portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reporting united states

government | human & civil rights

UN GUN GRAB FOLLWS STATE DEPARTMENT PLAN...COMPLETE DISARMAMENT OF US AND ABOLISHMENT OF 2

UN move to uspurp the US 2nd Ammenment. Complete disarmament of all US citizens.
UN Gun Grab Follows State Department Plan


"Complete disarmament" of the American people

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
Monday, July 16, 2012

The UN Arms Trade Treaty that has been identified by observers as a flagrant threat to the second amendment and which Barack Obama is determined to sign has its roots in a 1961 State Department memorandum which explains how the United Nations will oversee "complete disarmament" of the American people under the ruse of preventing war.

The UN Arms Treaty has caused so much controversy because it outlines a plan to target "all types of conventional weapons, notably including small arms and light weapons," according to Forbes' Larry Bell.

Former US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton also warns that the agreement "is trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about international arms trade between nation states, but there is no doubt that the real agenda here is domestic firearms control."

A letter sent last month by 130 Republican House members to President Obama argued that the treaty should be rejected because it infringes on the "fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms". The letter adds that "... the U.N.'s actions to date indicate that the ATT is likely to pose significant threats to our national security, foreign policy, and economic interests as well as our constitutional rights."

Using the rhetoric of the threat post by terrorists, insurgents and "international crime syndicates," the UN is busy trying to imply that all weapons are somehow involved in illegal activity on a global scale and should therefore be controlled and regulated by a global authority.

This is precisely the same language used in a 1961 U.S. State Department briefing which outlined a long term agenda to carry out a "Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World."

Invoking the threat of nuclear warfare, the document spells out a plan to create a "United Nations Peace Force" that would "enforce the peace as the disarmament process proceeds."

While the document initially focuses on scrapping nuclear weapons, it later makes it clear that the only groups allowed to own weapons of any kind would be governing authorities, "for the purpose of maintaining internal order," and the UN "peacekeeping" force itself, which would require "agreed manpower."

"The manufacture of armaments would be prohibited except for those of agreed types and quantities to be used by the U.N. Peace Force and those required to maintain internal order. All other armaments would be destroyed or converted to peaceful purposes," states the document.

A d v e r t i s e m e n t
While the memorandum outlines a broader mandate to destroy national sovereignty, eviscerate national armies and institute the UN as the planet's supreme authority with a world army, the document serves as a stark reminder that the plan for the United Nations to oversee the abolition of the second amendment has been in the works for decades.

As Bell points out in his Forbes article, the threat of the Obama administration relying on a UN treaty to do what successive administrations have tried but failed to accomplish - taking a huge bite out of the second amendment - is by no means far fetched.

After all, a plethora of UN treaties and international agreements have already stripped the United States of its sovereignty and its power to decide its own laws. The power to authorize U.S. involvement in wars and conflicts has now been almost completely stripped from Congress and handed to the United Nations.

Following Barack Obama's arrogant rebuff of Congress in seeking approval to strike Libya, during which he churlishly remarked, "I don't even have to get to the Constitutional question," Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta affirmed that the U.S. now requires "international permission" before deciding on its military policy.

Other Obama-endorsed UN power grabs like the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) as well as Agenda 21 and sustainable development are also serving to decimate national sovereignty and remain almost completely under the radar.

You only need to look at the European Union, which now crafts around 50 per cent of the laws made in member states like Britain, to understand how unelected global institutions can and have dictated policy on a national level.

The UN Arms Trade Treaty presents an existential threat to the guns rights of American citizens and should be rejected for what it is - yet another attempt by the Obama administration, in the aftermath of the Fast and Furious scandal, to abolish the second amendment by stealth.

*********************

Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a regular fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show and Infowars Nightly News.

PLEASE CHECK OUT THE LINKS BELOW...

 link to www.infowars.com
 http://www.infowars.com/un-gun-grab-follows-state-department-plan
 http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/ERC/arms/freedom_war.html

The gun grab that doesn't exist 17.Jul.2012 09:14

rex

I kept hearing about this gun grab from the typical alarmist channels - NRA, shooting groups, fringe talk shows and I'm sure Alex Jones is taking his time away from FEMA camp rants to talk about this.

So I decided to look up the actual treaty. Of course, given that this treaty says even in its title that it pertains to gun trade, it is pretty obvious that it applies to international trafficking of weapons. It says nothing of the right to own or sell weapons within the confines of a particular country. It also has no authority to circumvent a national constitution, and I'm sure we are all quite aware that our own right to bear arms is fairly well established, both socially/culturally and by the rule of law.

The resolution explicitly states that it is "the exclusive right of States to regulate internal transfers of arms and national ownership, including through constitutional protections on private ownership."

a relevant link 17.Jul.2012 09:19

...

