law at the time required a 15 day waiting period and a background check to make the purchase and Purdey passed without a problem, but he shouldn’t have.
Although Purdey pulled the trigger, the entire California criminal justice system was also complicit in the massacre. It was only because prosecutors and judges allowed Purdy to plea down his crimes, that he was never convicted of a felony and therefore was able to legally purchase that AK-47. In 1979 Purdey was arrested for extortion and the possession of dangerous weapons. The following year, 1980, he was arrested for sex crimes. In 1982 he was arrested for possession of drugs. In 1983 he was arrested twice, for dangerous weapons and receiving stolen property. In 1984 he was arrested for attempted robbery and conspiracy. And in 1987 he was arrested on weapons charges and resisting arrest. The probation report noted that he was a danger to himself and others.
Seven times Purdey faced serious criminal charges and seven times the courts dropped or plea bargained away the felony charges. Unfortunately, this goes on in our court systems on a daily basis. Judges who allow felons to go free, who then commit a capital crime, should be held responsible as an accomplice to that crime. Perhaps then, judges who allow these people to go free to commit further crimes, might think twice before doing so.
Most of the following are the “unintended consequences” of gun free school zone legislation. This list is probably incomplete.
The use of “School Unknown” in the list below means that the article, or data base, the information was drawn from did not provide the name of the school in question.
-
University of Iowa shooting – Iowa City, Iowa, November 1, 1991
-
Simon’s Rock College of Bard shooting – Great Barrington, Massachusetts, December 14, 1992
-
Montclair High School shooting – Montclair, California, October 18, 1995
-
Richland High School shooting – Lynnville, Tennessee, November 15, 1995
-
Frontier Junior High shooting – Moses Lake, Washington, February 2, 1996
-
School Unknown shooting, St. Louis, Missouri, February 29, 1996
-
School Unknown shooting, Atlanta, Georgia , United Stetes; September 25, 1996
-
School Unknown shooting, St. Louis, Missouri, October 31, 1996
-
School Unknown shooting, West Palm Beach, Florida, January 27, 1997
-
Regional High School shooting, Bethel, Alaska, February 19, 1997
-
Pearl High School shooting, Pearl, Mississippi, October 1, 1997
-
School Unknown shooting, Norwalk, California, October 22, 1997
-
Heath High School shooting, West Paducah, Kentucky, December 1, 1997
-
Stamps High School shooting, Stamps, Arkansas, December 15, 1997
-
Jonesboro massacre – Jonesboro, Arkansas, March 24, 1998
-
Parker Middle School shooting, Edinboro, Pennsylvania, April 24, 1998
-
School Unknown shooting, Pomona, California, April 28, 1998
-
Lincoln County High School shooting, Fayetteville, Tennessee, May 19, 1998
-
Thurston High School shooting – Springfield, Oregon, May 21, 1998
-
School Unknown shooting, Columbia, South Carolina, June 6, 1998
-
School Unknown shooting, Houston Texas, May 21, 1998
-
Armstrong High School shooting, Richmond, Virginia, June 15, 1998
-
Columbine High School massacre – Littleton, Colorado, April 20, 1999
-
Heritage High School shooting – Conyers, Georgia, May 20, 1999
-
Deming Middle School shooting, Deming, New Mexico, November 19, 1999
-
Fort Gibson Middle School shooting, Fort Gibson, Oklahoma, December 6, 1999
-
Beach High School shooting, Savannah, Georgia, March 10, 2000
-
School Unknown shooting, Lake Worth, Florida, United States, May 26, 2000
-
School Unknown shooting, New Orleans, Louisiana, September 26, 2000
-
School Unknown shooting, Glendale, Arizona, October 24, 2000
-
School Unknown shooting, Oxnard, California, January 10, 2001
-
Lake Clifton Eastern High School, Baltimore, Maryland, January 17, 2001
-
School Unknown shooting, Elmira, New York, February 14, 2001
-
Santana High School – Santee, California, March 5, 2001
-
School Unknown shooting, Williamsport, Pennsylvania, March 7, 2001
-
Granite Hills High School shooting, El Cahon, California, March 22, 2001
-
School Unknown shooting, Gary, Indiana, March 30, 2001
-
Martin Luther King Jr. High School shooting, New York, New York, January 15, 2002
-
Appalachian School of Law shooting – Grundy, Virginia, January 16, 2002
-
School Unknown shooting, San Antonio, Texas, October 4, 2002
-
Wind River Middle School shooting, Carson, Washington, December 12, 2002
-
Englewood High School shooting, Chicago, Illinois, December 16, 2002
-
School Unknown shooting, Jenks, Oklahoma, United States; January 30, 2003
-
School Unknown shooting, Westminister, Colorado, United States; February 5, 2003
-
School Unknown shooting, Guttenberg, Iowa, United States; March 17, 2003
-
School Unknown shooting, Washington, D.C., United States; April 1, 2003
-
School Unknown shooting, Addison, Texas, United States; April 16, 2003
-
School Unknown shooting, Red Lion, Pennsylvania, United States; April 24, 2003
-
School Unknown shooting, Columbus, Georgia, United States; August 14, 2003
-
Rocori High School shootings – Cold Spring, Minnesota, September 24, 2003
-
Southwood Middle School tragedy, Miami, Florida; February 3, 2004
-
School Unknown shooting, Maywood, Illinois, United States; August 30, 2004
-
North Philadelphia High School shooting, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States; November 22, 2004
-
Lakeside High School shooting, Nine Mile Falls, Washington, United States; December 10, 2004
-
Red Lake High School massacre – Red Lake, Minnesota, March 21, 2005
-
Campbell County High School – Jacksboro, Tennessee: November 8, 2005
-
School Unknown shooting, Essex, Vermont, United States;August 25, 2006
-
School Unknown shooting, Van Nuys, California, United States; September 13, 2006
-
Platte Canyon High School shooting – Bailey, Colorado, September 27, 2006
-
Weston High School shooting, Cazenovia, Wisconsin September 29, 2006
-
Amish school shooting – Nickel Mines, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, October 2, 2006
-
Henry Foss High School – Tacoma, Washington, United States January 3, 2007
-
Virginia Tech massacre – Blacksburg, Virginia, April 16, 2007
I didn’t include the Kent State shootings because that was a completely different set of circumstances. While a tragedy, it doesn’t qualify for this list.
In the U.S., forty states now have concealed carry laws on the books. In a comperhensive study of all public, multiple shooting incidents in America between 1977 and 1999, John Lott and Bill Landes found that concealed carry laws were the only laws that had any beneficial effect. Think about that! And the effect was significant. States with concealed carry laws on the books, reduced multiple shooting attacks by 60% and reduced death and injury from these attacks by 80%.
“As ye sow, so shall ye reap.” When you sow the seeds of citizen disarmament, the crop can only be, vastly increased violent crime, or even worse, tyranny and genocide.
Beware of U.N. treaties banning small arms ownership. Socialists in this country and the world over, are twitching with anticipation at the prospect of such a treaty.
http://www.thepatriotexchange.com/articl34.htm
TRUTHTALK13NEWS 
