Archive

Posts Tagged ‘second amendment’

A Heavily Armed Citizenry Is A Virtue

February 15, 2013 2 comments

billofrightsandbullets

 

Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/lawrencehunter/2012/12/28/gun-control-tramples-on-the-certain-virtues-of-a-heavily-armed-citizenry/

It is time the critics of the Second Amendment put up and repeal it, or shut up about violating it. Their efforts to disarm and short-arm Americans violate the U.S. Constitution in Merriam Webster’s first sense of the term—to “disregard” it.

Hard cases make bad law, which is why they are reserved for the Constitution, not left to the caprice of legislatures, the sophistry and casuistry of judges or the despotic rule making of the chief executive and his bureaucracy. And make no mistake, guns pose one of the hardest cases a free people confronts in the 21st century, a test of whether that people cherishes liberty above tyranny, values individual sovereignty above dependency on the state, and whether they dare any longer to live free.

A people cannot simultaneously live free and be bound to any human master or man-made institution, especially to politicians, judges, bureaucrats and faceless government agencies. The Second Amendment along with the other nine amendments of the Bill of Rights was designed to prevent individuals’ enslavement to government, not just to guarantee people the right to hunt squirrels or sport shoot at targets, nor was it included in the Bill of Rights just to guarantee individuals the right to defend themselves against robbers, rapers and lunatics, or to make sure the states could raise a militia quick, on the cheap to defend against a foreign invader or domestic unrest.

The Second Amendment was designed to ensure that individuals retained the right and means to defend themselves against any illegitimate attempt to do them harm, be it an attempt by a private outlaw or government agents violating their trust under the color of law. The Second Amendment was meant to guarantee individuals the right to protect themselves against government as much as against private bad guys and gangs.

That is why the gun grabbers’ assault on firearms is not only, not even primarily an attack merely on the means of self-defense but more fundamentally, the gun grabbers are engaged in a blatant attack on the very legitimacy of self-defense itself. It’s not really about the guns; it is about the government’s ability to demand submission of the people. Gun control is part and parcel of the ongoing collectivist effort to eviscerate individual sovereignty and replace it with dependence upon and allegiance to the state.

Americans provisionally delegated a limited amount of power over themselves to government, retaining their individual sovereignty in every respect and reserving to themselves the power not delegated to government, most importantly the right and power to abolish or replace any government that becomes destructive of the ends for which it was created. The Bill of Rights, especially the Second and Ninth Amendments, can only be properly understood and rightly interpreted in this context.

Politicians who insist on despoiling the Constitution just a little bit for some greater good (gun control for “collective security”) are like a blackguard who lies to an innocent that she can yield to his advances, retain her virtue and risk getting only just a little bit pregnant—a seducer’s lie. The people either have the right to own and bear arms, or they don’t, and to the extent legislators, judges and bureaucrats disparage that right, they are violating the U.S. Constitution as it was originally conceived, and as it is currently amended. To those who would pretend the Second Amendment doesn’t exist or insist it doesn’t mean what it says, there is only one legitimate response: “If you don’t like the Second Amendment, you may try to repeal it but short of that you may not disparage and usurp it, even a little bit, as long as it remains a part of the Constitution, no exceptions, no conniving revisions, no fabricated judicial balancing acts.”

Gun control advocates attempt to avoid the real issue of gun rights—why the Founders felt so strongly about gun rights that they singled them out for special protection in the Bill of Rights—by demanding that individual rights be balanced against a counterfeit collective right to “security” from things that go bump in the night. But, the Bill of Rights was not a Bill of Entitlements that people had a right to demand from government; it was a Bill of Protections against the government itself. The Founders understood that the right to own and bear laws is as fundamental and as essential to maintaining liberty as are the rights of free speech, a free press, freedom of religion and the other protections against government encroachments on liberty delineated in the Bill of Rights.

That is why the most egregious of the fallacious arguments used to justify gun control are designed to short-arm the citizenry (e.g., banning so-called “assault rifles”) by restricting the application of the Second Amendment to apply only to arms that do not pose a threat to the government’s self-proclaimed monopoly on the use of force. To that end, the gun grabbers first must bamboozle people into believing the Second Amendment does not really protect an individual’s right to own and bear firearms.

