PHONY GUN CONTROL WARNINGS

Along with the usual accompanying crap, I’ve just received the following warning: “While you were watching the oil spill, the New York failed terrorist bombing and other critical crises, Hillary Clinton signed the small arms treaty with the UN. OBAMA FINDS LEGAL WAY AROUND THE 2ND AMENDMENT AND USES IT.”

Actually I received the very same warning some months ago, only this time someone inserted the oil spill and the Times Square bomber into it. In either case, the warning is as phony as a nine-dollar bill. If the U.N. Small Arms treaty were to ban the possession of all small arms, which it doesn’t, and Clinton were to sign it on behalf of the U.S., the treaty would still have to be ratified by a two-thirds vote of the U.S. Senate for it to take effect and that is very unlikely to happen even in a Democratic controlled senate.

Here is the real scoop from Ray Castagnaro who happens to be a conservative and NOT a liberal gun control nut:

SECOND AMENDMENT VS. U.N. SMALL ARMS TREATY
By Ray Castagnaro

Fort Worth Conservative Examinaer
May 3, 2010

I have been seeing facebook Ads for a petition sponsored by NAGR, or the National Association for Gun Rights. Ostensibly hosted or supported by Congressman Paul Brown (R-GA), this “petition” claims that:

...Secretary of State Hillary Clinton just announced the Obama Administration would be working hand in glove with the U.N. to pass a new “Small Arms Treaty."

Disguised as legislation to help in the fight against “terrorism,” “insurgency” and “international crime syndicates,” the U.N.’s Small Arms Treaty is nothing more than a massive, GLOBAL gun control scheme.

If passed by the U.N. and ratified by the U.S. Senate, the U.N.’s Small Arms Treaty would almost certainly FORCE national governments to:
 Enact tougher licensing requirements, making law-abiding citizens 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.

The above quotation is a cut and past from the NAGR website and all CAPS are as shown therein. I have no idea whether the congressman is really involved in this or not.

Doing a Web search of “U.N. Small Arms Treaty” yielded some very spirited debate in the blogosphere. Of course all of the debate opposing the petition that I saw was personally vitriolic against the gun rights blogger, rather than dispassionate and factual. That is to be expected from progressive socialists who support “One World Government” and oppose the U.S. Constitution. To be fair, those arguing in favor of gun rights were not much more articulate or informed, I am afraid to say. This issue that should have never been one is just another “Brick in the Wall” as Pink Floyd sang. We do not need this nonsense in our lives.

That not withstanding, I discovered that the U.N. Small Arms Treaty initially was already passed on October 26th, 2006 with 139 countries voting in favor, 24 abstaining, and the lone “No” vote being the old U.S. of A. That was nearly four years ago when the Republicans were sort of running things in Washington. I’m not sure what the implications of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton standing behind it now are, other than our backing down to the irrelevant U.N. again.

Hillary however, announced last fall (not exactly "recently") that the U.S. had “changed its stance and would support negotiations of an Arms Trade Treaty to regulate international gun trafficking.” Really? I don’t remember being asked. Seriously, was I in the rest room when that topic came up at town halls or debates? The fact is, Madam Secretary, the U.S. hasn’t changed squat. This is just the Progressive “One World Government” agenda rearing its head.

Former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton claims that this is certainly the beginning of a slippery slope towards domestic gun control in the U.S. "There's no doubt that the real agenda is domestic firearms control." Bolton should know. He was once the voice of the U.S. at the huge monument to man’s folly on the East River, the United Nations.

The “UN Dispatch” claims, in a banner headline that “The UN is NOT Trying to Take Your Guns Away. (Unless you are a terrorist or enlist child soldiers, that is)” That makes me feel better [<-insert sarcastic tone here.] The U.N. has done so well for the United States so far [<- and here…]

The horribly misspelled “Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects (UN Document A/CONF.192/15)” is a nebulous, Kum-By-Ya pasquinade that says a whole lot of nothing.

So, whom are we to believe? Does this U.N. treaty immediately threaten the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution? No, not likely. It does not actually address domestic gun rights at all.

However, what sudden and unprecedented American support of the Treaty does do, is bring us just a little bit closer to the One World Government that will certainly have the authority to repeal or marginalize the U.S. Constitution in its entirety. There’s really no arguing that point; unless you are a Lefty, then you shouldn’t even bother reading this blog anyway. You cannot be reasoned with and all you do is scream “racist,” and “bigot,” and the ever-popular “Nazi.” There, I did you job for you. Now you can go out and roll a fat spliff and wait for the Thought Police to arrive.

The bottom line of this whole debate might be for everyone to stock up on guns and ammunition while you may still legally do so and then NEVER register them or admit to their existence. When everything swings back to the right again, starting in November, and finishing in 2012, what would be the harm in having some guns and ammo? For once we have a government serving the will of the people again, you could always sell some of your personal arsenal - probably for a tidy profit I would think. Look at it like an investment in your liberty and also in your economic interest. Win Win.