Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2009

    Hours After Reelection, Obama Green Lights UN Gun Grab

    Friday, 09 November 2012 09:36 Hours After Reelection, Obama Green Lights UN Gun Grab

    Written by Joe Wolverton, II, J.D.

    A story ran on the Oklahoma City NBC news affiliate on Wednesday reporting that “sporting goods stores in the Sooner state are seeing a spike in gun sales following President Barack Obama's re-election.”

    Similar reports ran nationwide after the president was elected the first time in 2008.

    While many accused those making a run on gun stores of reacting rashly, there may be some wisdom in this latest sales spike.

    Reuters reports that within hours of his securing his reelection, President Obama ordered the U.S. United Nations delegation to vote in favor of a UN proposal to fast track an international gun control treaty.

    Immediately the word went out that the United States was going to play ball (after having scuttled the last round of talks on the Arms Trade Treaty in July), and a new round of negotiations on the treaty was scheduled for March 18-28 at the UN headquarters in New York City.

    A press release was sent out early Wednesday morning from the United Nations General Assembly’s First Committee proclaiming the good news of President Obama’s go-ahead for the gun grab and setting the agenda for the next gun control conference:
    Also kindling discussion among delegations was a draft resolution aimed at building on the progress made towards the adoption of a strong, balanced and effective arms trade treaty. That text would decide to convene the “Final United Nations Conference” for the creation of such a treaty in March 2013.

    Also by that resolution, the draft text of the treaty submitted by the Conference’s president on 26 July would be the basis for future work, without prejudice to the right of delegations to put forward additional proposals on that text. The Committee approved the resolution as a whole by a recorded vote of 157 in favour to none against, with 18 abstentions.

    No member, not even the United States, opposed the convening of a “Final United Nations Conference” for the establishment of a treaty imposing worldwide gun control regulations.

    In July, 51 senators sent a letter to President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton encouraging them to “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.”

    The failure to pass an acceptable version of the treaty in July is in the president’s rearview mirror, however, as Reuters reports that “adoption of a strong, balanced and effective Arms Trade Treaty” could be imminent.

    Reuters quotes Brian Wood of Amnesty International:

    After today's resounding vote, if the larger arms trading countries show real political will in the negotiations, we're only months away from securing a new global deal that has the potential to stop weapons reaching those who seriously abuse human rights.
    The definition of an “abuse” of “human rights” will be left up to a coterie of internationalist bureaucrats who will be neither accountable to nor elected by citizens of the United States.
    With good reason, then, gun rights advocates oppose approval of this treaty.

    After all, it does seem more than a little incongruous that a nation that places such a high value on gun ownership that it enshrined it in its Bill of Rights participates in an organization that opposes gun ownership so staunchly that it has an Office for Disarmament Affairs. An office, by the way, that the U.S. Deputy Director, Office of Weapons Removal and Abatement, Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, Steven Costner, proudly announced would be moving from Geneva to New York City.

    Lest anyone believe the U.S. delegation official’s promise to Reuters that “we will not accept any treaty that infringes on the constitutional rights of our citizens to bear arms,” consider the fact that a report issued after the conclusion of the last Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) conference in July listed the goal of the agreement to be UN control of the “manufacture, control, trafficking, circulation, brokering and trade, as well as tracing, finance, collection and destruction of small arms and light weapons.”

    That is a very comprehensive attack on “all aspects” of gun trade and ownership. Notably, the phrase “in all aspects” occurs 38 times in the draft of the ATT.

    Particulars of the proposed treaty are set out on the UN Office for Disarmament Affairs website. Information presented there reveals that the international government-in-waiting wants to start by taking away weapons from “insurgents, armed gang members, pirates, and terrorists.”

    Again, key definitions are left out of the document and others inexplicably and inexcusably ill-defined. Within the penumbras of these cleverly crafted provisions are found lurking the tools of tyranny. Wrenches that one day could force anyone branded as an enemy into a predetermined “terrorist” slot.

    A question that must be considered is what the UN will consider “adequate laws.” Will the globalists at the UN consider the Second Amendment’s guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms without infringement to be a sufficient control on gun ownership?