They do that by insisting on a tortured construction of the Second Amendment that converts individual rights into states rights. The short-arm artists assert that the Second Amendment’s reference to the necessity of a “well-regulated militia” proves the amendment is all about state’s rights, not individuals rights; it was written into the Bill of Rights simply to guarantee that state governments could assemble a fighting force quick, on the cheap to defend against foreign invasion and domestic disturbance. Consequently, Second-Amendment revisionists would have us believe the Second Amendment does little more than guarantee the right of states to maintain militias; and, since the state militias were replaced by the National Guard in the early twentieth century, the Second Amendment has virtually no contemporary significance. Gun controllers would, in effect, do to the Second Amendment what earlier collectivizers and centralizers did to the Tenth Amendment, namely render it a dead letter.

The truth is, the Founders understood a “well regulated” militia to mean a militia “functioning/operating properly,” not a militia “controlled or managed by the government.” This is clearly evidenced by Alexander Hamilton’s discussion of militias in Federalist #29 and by one of the Oxford Dictionary’s archaic definitions of “regulate;” “(b) Of troops: Properly disciplined.”

The Founders intended that a well-regulated militia was to be the first, not the last line of defense against a foreign invader or social unrest. But, they also intended militias to be the last, not the first line of defense against tyrannical government. In other words, the Second Amendment was meant to be the constitutional protection for a person’s musket behind the door, later the shotgun behind the door and today the M4 behind the door—a constitutional guarantee of the right of individuals to defend themselves against any and all miscreants, private or government, seeking to do them harm.

The unfettered right to own and bear arms consecrates individual sovereignty and ordains the right of self-defense. The Second Amendment symbolizes and proclaims individuals’ right to defend themselves personally against any and all threatened deprivations of life, liberty or property, including attempted deprivations by the government. The symbolism of a heavily armed citizenry says loudly and unequivocally to the government, “Don’t Tread On Me.”

Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence said, “When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.”

Both Jefferson and James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, also knew that their government would never fear a people without guns, and they understood as well that the greatest threat to liberty was not foreign invasion or domestic unrest but rather a standing army and a militarized police force without fear of the people and capable of inflicting tyranny upon the people.

That is what prompted Madison to contrast the new national government he had helped create to the kingdoms of Europe, which he characterized as “afraid to trust the people with arms.” Madison assured his fellow Americans that under the new Constitution as amended by the Bill of Rights, they need never fear their government because of “the advantage of being armed.”

But, Noah Webster said it most succinctly and most eloquently:

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.”

That is why the Founders looked to local militias as much to provide a check—in modern parlance, a “deterrent”—against government tyranny as against an invading foreign power. Guns are individuals’ own personal nuclear deterrent against their own government gone rogue. Therefore, a heavily armed citizenry is the ultimate deterrent against tyranny.

A heavily armed citizenry is not about armed revolt; it is about defending oneself against armed government oppression. A heavily armed citizenry is not about overthrowing the government; it is about preventing the government from overthrowing liberty. A people stripped of their right of self defense is defenseless against their own government.

 

Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/lawrencehunter/2012/12/28/gun-control-tramples-on-the-certain-virtues-of-a-heavily-armed-citizenry/

Magpul’s Open Letter to CO Lawmakers – Pass Gun Control, We Leave & Take Our Jobs With Us

February 13, 2013 3 comments

(Hat tip Don B. for the forward. Thanks Don!)

429866_385546094791079_663298144_n

Magpul, the maker of one of the most popular AR-15 magazines, the PMAG, along with other AR-15 accessories has posted an open letter to their customers and Colorado lawmakers.

The company basically says if CO passes a proposed law that would ban magazines over 10 rounds in capacity, they would be forced to move their operation to another state in order to stay in operation.

In doing so the company would be taking their tax dollars and hundreds if not thousands of jobs with them (once you take sub-contractors into account).

Bravo Magpul, bravo. They join several companies who have taken a stand recently. This includes LaRue Tactical, who recently announced they would no longer sell rifles to state and local agencies that don’t allow citizens to own those same rifles.

Here is the full letter form Magpul, as posted on their Facebook page:

“In addition to the national battle to protect our firearms rights, many states are currently engaged in their own fights. Here in CO, a state with a strong heritage of firearm and other personal freedoms, we are facing some extreme challenges to firearms rights. We have been engaged in dialogue with legislators here presenting our arguments to stop legislation from even being introduced, but our efforts did not deter those of extreme views.

After the NRAs visit last week, several anti-freedom bills were introduced by CO legislators, and a very aggressive timeline has been set forth in moving these bills forward.

The bills include:
HB 1229, Background checks for Gun Transfers–a measure to prohibit private sales between CO residents, and instead require a full FFL transfer, including a 4473.

