Who Stole the Cookie…? How the UN Is Robbing Us of Our National Sovereignty and Individual Liberties

Part Three: Gun Confiscation—Lesson Taught, But Not Learned

by Cynthia Toney

Gun control purported to curtail crime and secure our safety is another one of the many lies perpetrated by dictators, demagogues, and oligarchies.

A disarming of the general public that left citizens defenseless preceded the takeovers of Germany, Russia, and China – by Hitler, Stalin, and Mao, respectively – followed by the murders of tens of millions of people. These are perhaps the best-known examples of the tragic consequences of gun confiscation, but history is rife with others.

Has modern society not learned that guns in the hands of peaceful citizens actually save lives?

In today’s Australia, government seizure and destruction of firearms has resulted in an explosive increase in the rate of violent crime, armed robberies, and break-ins – particularly among the elderly. Apparently, criminals in Australia did not surrender their guns as required by law.

In Great Britain, strict gun control has resulted in a dramatic rise in knife stabbings. It seems that if someone wants to cause bodily harm, he or she will likely find a way; but, if the targeted victim has a gun, the gun will probably win.

Among industrialized nations, both Australia and Great Britain have now surpassed the United States in overall violent crime, according to The International Crime Victims Survey conducted by Leiden University in Holland (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1323758/A-quarter-of-English-are-victims-of-crime.html). One can’t help but wonder if these countries would have such records without the help of gun control…

Undeniably, too many arms still end up in the wrong hands.” (Arms Trade Treaty Preparatory Committee, July, 2010)

Never let it be said that the UN is guilty of using common sense or unambiguous language as it continues its scheme to strip us of our right to bear arms.

From the United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs (UNODA), UN Arms Trade Treaty Preparatory Committee: “In 2006, the General Assembly requested the Secretary-General to establish a group of governmental experts to look into the feasibility, scope and draft parameters for a comprehensive, legally binding instrument establishing common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms.” (http://www.un.org/disarmament/convarms/ArmsTradeTreaty/html/ATT.shtml)

The 2008 report from this group of experts prompted the General Assembly to start discussions focused on an arms trade treaty, open to all Member States. Two 1-week meetings per year were planned to take place from 2009 to 2011.

The following excerpt is from the UN Chronicle, 2009, entitled “Small Arms: No Single Solution.” These few paragraphs reveal the intentions of the UN regarding gun control for the world:

“Practical steps toward reducing the availability and misuse of small arms can be classed under four headings: 1. Reducing the existing stockpile 2. Reducing the supply of new weapons3. Closing the gates between the legal and illegal markets4. Reducing the motivation for acquiring guns (demand).”

(http://www.un.org/wcm/content/site/chronicle/home/archive/Issues2009/smallarmsnosinglesolution?print=1)

As to how the UN plans to reduce the existing stockpile and the supply of new weapons, two methods are proposed:

“The best place to start is with government arsenals, which by nature are easier to identify and affect than the diffuse civilian holdings. With large amounts of weaponry concentrated in a few locations, a focus on the State [any nation’s] stockpile is the quickest way to make a dent in the sheer number of guns on the planet.”

If the nations that have most often cooperated with UN mandates in the past are the first to surrender or greatly reduce their arsenals, the world would be left with the most violent and oppressive nations holding onto their weapons.

As with the reduction of government stockpiles, regulatory gun control within the civilian population would reduce the supply of small arms by reducing the demand for them.

“Disarming civilian populations is more difficult than disarming governments. Nevertheless it is arguably more necessary, given that civilians constitute the overwhelming majority not only of gun owners, but also of the victims and perpetrators of gun violence.”

Such a statement would be laughable if this subject were not so serious. Of course, civilians are the majority of victims as well as perpetrators; but, if more civilians were armed, there would be fewer victims—and the perpetrators of any type of violence would think twice before attacking someone, not knowing if that person was armed. Interviews with violent criminals in our prison system confirm this fact. Towns, counties, American states, and foreign countries that encourage citizens to acquire concealed weapon carry permits or keep firearms in their homes for self-defense become known to criminals and are bypassed for easier targets.

Once a civilian population is disarmed, the UN would try “closing the gates between legal and illegal markets” of small arms, because criminals often steal guns from individuals who have legal ownership. Unfortunately, this plan does not take into account the illegal arsenals hidden around the world that will continue to supply the most ruthless types of criminals—from Mexican drug gangs to Somali pirates—and it is not likely that the UN would be successful in “reducing the motivation for acquiring guns” among these types of criminals.

Taking Aim in the State Department

On October 14, 2009, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced U.S. cooperation in the UN endeavor to disarm us:

“The United States is committed to actively pursuing a strong and robust treaty that contains the highest possible, legally binding standards for the international transfer of conventional weapons.” (http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2009a/10/130573.htm)

These “standards” regarding the international transfer of conventional weapons would result in peaceful law-abiding U.S. citizens no longer being able to purchase handguns (or the ammunition for them) that are manufactured in other countries. U.S. gun manufacturers would not be able to fabricate and sell guns or ammunition outside our borders. The implications of such a treaty would affect not only our Second Amendment rights but also the survival of many businesses—large and small—associated with firearms production and distribution.

Disguised as legislation to help in the fight against “terrorism,” “insurgency,” and “international crime syndicates,” the UN Small Arms Treaty is nothing more than a massive, global gun control scheme. The treaty is designed to register, ban, and ultimately eradicate gun ownership by private citizens.

Secretary Clinton’s announcement in 2009 reversed the opposition of the U.S. to international small arms control that had been held by the administration of President George W. Bush. This reversal helped spur the United Kingdom to lead several other nations in an attempt to revive UN efforts to restrict imports and exports of small arms (http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-charlotte/obama-and-clinton-cede-to-un-small-arms-treaty).

Under the Obama administration, Secretary Clinton openly revealed that the U.S. would be working “hand in glove” with the UN to pass a new “Small Arms Treaty.” Contrary to rumor, no final treaty has been drafted or signed.

Baby Steps in Congress

The U.S. Senate has continuing plans to address gun control, in an effort that would support those of the UN, even before ratification of a treaty. The Senate Committee on the Judiciary has been attempting to schedule a hearing entitled “Firearms in Commerce: Assessing the Need for Reform in the Federal Regulatory Process.”

Originally scheduled for September 14 of this year, this meeting has been postponed once, as of this publication date. The committee, composed of Democrats and Republicans, will seek and find witnesses to support its claim that all gun sales should be federally regulated.

Similarly, House Resolution 45, or Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009, would prohibit possession of a firearm unless a license has been issued under this act or by a state system certified under this act. H.R.45 has been referred to the House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.

A national regulation of civilian firearms is the usual first step toward their elimination.

Cynthia Toney is a Contributing Writer and Editor, The Bold Pursuit

© The Bold Pursuit sm, All Rights Reserved

Advertisements

12 thoughts on “Who Stole the Cookie…? How the UN Is Robbing Us of Our National Sovereignty and Individual Liberties

  1. Let us not forget about Mussolini (Italy) and Tito (Yugoslavia); so much so that when war came, the partisans had to ask the US for arms to fight the Germans in World War II. Good stuff, Cindy! Keep it up.

  2. Mac, thank you for continuing to read all parts of this series. The U.S. did not become the exceptional country that it did by following the example of the rest of the world.

  3. This is exactly why we must monitor this administration closely. Gun control is vital in subjugating people. History does repeat itself. We must, therefore, remain vigilant so that we can impede any attempt to stealthily eliminate our independence and freedoms. Many of the powermongers would do anything to weaken the people and take total control.Please continue your commentary, Cindy. It underscores the consequence of staying aware and abreast of the critical issues that are affecting the fabric of our lives.

  4. Thank you, Genevieve. I agree that this administration requires close monitoring, particularly because its goals appear to be so closely aligned with those of the UN. If we do not remain vigilant, we will lose our liberties bit by bit, until the day comes when we realize that the government has complete control over us.

  5. Great article, CynthiaNational regulation of civilian firearms should NEVER be allowed and the United States should defund the UN. We must remain vigilant in the fight for gun rights in our country.

  6. Thanks, Cyber1. I hope that we can convince a good many Americans who do not own guns that this is an important issue for all of us. A conservative who owns a gun respects the right of others not to own one, but a liberal who does not own a gun does not want anyone to own one.

  7. This is a truly informative article that shows we are surrounded by communist and socialist leaders. When Obama and Hilary Clinton travel around the world, they do so in an effort to keep many of these 'treaties' quiet until such time they have the backing to make it law. Our work is cut out for us just as it was for our founding fathers,but it can be done again…we've only begun to fight! Thanks Cindy, great article.

  8. Bea, you have made an excellent point—much stealth is used in this administration's cooperation with the UN. It is difficult to convince many of our citizens that their liberties are on the brink of extinction, because the media does not make the connection for them between actions by the UN and laws being introduced in the U.S. Thank you for commenting.

  9. The U.N. does nothing. Only Alliances in the U.N do things. It can't even move against tiny Rwanda in the middle of mass genocide. That was a nice resolution that it passed. It can't even keep haiti clean of disease after the earthquake, it can't even help pakistan in any timely manner. The only power it has is what we give it. This is literally true. If it wasn't for the U.S. the EU would have collapsed already..Bernanke printed off 500 billion for the EU central bank and we gave 100 billion to the IMF………..kind of puts perspective to what the U.N. really is at this stage. Big talk, big words on allota paper………………..that's about it. Is it this creature to keep an eye on? Yes! The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing people that he didn't exist. But we know this devil exists………………That's a big problem for this devil. If states can rise up against the central government of a sovereign nation then a sovereign nation can do the same to a world facade.The IMF is nothing more than a world wide payday loan enslavement corporation. They are far more dangerous than the rest of the U.N. bureaucracy multifold. Greece,Ireland,Portugal,Spain,Italy,Belgium………France isn't far behind. What you're seeing right now with the EU bailout scheme ran through the EU central bank (remember that 500 billion I mentioned?) is a mini IMF. The EU is the petree dish. The petree dish is in dire trouble.Europe is primarily where the U.N. fantasy really comes from. The emperor with no clothes is living in denial and has erected a castle that appears made of stone but really is made only of wood. Just keep one eye open. They're always lurking with the noose of "help".We still have a choice and when people turn up the volume of "NO YOU DON'T!" that really means you still have a choice. Always remember this. When the liberal playbook isn't working all they do is throw in a few more speakers and couple more amps and PUMP UP THE VOLUME……………………….still the same playbook. Just keep one eye open.

  10. Chris, thank you for your impassioned comment. I agree that the UN is a costly behemoth, ineffective in humanitarian efforts and dangerous in its global control. We must become more vocal in our opposition to it–"Pump Up the Volume" as you say!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s