    The effort at eradication of private gun ownership is more insidious than it appears, however. On page 25 of the 1997 UN Secretary General’s Report on Criminal Justice Reform and Strengthening Legal Institutions Measure to Regulate Firearms (of which the United States was a signatory) a part of the regulations that we agreed to impose is a psychological test before one is allowed to purchase ammunition.
    Apparently, the UN recognizes that without ammunition a gun is no more than a club, so in order to effectively disarm a population, the UN does not need to seize all the weapons; it merely has to prevent purchase of ammunition.

    How does the ATT (and the Programme of Action that undergirds it) propose to enforce this anti-gun agenda?

    Section III, Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Programme of Action mandate that if a member state cannot get rid of privately-owned small arms legislatively, then the control of “customs, police, intelligence, and arms control” will be placed under the power of a board of UN bureaucrats operating out of the UN Office for Disarmament Affairs.
    This provision includes the deployment of UN peacekeeping forces in a member state to seize and destroy “weapons stockpiles.”
    Again, no definition of stockpile, but by that time it will be too late to make that argument.

    In order to assist these blue-helmets and their disarmament overlords in their search and seizure of this ammunition, Section III, Paragraph 10 mandates that member states develop technology to improve the UN’s ability to detect stockpiles of ammo and arms.

    This brings to mind the imminent deployment by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) of portable invisible lasers developed by Genia Laboratories (a company created by CIA offshoot In-Q-Tel) that can detect even trace amounts of gun powder from over 50 yards away. The laser reportedly can penetrate walls, glass, and metal. DHS is scheduled to take possession of the devices later this month, according to testimony presented on Capitol Hill late last year.

    History is instructive on this point as one recalls that the “shot heard ‘round the world” on Lexington Green was fired because King George sent British troops to seize the ammunition stockpile stored outside of Lexington.

    A late night call from newly reelected President Obama to the UN has awakened Americans’ opposition to this latest attempt to abrogate the rights protected by the Second Amendment. It was a different late night call that roused sleepy colonists in defense of their right to bear arms, as well. This time, however, it is not the British who are coming for our guns and ammunition, but it is the United Nations and representatives of our own federal government.

    Photos: (Left) In a Feb. 23, 2011, file photo President Barack Obama, with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton at right, speaks about Libya in the Grand Foyer of the White House in Washington; (right) the infamous "twisted gun" statue at UN headquarters.

  2. #2
    Senior Member patbrunz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    No big surprise here. The idiots who either voted for Nobama or sat out and didn't vote for Romney are going to get what they deserve. Never underestimate the stupidity of the American public.
    All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing. -Edmund Burke

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Quote Originally Posted by patbrunz View Post
    No big surprise here. The idiots who either voted for Nobama or sat out and didn't vote for Romney are going to get what they deserve. Never underestimate the stupidity of the American public.

    As will the rest of us

  4. #4
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  5. #5
    Super Moderator Newmexican's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Heart of Dixie
    Stolen gun report a sign of things to come from Obama’s second term

    NOVEMBER 9, 2012


    A report released yesterday by the Bureau of Justice Statistics in Washington claims “About 1.4 million firearms were stolen during household burglaries and other property crimes over the six-year period from 2005 through 2010.

    “Of the guns stolen each year during burglaries and other property crimes, at least 80 percent, or an annual average of 186,800 firearms, had not been recovered up to six months after being stolen,” the BJS press release states.

    That certainly sounds ominous. And it’s what the media and those interested in ratcheting down on the nation’s gun laws will be focused on, as cherry-picking from the report also supports at least two specific goals for that agenda: Using it to support additional laws and to make the case that gun ownership is on the decline.

    Perhaps a third observation worth noting is how the report, put out under the auspices of Eric Holder’s Department of Justice, makes a special point of highlighting “About three out of four household property crimes involving stolen firearms occurred in households headed by white non-Hispanic persons,” and that these are “disproportionately” in the rural South.

    Those would be the “red states.”

    The devil is always in the details, so in this case it’s useful to springboard from the presser directly into the report itself.
    If one wanted to write an article based solely on the press release, its readers would never know the very first sentence in the report states “Victimizations involving the theft of firearms declined from 283,600 in 1994 to 145,300 in 2010.”