HB 1228, Payment for Background Checks for Gun Transfers– a measure that would require CO residents to pay for the back logged state-run CBI system (currently taking 3 times the federally mandated wait time for checks to occur) instead of using the free federal NICS checks.

And finally, HB 1224, Prohibiting Large Capacity Ammunition Magazines–a measure that bans the possession, sale, or transfer of magazines over 10 round capacity. The measures and stipulations in this bill would deprive CO residents of the value of their private property by prohibiting the sale or transfer of all magazines over 10 rounds. This bill would also prohibit manufacture of magazines greater than 10 rounds for commercial sale out of the state, and place restrictions on the manufacture of military and law enforcement magazines that would cripple production.

We’d like to ask all CO residents to please contact your state legislators and the members of the Judiciary Committee and urge them to kill these measures in committee, and to vote NO if they reach the floor.

We also ask you to show your support for the 2nd Amendment at the Capitol on Tuesday, Feb 12, for the magazine ban committee hearing and Wednesday,
Feb 13, for the hearing on the other measures.

Due to the highly restrictive language in HB 1224, if passed, and we remained here, this measure would require us to cease PMAG production on July 1, 2013.

In short, Magpul would be unable to remain in business as a CO company, and the over 200 jobs for direct employees and nearly 700 jobs at our subcontractors and suppliers would pick up and leave CO. Due to the structure of our operations, this would be entirely possible, hopefully without significant disruption to production.

The legislators drafting these measures do so in spite of the fact that nothing they are proposing will do anything to even marginally improve public safety in CO, and in fact, will leave law-abiding CO residents less able to defend themselves, strip away rights and property from residents who have done nothing wrong, and send nearly 1000 jobs and millions in tax revenue out of the state.

We like CO, we want to continue to operate in CO, but most of all, we want CO to remain FREE.

Please help us in this fight, and let your voices be heard!

We have included the contact information for the House Judiciary committee for your convenience:

House Judiciary Committee
Rep. Daniel Kagan, Chair: 303-866-2921, repkagan@gmail.com
Rep. Pete Lee, Vice Chair: 303-866-2932, pete.lee.house@state.co.us
Rep. John Buckner: 303-866-2944, john.buckner.house@state.co.us
Rep. Lois Court: 303-866-2967, lois.court.house@state.co.us
Rep. Bob Gardner, 303-866-2191, bob.gardner.house@state.co.us
Rep. Polly Lawrence, 303-866-2935, polly.lawrence.house@state.co.us
Rep. Mike McLachlan, 303-866-2914, mike.mclachlan.house@state.co.us
Rep. Rep Carole Murray, 303-866-2948, murrayhouse45@gmail.com
Rep. Brittany Pettersen, 303-866-2939, brittany.pettersen.house@state.co.us
Rep. Joseph Salazar, 303-866-2918, joseph.salazar.house@state.co.us
Rep. Jared Wright, 303-866-2583, jared.wright.house@state.co.us”

Read the full article here:
https://www.facebook.com/magpul/posts/428803833863947…

Magpul joins Olympic Arms and LaRue Tactical  in voicing opposition to anti-Second Amendment legislation.

Source: http://gunssavelives.net/blog/magpuls-open-letter-to-co-lawmakers-pass-gun-control-we-leave-take-our-jobs-with-us/

Pravda: “Americans, Never Give Up Your Guns!”

December 29, 2012 3 comments

Americans never give up your guns

28.12.2012

By Stanislav Mishin 

Americans never give up your guns. 48982.jpeg

These days, there are few few things to admire about the socialist, bankrupt and culturally degenerating USA, but at least so far, one thing remains: the right to bare arms and use deadly force to defend one’s self and possessions.

This will probably come as a total shock to most of my Western readers, but at one point, Russia was one of the most heavily armed societies on earth. This was, of course, when we were free under the Tsar. Weapons, from swords and spears to pistols, rifles and shotguns were everywhere, common items. People carried them concealed, they carried them holstered. Fighting knives were a prominent part of many traditional attires and those little tubes criss crossing on the costumes of Cossacks and various Caucasian peoples? Well those are bullet holders for rifles.

Various armies, such as the Poles, during the Смута (Times of Troubles), or Napoleon, or the Germans even as the Tsarist state collapsed under the weight of WW1 and Wall Street monies, found that holding Russian lands was much much harder than taking them and taking was no easy walk in the park but a blood bath all its own. In holding, one faced an extremely well armed and aggressive population Hell bent on exterminating or driving out the aggressor.

 

CONTINUE READING: http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/28-12-2012/123335-americans_guns-0/

obama’s Crocodile Tears and Globalist Gun Grabbing

December 16, 2012 4 comments

TWG: It’s no secret that I don’t like Alex Jones, but he’s exactly right in this video.  They WILL try to steal our firearms and decimate our Second Amendment, and they’re creating these crisis to do it.  ‘The ends justify the means” is their motto, and they don’t give one damn how many innocent little children they slaughter in order to achieve their globalist utopian wet dreams.

 

 

RECOIL Magazine editor makes controversial statement, hell breaks loose

September 18, 2012 1 comment

In a recent review of Heckler & Koch’s MP7 compact personal defense weapon (PDW), RECOIL Magazine editor Jerry Tsai pointed out that the firearm, because of HK’s own restrictions, was not available to the general public. This wouldn’t be so bad on it’s own, that is HK’s policy; the problem is that Tsai agreed with it.

“The MP71A is unavailable to civilians and for good measure. We all know that’s technology no civvies should ever get to lay their hands on. This is a purpose-built weapon with no sporting applications to speak of.” (Emphasis ours.) The sky’s the limit with the problems with that sentence. First and foremost is the idea that “civvies” have to have some reason to own certain guns. That somehow guns with “sporting purposes” are any less dangerous than those designed for combat. 

H&K MP7 PDW Cutaway

And then for Tsai and RECOIL Magazine, things went from bad to worse…..

CONTINUE READING: http://www.guns.com/recoil-magazine-jerry-tsai-anti-gun-statement-sponsors-quit-10927.html

Second Amendment T Shirts – Support A Marine Veteran!


This guy makes some real nice Second Amendment T Shirts. Support a Marine Veteran today! 

 

I have some of his shirts and they’re real well made.  Nice variety of shirts available as well as FREE TARGETS for your next day at the range!   Shipping  is expedient and his customer service is top notch.

 

http://www.secondamendmenttaskforce.com

 

 

Senate DIMS Sneak Yet Another Anti Gun Amendment Into Cybersecurity Bill

July 27, 2012 9 comments

[TWG Note: Those sleazy, sneaky bastards can’t be trusted one bit. Every time we look at what they’re up to, they’re trying to sneak another fascist law into our lives.   Watching those low life pigs “work” is worse than inviting a convicted pedophile into your home to raise your children for you.  They are our REPRESENTATIVES. NOT OUR RULERS.  When are We, The People going to wake the hell up and FIRE THOSE EVIL, SNEAKY, LYING , FASCIST VERMIN?]

 

Senate Democrats slipped in a gun control amendment to a cybersecurity bill Friday, claiming that it is time to impose “reasonable gun control measures,” according to The Hill.

The cybersecurity bill has advanced to the stage in the process when amendments can be attached. Amendments to bills often have nothing to do with the issue being addressed in the bill itself.

Senators Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., Bob Menendez, D-N.J., and Jack Reed, D-R.I., sponsored bill S.A. 2575 which would make it illegal to possess or transfer large capacity magazines, belts, feed stripes, or drums holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition….(Con’t)

 

CONTINUE READING: http://www.examiner.com/article/democrats-slip-gun-control-into-cybersecurity-bill?CID=examiner_alerts_article

.Vanderboegh warns of civil war if UN small arms treaty enforced

July 12, 2012 3 comments

The continually developing story of the two U.N. treaties that [obama and hitlery]  intends to sign continues to provoke controversy around the country today. The two treaties, the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) and the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) or “small arms treaty,” have created a firestorm of protest among citizens who see both as a threat to American freedom and U.S. sovereignty.

Today the controversy continues as one nationally known blogger and investigative reporter stated that if the small arms treaty is signed by Obama and approved by the Senate, the first time that the government attempts to enforce it will lead directly to civil war.

Among gun rights and liberty enthusiasts, Mike Vanderboegh of Sipsey Street Irregulars became a household name along with National Gun Rights Examiner David Codrea when the two broke the story of the gargantuan Fast and Furious scandal in December of 2010.

The scandal has so engulfed the Obama administration that Attorney General Eric Holder was found in to be in contempt of Congress for his refusal to turn over to Congress key documents that are needed to complete the ongoing investigation. Holder is the first attorney general in U.S. history to be held in contempt.

Vanderboegh commented today on the controversial U.N. small arms treaty, stating that he has concluded that he will not worry about the issue. However, he issued the following warning:

This is one of a hundred things I refuse to worry about. Let ’em pass it and sign the damn thing. The first time they use it for an excuse to further circumscribe our rights here, somebody will likely get shot, and so on, and so on, until the civil war they start is won by the Three Percent.

CONTINUE READING EXAMINER ANTHONY MARTIN’S ARTICLE HERE: http://www.examiner.com/article/vanderboegh-warns-of-civil-war-if-un-small-arms-treaty-enforced?CID=examiner_alerts_article

And before you say “That can’t happen here! Treaties must be ratified by the senate!”  You’re wrong.  Here’s how those beasts are going to accomplish their diabolical schemes:
https://twg2a.wordpress.com/2012/03/14/dont-count-on-the-constitution-of-the-united-states-of-america-to-stop-the-un-gun-grabbing-scheme/

THE THREE PERCENT (III%)

* During the Revolutionary War, only THREE percent of the people actually fought against Great Britain.

* Only TEN percent of the citizens actively supported that three percent.

* Approximately TWENTY percent considered themselves to be on the side of the Revolution, but they did not actively participate.

* Toward the climactic end of the war, approximately THIRTY percent actually fought on the side of the British.

* The rest of the citizens had no disposition either way. They didn’t care. They didn’t want anything to do with what they deemed to simply be a political issue.

The sanctity, liberty, and freedoms of this nation were brought about by the unselfish, honorable, patriotic, committed, and determined acts of a mere 3%.

This three percent didn’t let the comforts of life blind them to the eternal significance of freedom. They didn’t allow evil speaking to sway what their heart told them was true. They didn’t postpone their actions for a more convenient time. They didn’t value their own life over the life and liberty of their fellow citizens.

In many cases, they sealed their testimony of Freedom, Liberty, and Choice with their blood and the blood of their families. Although it was only three percent, it was still sufficient to create a nation which was to be an example to all the rest of the world of a truly free republic. This three percent laid the foundation of the most powerful and prosperous nation on the earth. This valiant three percent manifested to the entire nation, and surely even the world, the unalienable value of hope, faith, family, virtue and freedom.

Here’s some current figures, courtesy Dave Posh. Thank You, Dave.

Interesting information. Using these percentages, along with today’s USA population number from the 2010 census (308,745,538), we can calculate how many people would be needed today to defend Freedom, Liberty, and our Constitution from our oppressors.

We would need 9,262,366 (3%) people to fight for our Constitution.
We would need 30,874,554 (10%) people to actively support the Constitution.
We would need 61,749,108 (20%) people to be on the side of the Constitution.
There would be 92,623,661 (30%) people that would be on the side of our oppressors.
And, the 114,235,849 (37%) remaining would be apathetic.

DAMNED STRAIGHT.  Do the math.

I’m not the only American citizen who will fight this crap until there is no oxygen left in my lungs. 

 

Congress”men” Urge The UN To Trample The United States Constitution

July 2, 2012 1 comment

TWG Note: The hitlery/obamao klan have already committed to their pals at the UN that they will participate in this gun grabbing scheme.  Don’t forget that hitlery relinquished our veto rights on this issue in order to “negotiate” by consensus.  With the UN occupied by dictatorial tyrants, fascists and islamic terrorists, is there any doubt in your mind that this is a very real threat?  Myself, I’m fed up with hearing so-called “gun rights advocates” vehemently deny this is a real threat.   Before you say “This cannot happen here! We have our Constitution to protect our gun rights!”  BULL-ONEY, take a look at THIS and rethink your position on the matter.  They ARE usurping our Constitution and Bill Of Rights.  It’s a fact that they cannot reach their goals unless the American people are disarmed.  They’re closer now than they’ve ever been to the ultimate coup. They’re not going to stop now.  

The SAF (Second Amendment Foundation) has been more involved in fighting this mess than ANY other gun rights group in America.  Up until recently, even the NRA dismissed the idea, claiming it couldn’t happen here.  Read more about SAF’s efforts with regard to the UN Small Arms Treaty HERE  and please consider making a donation to their oranization to help them as they fight against this effort to usurp our Second Amendment and the many other Second Amendment issues with which the SAF is involved.  http://www.saf.org

 

Read about S 2205 Second Amendment Sovereignty Act to learn about legislative action regarding this issue

Read JPFO “Why Most Of The World Hates Our Second Amendment”

 

 

Congressmen urge the UN to trample the US Constitution

Published: 10:36 AM 07/02/2012

Today begins the most important 26-day period for our Second Amendment freedoms in recent history.

That’s because today, representatives from many of the world’s socialist, tyrannical and dictatorial regimes will gather at United Nations headquarters in New York for a month-long meeting, in which they’ll put the finishing touches on an international Arms Trade Treaty that could seriously restrict your freedom to own, purchase and carry a firearm.

Specifically, the U.N. wants to implement international gun registration requirements, bans on commonly owned firearms, tracking and registration of ammunition purchases, and create a new U.N. gun control bureaucracy.

You might think that something so obviously menacing to one of our enumerated fundamental rights would receive a strong rebuke from our top government leaders. But you’d be wrong. This is President Barack Obama’s vision for America, and we’re expected to just go along with it.

In fact, a group of anti-gun members of the U.S. House of Representatives, led by U.S. Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.), went so far as to circulate a letter last week to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, in which they “strongly urge the United States to take a leadership role in pushing for a strong, verifiable Arms Trade Treaty.”

These House members insist that the treaty include “controls on a comprehensive list of weaponry, including small arms and light weapons,” as well as controls on ammunition. For good measure, they wrap their unconstitutional demands in the mantle of advancing “human rights” and preventing international violence.

 

Since when did it become fashionable for sitting members of Congress and POTUS, and POTUS Cabinet members to lobby international thugs, tyrants and dictators against our own U.S. Constitution?

 
 

The U.N. Speaks: The Arms Trade Treaty Will Affect “Legally Owned Weapons”


 

June 22, 2012

Yesterday, the U.N. released its press kit for the July conference that will finalize the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty (ATT). The most interesting item in the kit is a lengthy paper by the U.N.’s Coordinating Action on Small Arms (CASA) program titled “The Impact of Poorly Regulated Arms Transfers on the Work of the UN.”

This paper perpetuates the belief, on which much of the ATT is based, that the big problem the world faces is a lack of agreed standards on arms transfers. That’s wrong: The big problem the world faces in this regard is that many U.N. member states are dictatorships, supporters of terrorists, or simply incapable of controlling their own borders.

But the paper makes it clear that the job of the U.N.—as the U.N. itself sees it—is to make the case for a very broad treaty. As CASA puts it, “Advocacy efforts should be developed…through relevant reports and op-eds, messages, and statements at relevant meetings and to the press.” So watch out for U.S. taxpayer-funded funded U.N. propaganda in a newspaper near you.

But in spite of its desperate efforts to rebut Second Amendment concerns, the U.N. can’t stop stepping on its own shoelaces. After proclaiming that the ATT “does not aim to impede or interfere with the lawful ownership and use of weapons,” the CASA paper goes on to say that “United Nations agencies have come across many situations in which various types of conventional weapons have been…misused by lawful owners” and that the “arms trade must therefore be regulated in ways that would…minimize the risk of misuse of legally owned weapons.”

How, exactly, would the ATT do that if it doesn’t “impede” or “interfere” with lawful ownership? The U.N. would have a lot more credibility on the ATT if it didn’t imply so regularly that the problem is as much lawful ownership as it is the international arms trade.

Of course, CASA isn’t just concerned with lawful ownership; it’s also campaigning against “community attitudes” that “contribute to the powerful cultural conditioning that equates masculinity with owning and using a gun, and regards gun misuse by men as acceptable.”

All this just goes to show that the U.N. regards gun ownership—even under national constitutional protection and for lawful activities—as a cultural failure that it needs to redress and that it has no patience at all with the idea that self-defense is an inherent right.

And that is exactly why the concerns that Senator Jerry Moran (R–KS) expressed at Heritage on Tuesday are so important—and why his criteria to ensure that the ATT does not infringe on Second Amendment rights are so valuable.

 
 
Will our Constitution protect us from the UN infringements upon our Second Amendment?  Don’t count on it.  Here’s why: https://twg2a.wordpress.com/2012/03/14/dont-count-on-the-constitution-of-the-united-states-of-america-to-stop-the-un-gun-grabbing-scheme/
 
 
Check status, read bill text, S 2205 current information at opencongress.org: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-s2205/show
 
Consider these photos:
 
This is at UN headquarters.  Notice it says “Disarm OR Perish”, instead of  what it *should* say… “Disarm AND Perish”.  
 
 
This is located in front of UN headquarters in Geneva.  Any questions?
 
%d bloggers like this: