Ok Enough goofing off! Back to business!!!

[festus]

This is a long read but worth it. It is from the NRAILA website. If this is true and it probably is...It's gonna be a wild ride. If you swore an oath to defend the constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic...get ready for hell on earth.


United Nations Threat Continues

Friday, July 18, 2008


Over the past 7 years, the United Nations (UN) has been working to reach agreement on an international treaty on the trade in small arms. A "Meeting of States" has occurred every two years on the topic, and is going on once again in New York City. The threat this poses to our Second Amendment rights is real. Thanks to the efforts of U.S. officials, its progress has been delayed, but, unfortunately, not stopped.

The "Programme of Action On Illicit Small Arms Trade" is the working group in the UN trying to create an international agreement to regulate firearms worldwide. The scope of that regulation is being debated, along with how far that regulation would intrude on the domestic policies of member nations. Former U.S. Representative to the UN John Bolton made it clear that the U.S. would not accept any agreement or treaty—or even participate in any effort that would result in an agreement or treaty—that would threaten the Second Amendment rights of Americans. Even after his tenure at the UN ended, Bolton's influence over U.S. policy remains, and has greatly hindered the ability of this group to advance its agenda.

It is vital to note that the International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA) is the primary driving force behind these activities. IANSA is led by radical international anti-gun activist Rebecca Peters. Peters formerly worked for George Soros' Open Society Institute and maintains close ties to the rabidly anti-gun Soros. Their anti-gun agenda includes the imposition of domestic gun control regulations on all nations, and includes broad scale bans on gun ownership, as was masterminded by Peters in Australia.

This radical anti-gun agenda has been held at bay by the policies set in place by the Bush Administration, but those policies may end on January 20, 2009. On that day, a new U.S. President will be inaugurated, and it will be his policies that are advanced. If Barack Obama wins the White House, it is a near certainty that the men and women he will appoint to key positions at the State Department will cooperate with the anti-gun agenda of groups like IANSA. The imposition of a treaty, if approved by the Senate and signed by the President, could undercut the gains made with the Heller decision, and make the Second Amendment rights of Americans subject to international restriction.
A president has powers that go far beyond his authority to sign or veto legislation. The appointments he makes to cabinet offices and ambassadorships will play an enormous role in shaping U.S. policy. Under President Bush, the appointments of men such as John Bolton, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito have made the difference that has protected and advanced our individual liberties. Under a President Obama, all that could be lost due to the appointment of men and women who oppose our Second Amendment rights.




Copyright 2008, National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action.
This may be reproduced. It may not be reproduced for commercial purposes.

[HK4U]

An armed populace of the United States is pretty much all that is left standing in the way of the One World Government/New World Order elitist. That is a major stumbling block to them and they will stop at nothing to accomplish their goal.

[kwo51]

So we must build the blocks into a fortress. Our blood my be the morter holding it up.

[tattedupboy]

It's horrifying to think that the words of our Constitution, and thus, our sovereignty, could be rendered meaningless by an international body not even officially sanctioned by the United States.

[festus]

Originally Posted by tattedupboy

It's horrifying to think that the words of our Constitution, and thus, our sovereignty, could be rendered meaningless by an international body not even officially sanctioned by the United States.

We have to stand firm against the UN. The have proven themselves ineffective and corrupt time and again.

As I have said before you don't ask poor people for financial advice. The same goes for world leadership.

[toreskha]

Here's an interesting legal paper on the issue from BYU. It carefully documents the incredibly stupid positions taken by IANSA, including their apparent support for fascist regimes...

The 2006 gun control conference was the follow-up to the UN’s first major gun control conference, held in 2001.22 The conferences were intended to produce a treaty or some other legally binding international instrument. One proposed provision was a ban on the transfer of firearms to “non-state actors”, which meant anyone not approved by the national government; examples would include the Kurds in Iraq under the Saddam Hussein regime, rebel groups in Sudan, and the army and navy of Taiwan (which the UN considers to be a province of China).23 Historically, the “non-state actor” ban would have outlawed aid to anti-Nazi guerillas during World War II, anti-communist rebels during the Cold War, and the American rebels during the War for Independence.24

ie, you'd better get into lockstep with the government, or you're not important. These people are dangerous totalitarian wannabes.