    That’s in spite of the fact that industry reports show firearms sales have been steadily growing in that time period.
    “[T]he General Social Survey [headquartered at the University of Chicago] and Gallup poll both show declines in the percentage of households owning firearms during the same period,” some might counter, quoting the report, glossing over a later admission about “lack of precision due to the large standard errors associated with generating estimates from surveys with different sampling methodologies.”

    Indeed, “[a]ccording to the GSS, the percentage of households that reported having a gun in the home declined from 46% in 1993 to 32% in 2010,” the report states, then revealing “From December 1993 to October 2010, Gallup polls showed a decline in the percentage of households with guns on the property, from 54% to 41%.”

    That’s quite a different spread—they weren’t kidding about “lack of precision.” And it doesn’t account for a related admission found by delving deeper into the report that “between 1994 and 2010, no statistically significant change was observed in the percentage of completed burglaries or other property crimes that involved the theft of at least one firearm…This may suggest that the overall decline in the number of victimizations involving gun theft was not due to a decline in the number of privately owned guns that could be stolen.”

    Still, the surveys are both useful to feed the exploitable meme that gun ownership is fallingin contrast to widely corroborated evidence saying otherwise, so anti-gun activists and their media sympathizers can be counted on to use it to gin up public support and cajole legislators into thinking the political costs for crossing gun owners is going down.

    We can see such new-found confidence just days after Barack Obama won his second term, as NRA’s emboldened enemies perceive vulnerability in the heretofore feared NRA political “monolith.” Count on them to ignore any numbers that don’t support breathless conclusions, and to instead chum for a feeding frenzy, with headlines like “NRA spent $17 million on election, lost...NRA failed to get bang for its bucks...National Rifle Association shut out on Election Day...NRA shoots blanks this election...NRA also lost big on Election Day...The NRA Got Its Clock Cleaned On Election Day.”

    They’re now out there doing their utmost to share their “Behold, a god who bleeds” revelation with everyone they can get to pay attention.

    Just keep in mind there are several things the report does not tell us, starting with the number of respondents who would have no intention of telling a solicitor if they owned guns in the first place. Are there any among the regular readers of this column who would not?

    We also don’t know what percentage of respondents have criminal associations. We don’t know if any are criminals themselves, making their admission of gun possession (not “ownership,” because that’s illegal for prohibited persons) a self-incriminating proposition. That was decided by no less than the Supreme Court in the case of Haynes v. United States, where it was ruled, correctly, that a convicted felon cannot be required to register a firearm, because to do so would violate his Fifth Amendment-recognized right against self-incrimination.

    Presumably, one of the calls we’ll see emanating from this latest BJS report will be for a nationwide requirement to report stolen guns, with criminal penalties for not doing so. Does anyone think violent criminals won’t enjoy an exemption from admitting they had a gun based on the Haynes precedent? And that once again, it will only be the “law-abiding” who are caught up in the requirement to obey or have their lives destroyed?

    The numbers will also be useful for those (meaning every major “gun control”-pushing politician and organization out there) to mandate what they call “safe storage” laws and others might deem “lock up your safety” edicts. From Chicago to Cheyenne…
    These are just the obvious chinks for the pry bar tip. And already, just as we see the press spreading the “NRA paper tiger” meme, expect to see exploitation of the BJS presser. We already see it posted verbatim in The Sacramento Bee under the headline “About 1.4 Million Guns Stolen during Household Burglaries and Other Property Crimes from 2005 through 2010.”

    What this reflects, especially following the announcement that the United States has agreed to resume talks on the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty just the morning after Obama retook the White House, is that flexibility he knew he’d have with this outcome, and thus an attitude. That this report has been released now is no accident. It was planned that way and is intended to send a message.

    Obama’s need to keep things under the radar is no more. Now it’s time for building that transformational “legacy” pundits were talking about Tuesday night, and also, because he perceives the momentum is on his side, time for one other thing. This is the guy who, by winning,just dodged administration accountability on Fast and Furious. Up until now, he’s been doing the rope-a-dope. Now it’s his turn to hit back.

    Didn’t someone say something about “revenge”?
    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts