United Nations vs Our Gun Rights

[anygunanywhere]

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/article ... 5159.shtml

The United Nations vs. Our Gun Rights
Geoff Metcalf
Monday, July 3, 2006

The first three battles of the American War for Independence (our Revolution) were not fought over taxation without representation, separation from an abusive, clueless king, or nationalism. The first three battles of our American Revolution were fought to resist gun control.

General Thomas Gage, military governor of Massachusetts, sent a force to confiscate weapons and capture patriot leaders.

When the British confronted Captain Parker and his militia in Lexington, they arrived to confiscate powder and ball. They met resistance and the negative consequences of collecting ammunition (one round at a time ...).

Notwithstanding our faults, warts, blemishes, mistakes, and habitual myopia, since its founding 230 years ago, the United States of America has become and remains the best country on the planet.

Despite the persistent worst efforts of elected officials to undermine, marginalize, and abrogate the essence of the very document to which they all swear a sacred oath, the ghost of the republic lingers still.

The NRA's Wayne LaPierre has issued a warning that Kofi Annan is trying to "finalize a U.N. treaty that would strip all citizens of all nations of their right to own guns and you of your self-protection rights under the Second Amendment."

The United Nations is a dysfunctional collection of arrogant, pampered bureaucrats who presume to dictate, legislate, and lecture anyone who does not subscribe to the gospel according to them.
The U.N. has been mired in corruption and incompetence for decades. Oil-for-Food abuses were merely a multibillion-dollar symptom of the U.N.'s systemic problems, which, frankly, are unfixable.

The greatest threat to the U.N.'s ability to sustain bumbling incompetence and corruption has been, and remains, the United States.

For decades the U.N.'s reach has exceeded its grasp.

They want an International Criminal Court.
They want a global taxation mechanism (so as not to be dependent/accountable to dues-paying members).
They want a standing army.
They want to be a for-real world government, capable of imposing their will on ‘subordinate' member states.

LaPierre (understandably) has his jockeys in a wad because "This summer at U.N. headquarters in New York City – right here on American soil – these nations along with more than 500 gun-ban groups worldwide will hold an international conference to draft a global "Treaty on Small Arms."

Yeah, that is a bad thing ... however, we (as a nation) have rejected previous overreaching by the ‘United Nothing', and I suspect we will continue to do so.

We rejected the Kyoto Accords not just because it was built on a foundation of junk science and hyperbole. We rejected Kyoto because it was another U.N. power grab to impose its will on the U.S.
We rejected the International Criminal Court for much the same reasoning.

However, we allowed the creation of the World Trade Organization, which is no less a challenge to national sovereignty.

We rejected the U.N. mandate for establishment of a U.N. ‘Army' for similar (and more) reasons. A soldier cannot pledge allegiance to two flags/countries.

A global Treaty on Small Arms is old news. Globalists have been trying (and failing) to disarm would-be resisters for a very long time. Department of State Publication 7277 (http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/7277.html ) Disarmament Series 5 was released in September 1961.

The mere perception of an armed citizenry scared Japan during World War II. Admiral Yamamoto said: "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass."

Yamamoto's comment was hyperbolic and not accurate. However, the perception of the U.S. served as a real impediment to mitigate a Japanese invasion.

Likewise, after the Cold War, a group of former KGB agents and CIA agents were reportedly meeting in Europe when the question was raised about Soviet invasion. The Russians reportedly said: "Not unless your government could have disarmed citizens. You have too many guns."

Again, the strategic perception of American cowboys and armed grandmothers intimidated an enemy.

The U.N. may have a ‘Jones' to destroy the Second Amendment and ban private ownership of guns (along with our Constitution and the rest of the Bill of Rights) ... but even now, THAT dog ain't gonna hunt.

Congress would not dare ratify any such U.N. treaty. Those congress critters that would vote for essentially abrogating the constitutionally guaranteed God-given right would (with the probable exceptions of California big cities and NYC) be out of work. Many Americans would flat-out refuse to comply.

LaPierre is right when he says: "This fight is about more than firearms ownership. This is a fight for our national sovereignty, our individual freedoms and the future of our nation."

[Venus Pax]

Thank you for posting that.
TTT.

[longtooth]

Good post at a good date anygun. Flown at the same hight.

[cyphur]

Good post at a good date anygun. Flown at the same hight.

Thats not right.......LOL.

Funny, and representative of the state, but still wrong!!