Media Matters has an article on how this is being totally overblown by the right.

 link to mediamatters.org


Did you even bother reading the articles? 17.Jul.2012 15:51

Did you even bother reading the articles?

Did you even bother reading the articles? The last article noted is the actual 1961 US State Department briefing. In it is explicityly states the complete disarmament of all citizens. Have you heard of the 2nd ammendment, the right to bear arms? The briefing also states that this is to be done under international control. It is a complete usurpment of our 2nd ammendment rights by trying to have internatinal law dictate to us. Last time I checked this is the United States and laws are not just dictated to us by some absent foreign body, it is dictated to us the will of the people. Not to snipe but you must be one the stick your head in the sand people that will gladly turn over your guns/rights if/when they decide to start confiscating the guns of legal law-abiding citizens.

ok 17.Jul.2012 16:21

rex

yes, I read the article. Did YOU read it? Because it clearly says nothing about gun laws within nations themselves - it applies only to international trade. And the article from 1961 is clearly a draft of something that was introduced during a UN assembly. Was it ever voted on? Who knows. That was around 50 years ago, and has NOTHING to do with the current UN arms treaty.

It also has nothing to do with the second amendment, which is constitutional and is in no way under the jurisdiction of the UN, nor are any of our sovereign laws. This is typical rightwing fear-mongering by the NRA

if you can take a man's life for thoughts that's in his head 18.Jul.2012 04:02

hlc

maybe the united nations isn't much of a threat, and sure, the goons have yet come to our doors demanding our personal arms, but governments disarming citizens is something for us to think about carefully if only because governmental officials themselves think about it carefully. historically, national militaries are no match for an armed and determined citizenry. national militaries are specifically arranged to fight with other large scale national militaries, a specialization that is a proven weakness. so the preemptive tactic favored by citizen-fearing governments, along with propagandizing a culture of fear, ignorance, and general stigma regarding firearms, has become creeping legislation.

from the national firearms act of 1934 to the brady bill of 1993 (declared unconstitutional in montana, texas, arizona and vermont by u.s. district courts) with the crime bill of 1994 (and for the sake of it's proximity to the present let's include here the dubious supreme court ruling on heller in 2008), the u.s. government has been legitimizing the snuffing out of the tenth amendment, let alone the second amendment, for years. if they were to observe the tenth amendment, as it was written, the federal system as it now functions would collapse. but like the patriot act, making legal what's been happening illegally for as long as they've have the technical ability, these moves only showcase the illegitimacy of the u.s. government, violating what standards it has agreed to by its very existence.

but let's not weigh the blame completely on this rogue enterprise of government. consider us now, you and me, participating in the internet. this is an open window to our thoughts and activities. the main function of computers and mobile phones is to make life impossible without them. the secondary function has become providing enemy reconnaissance with the most comprehensive gathering of intelligence on targets (their prospective targets being us) since the census that enabled the nazis' holocaust. before a strike, though, in recent tradition, along with this information we're freely handing over, comes the disarming of the intended victims.

in 1968 senator thomas dodd requested a translation of adolf hitler's 1938 gun control legislation from the nuremberg trials for his personal study. shortly afterwards dodd introduced gun control legislation soon passed by congress which became the gun control act of 1968. look it up along side of hitler's own gun registration scheme; one is a virtual clone of the other. think about the motives behind both. also reflect on the u.s. government's track record of abiding by its own rules. does it matter to us what's voted on or passed or officially adopted one way or the other?

even in the face of a new world order conspiracy or an open realization of american fascism, if only one percent of this country's gun owners resisted full-force gun grabbing efforts, some eight-hundred-thousand of us would be armed with about two-million-four-hundred-thousand guns. that's nearly twenty-one times the irish republican army's per capita numbers which have fought the british empire to a standstill for generations. the government's done this math as well. all they really have to bank on is our lazy apathy and willful ignorance.

priorities 18.Jul.2012 08:15

.c

while you're at it, why don't you guys address some other near-term dangers to our democracy such as recent moves to knock citizens off the voter rolls, use insecure voting machines in certain counties, and otherwise allow insiders to manipulate our election. Start with Florida, but there are stories about this happening all over.

it blows my mind that this is even an issue being discussed 18.Jul.2012 09:29

rex

If you look at gun ownership statistics among countries, you will see the US is basically flooded with firearms. I mean, it is insanely easy to buy them here. And I don't mean just handguns. Rifles, shotguns, shit even Soviet bloc surplus SKS rifles and AK varients can be purchased for next to nothing.

Why is it then, that people here are obsessively preoccupied with this whole "government is coming for our guns!" mentality. Look around the rest of the world and realize we are swimming in firearms.

I am a gun owner. I have no problem with owning them for protection, hunting, or whatever. I am still completely puzzled about the obsession that our gun rights are somehow being infringed upon. You can buy handguns ALL over the place, with minimum hassle.

We have much bigger fish to fry.