posted May 22, 2006 04:48 PM            

Inserted in the pages of the article is a postcard for you to rip out and send to The Honorable Kofi Annan. Interesting title to give the person whom you are writing the following:

The 4th of July is America's most revered national holiday. Yet, you've invited 50 dictatorships and six terrorist states to join with you on that day in your conspiracy to ban civilian firearms ownership worldwide and strip Americans of our freedoms. In doing so, you have demonstrated the U.N. to be an enemy of freedom everywhere.

Americans like me have over 230 years of experience in defeating the anit-freedom aims of petty tyrants and powerful dictators alike. We will never let the U.N. take away the rights our 4th of July holiday represents -- now, or ever.

Quit wasting resources on this gun-ban cause. Our freedoms are not to blame for the world's problems, and this is a battle you can never win.

Sincerely, ___________________________

Pretty desperate situation, right? For who? Gun manufacturers? That's the only thing I can think of, because when you look into this meeting it's not a new program starting this year.
http://disarmament.un.org/cab/poa.html
(It started in 2001)

The event is actually taking place from June 26th through July 7th. Not July 4th in particular like they are trying to put forth.

Back to the program. If you look at documents: http://www.un.org/events/smallarms2006/prepcom/index.html
And click on the link for background documents: http://disarmament.un.org/cab/salw-nationalreports.html
you'll find links to the "States that have submitted reports to the Department for Disarmament Affairs" throughout the years of it's existence. The U.S. submitted a report every year except this one.

If you read those reports, it's clear that the United States isn't cowing to the U.N. Our reports simply explain our law, and in instances where it correlates to the U.N. program our reports express the ways our laws are "Supportive of the UN POA," or how the, "U.S. Global/Regional Activity Supportive of [supports] the UN POA."

So why is it NOW after 5 years of the program that the NRA is trying to manufacture hysteria on this issue? Seems a bit over-the-top to me.

posted May 22, 2006 05:53 PM            

Stripping Americans of their 2nd Amendment rights is a policy near and dear to hearts of despots and dictators everywhere. It's also the wet dream of the UN goons.

After all, how are disarmed citizens to resist government usurpation of power.

The 2nd amendment is there as a last line of defense against tyrannical government..if or when it devolves into a tyranny.

Shocking so few understand that but then, most have not read the Constitution, Federalist Papers or the Framer's writings and utterances about the right of "private" citizens to keep and bear arms.

But first this:

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing."
-- Adolph Hitler, Hitler's Secret Conversations 403 (Norman Cameron and R.H. Stevens trans., 1961)

What the Framers said about our Second Amendment Rights to Keep and Bear Arms

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

"Whereas civil-rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
-- Tench Coxe, in Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
-- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188

If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons entrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.
-- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms ... "
-- Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)

"[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
--James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46

"To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws."
--John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of the United States 475 (1787-1788)

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."
--Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
--Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

"Whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it."
--Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."
-- Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787. ME 6:373, Papers 12:356

"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
-- Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950]

"The right of the people to keep and bear ... arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country ..."
-- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty .... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."
-- Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789

" ... to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
-- George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380

" ... but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights ..."
-- Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
-- Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836

"The great object is, that every man be armed ... Every one who is able may have a gun."
-- Patrick Henry, Elliot, p.3:386

"O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone ..."
-- Patrick Henry, Elliot p. 3:50-53, in Virginia Ratifying Convention demanding a guarantee of the right to bear arms

"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them."
-- Zacharia Johnson, delegate to Virginia Ratifying Convention, Elliot, 3:645-6

"Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms ... The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard, against the tyranny which now appears remote in America but which historically has proven to be always possible."
-- Hubert H. Humphrey, Senator, Vice President, 22 October 1959

"The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpation of power by rulers. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of the republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally ... enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
-- Joseph Story, Supreme Court Justice, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, p. 3:746-7, 1833

" ... most attractive to Americans, the possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave, it being the ultimate means by which freedom was to be preserved."
-- James Burgh, 18th century English Libertarian writer, Shalhope, The Ideological Origins of the Second Amendment, p.604

"The right [to bear arms] is general. It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been explained elsewhere, consists of those persons who, under the laws, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon.... [I]f the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of the guarantee might be defeated altogether by the action or the neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose. But this enables the government to have a well regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in so doing the laws of public order."
-- Thomas M. Cooley, General Principles of Constitutional Law, Third Edition [1898]

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress ... to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.... "
--Samuel Adams

This, of course presupposes there are enough "private" citizens equipped with sufficient brain cells to be armed and with the backbone to stand up to government tyranny in the first place.

So, let's hear no more about the 2nd Amendment applying only to a militia/national guard or the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of hunting or sports shooting.

posted May 22, 2006 07:04 PM            

Once the principle is established that the UN has the right to control private sales of small arms sales and ammunition...illicit or otherwise, it's a short step to declaring all private sales of small arms and ammunition sales illicit.

You deny the predicable outcome by denying the principle in the first place.

This is really aimed at disarming individual citizens and I'm not in the least surprised all the dictators and tyrants are all for it.

Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons
in All Its Aspects

Yeah, Bush isn't buying it. I remember when Bush sent Ashcroft into the federal courts on the side of citizens rights to own and keep private firearms.

posted May 22, 2006 07:21 PM            

The UN has never prevented a war in it's existence nor has the UN ever prevented a slaughter of citizens within a nation. In fact, the UN has stood by in the midst of a slaughter of disarmed citizens and done nothing at all. They're doing that now in Dufar, they did that in Bosnia and they did that in Rwanda. Kofi Annan was the Architect of the slaughter in Rwanda. His reward for standing by as chief of peace keeping forces was promotion to Secretary General of the UN.

Time to run the meddling bureaucrats of the UN out of the United States...and run some in the US State Dept. into the nearest federal court for treason trials.

FREEDOM FROM WAR

THE UNITED STATES PROGRAM FOR GENERAL AND COMPLETE DISARMAMENT IN A PEACEFUL WORLD

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

DEPARTMENT OF STATE PUBLICATION 7277
Disarmament Series 5
Released September 1961

Office of Public Services
BUREAU OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS

posted May 22, 2006 08:26 PM              

quote:

---

After all, how are disarmed citizens to resist government usurpation of power

---

Yeah, AG everyone knows we have to keep those small arms in possession because they are the perfect weapons of resistance against the nuclear arsenal the government has.

posted May 24, 2006 10:04 PM            

******

<A few minutes later>
I apologize if that is no more than an overly long and off topic rant. It just came out. But if I had cookies right now, I would share.

posted May 24, 2006 11:30 PM              

Regarding what some would say are conspiracy theories about the events of 9/11 there were far too many unanswered questions to not make anyone who thinks at all wonder why those questions were not answered or even discussed by Bush's appointed committee. Also the fact that Bush would not allow any independent committee investigations. Those things cause conspiracy theories because they leave too much for people to think and wonder about. Even experts wondered about those unanswered questions. So no, it is not those on the "left" who are into thinking there could be a government take over. In fact, on this thread it was Jwhop who is about as far right as anyone can get who brought that up. It's the age old argument of the NRA for any kind of gun control legislation.

In the Constitution as it is written it refers to a "Militia" which they had at the time the Constitution was written. Other articles of the Constitution have been abolished due to being outdated and I think that should have been one of them.

Now the only militia we have are those of the terrorist variety who - with their legal guns and weapons and very well armed through gun shows - are trying to overthrow the government. Technically one could argue that if you want to take that article of the Constitution literally the only ones who are really allowed to own weapons under that article are those involved in our modern day "Militia."

I have managed to live 60 years of my life so far and have never personally owned a gun. Never needed one. My husband has a shotgun that he shoots skeet with and hunts small game with along with my son who also has a shotgun. So I am not opposed to guns per se just stricter regulations on them because anyone can go to a gun show any place in the U.S. and not only buy any kind of gun but also buy military type weapons - bullets that penetrate bullet proof vests for instance. There was a story regarding that some time ago on "60 Minutes." They showed how easy it is to buy any kind of weapon because the companies that make the military type weapons are also allowed to sell those weapons at gun shows to the general public. The criminals on the street are better armed than the police these days.

It seems to be the generations of today who think everyone should have a gun. I don't live my life in fear so I don't feel the need for that.

In my only real comment on this subject I JOKED about the fact that we could possibly go up against a government take over with small arms considering the weapons that the government has in it's possession. Nuclear or otherwise.

We cannot fight germ warfare with any type of guns and I think that would be the most likely thing the government would use if the people were trying to prevent a government take over. You can kill a lot more people that way than with other types of weapons. All the government would have to do is drop the stuff from helicopters or planes.

posted May 25, 2006 12:18 AM            

But, the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution are called the Bill of Rights and have not been amended and won't be amended nor would Americans stand still for the Bill of Rights being amended.

Opponents of the Constitution thought it might be a blueprint for a tyranny and argued against it's ratification. They demanded Amendments be added to protect citizens rights...which became known as the Bill of Rights.

The right to keep and bear arms is found in the Second Amendment.

The thoughts of the Framers concerning the right of citizens to own personal firearms are on this thread. The whole citizenry was to be considered a militia and they made their thoughts on the reason for that crystal clear.

To rein in government which might become dictatorial and as a last line of defense to prevent a dictatorship.

Further, street criminals are not better armed than police. Police have access to automatic weapons...military automatic weapons.

No such weapons are sold at gun shows. Some resemble military weapons but they are not so in function.