The NRA visits the u.n.

Wayne LaPierre, Executive Vice President of the NRA, visited the u.n. today. He spoke to the u.n. regarding the proposed small arms treaty. Here is the text of that speech...

Mr. Chairman, thank you for this brief opportunity to address the committee. I am Wayne LaPierre and for 20 years now, I have served as Executive Vice President of the National Rifle Association of America.

The NRA was founded in 1871, and ever since has staunchly defended the rights of its 4 million members, America's 80 million law-abiding gun owners, and freedom-loving Americans throughout our country. In 1996, the NRA was recognized as an NGO of the United Nations and, ever since then, has defended the constitutional freedom of Americans in this arena. The NRA is the largest and most active firearms rights organization in the world and, although some members of this committee may not like what I have to say, I am proud to defend the tens of millions of lawful people NRA represents.

This present effort for an Arms Trade Treaty, or ATT, is now in its fifth year. We have closely monitored this process with increasing concern. We've reviewed the statements of the countries participating in these meetings. We've listened to other NGOs and read their numerous proposals and reports, as well as carefully examined the papers you have produced. We've watched, and read ... listened and monitored. Now, we must speak out.

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms in defense of self, family and country is ultimately self-evident and is part of the Bill of Rights to the United States Constitution. Reduced to its core, it is about fundamental individual freedom, human worth, and self-destiny.

We reject the notion that American gun owners must accept any lesser amount of freedom in order to be accepted among the international community. Our Founding Fathers long ago rejected that notion and forged our great nation on the principle of freedom for the individual citizen - not for the government.

Mr. Chairman, those working on this treaty have asked us to trust them ... but they've proven to be unworthy of that trust.

We are told "Trust us; an ATT will not ban possession of any civilian firearms." Yet, the proposals and statements presented to date have argued exactly the opposite, and - perhaps most importantly - proposals to ban civilian firearms ownership have not been rejected.

We are told "Trust us; an ATT will not interfere with state domestic regulation of firearms." Yet, there are constant calls for exactly such measures.

We are told "Trust us; an ATT will only affect the illegal trade in firearms." But then we're told that in order to control the illegal trade, all states must control the legal firearms trade.

We are told, "Trust us; an ATT will not require registration of civilian firearms." Yet, there are numerous calls for record-keeping, and firearms tracking from production to eventual destruction. That's nothing more than gun registration by a different name.

We are told, "Trust us; an ATT will not create a new international bureaucracy." Well, that's exactly what is now being proposed -- with a tongue-in-cheek assurance that it will just be a SMALL bureaucracy.

We are told, "Trust us; an ATT will not interfere with the lawful international commerce in civilian firearms." But a manufacturer of civilian shotguns would have to comply with the same regulatory process as a manufacturer of military attack helicopters.

We are told, "Trust us; an ATT will not interfere with a hunter or sport shooter travelling internationally with firearms." However, he would have to get a so-called "transit permit" merely to change airports for a connecting flight.

Mr. Chairman, our list of objections extends far beyond the proposals I just mentioned.

Unfortunately, my limited time today prevents me from providing greater detail on each of our objections. I can assure you, however, that each is based on American law, as well as the fundamental rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution.

It is regrettable that proposals affecting civilian firearms ownership are woven throughout the proposed ATT. That being the case, however, there is only one solution to this problem: the complete removal of civilian firearms from the scope of any ATT. I will repeat that point as it is critical and not subject to negotiation - civilian firearms must not be part of any ATT. On this there can be no compromise, as American gun owners will never surrender their Second Amendment freedom.

It is also regrettable to find such intense focus on record-keeping, oversight, inspections, supervision, tracking, tracing, surveillance, marking, documentation, verification, paper trails and data banks, new global agencies and data centers. Nowhere do we find a thought about respecting anyone's right of self-defense, privacy, property, due process, or observing personal freedoms of any kind.

Mr. Chairman, I'd be remiss if I didn't also discuss the politics of an ATT. For the United States to be a party to an ATT, it must be ratified by a two-thirds vote of the U.S. Senate. Some do not realize that under the U.S. Constitution, the ultimate treaty power is not the President's power to negotiate and sign treaties; it is the Senate's power to approve them.

To that end, it's important for the Preparatory Committee to understand that the proposed ATT is already strongly opposed in the Senate - the very body that must approve it by a two-thirds majority. There is a letter addressed to President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton that is currently being circulated for the signatures of Senators who oppose the ATT. Once complete, this letter will demonstrate that the proposed ATT will not pass the U.S. Senate.

So there is extremely strong resistance to the ATT in the United States, even before the treaty is tabled. We are not aware of any precedent for this - rejecting a proposed treaty before it's even submitted for consideration - but it speaks to the level of opposition. The proposed ATT has become more than just controversial, as the Internet is awash with articles and messages calling for its rejection. And those messages are all based on the same objection - infringement on the constitutional freedom of American gun owners.

The cornerstone of our freedom is the Second Amendment. Neither the United Nations, nor any other foreign influence, has the authority to meddle with the freedoms guaranteed by our Bill of Rights, endowed by our Creator, and due to all humankind.

Therefore, the NRA will fight with all of its strength to oppose any ATT that includes civilian firearms within its scope.

Thank you.

I would trust rattlesnake before I would trust the u.n. or hillary clinton. Neither of them give a damn about me and you. They care about power and the doors that power will open. The u.n. will never take my firearms, not as long as I am still breathing.

 

And to all the naysayers, claiming that the recent rise in frequency of articles concerning this treaty are scare tactics by pro-gun groups in order to raise, do you still think so? If this weren't an issue of legitimate concern would time had been allowed at the u.n. for LaPierre to speak?

 

Wayne LaPierre is correct, Americans will never give up our guns or gun rights to a foreign body. We won't even give up those things to the government of our own Country.

 

And just a word to those who don't own guns or are even anti-gun. Those of us who do own firearms continue to ensure the freedoms you enjoy every day. The 2nd Amendment is what guarantees all of our other rights. As long as there are those of us that do exercise our right to Keep and Bear Arms, all of us will remain citizens instead of subjects...

u.n. small arms treaty...

We had a conversation at lunch today about the u.n. small arms treaty. I suggested that it will be a way around the 2nd Amendment for obama and the anti-gun crowd. My two friends thought that is was nothing more than scare tactics by the pro-gun crowd in order to keep us donating. I can see that side of it too, but I also know how bad the left wants to rid us of our weapons.

Not that it really matters these days. The majority in this Country don't have the balls or the inclination to defend it. I don't know if you have ever heard of the three percenters, but I doubt if the number willing to die for this Country is even that high.

When media outlets, people other than the NRA and the National Association for Gun Rights, start writing about the devastation this treaty could do to our rights, I start to get worried.

Here is an article from The Washington Times. See the short excerpt below...

Political scientist Rudy Rummel estimates that the 15 worst regimes during the 20th century killed 151 million of their own citizens, which works out to 1.5 million victims per year. Even if all 300,000 annual deaths from armed conflicts can be blamed on the small-arms trade (which they cannot), governments are a bigger threat to most people than their neighbors.

Here is an article from Forbes. See the excerpt below...

Have no doubt that this plan is very real, with strong Obama administration support. In January 2010 the U.S. joined 152 other countries in endorsing a U.N. Arms Treaty Resolution that will establish a 2012 conference to draft a blueprint for enactment. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has pledged to push for Senate ratification.

Former U.N. ambassador John Bolton has cautioned gun owners to take this initiative seriously, stating that the U.N. “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.”

Of course, there are plenty of places you can go to see the exact opposite. Places like Snopes deny that it will be a gun grab. They claim it is as innocent as the u.n says it is. Nothing is ever as it seems when hillary clinton, obama, or the u.n are involved. There is always some underlying motive, some personal gain. In this case the personal gain may just be the support of the liberal base if a victory is obtained.

I'm not willing to find out. It will be tough for clinton to get this passed in congress. If there is even a hint in washigton that this is a threat to the 2nd Amendment, many won't give their approval. But still, I plan to let my congress critters know every week what my feelings are about this. Even if it is as innocent as they claim, it is still bad policy. Read the quote from the first article. Rouge governments are a far bigger threat to their people than other countries, or even terrorists. Rouge regimes have killed MILLIONS of unarmed citizens. Gun confiscation is the first indication that you are truly and completely screwed. At that point you cease to be a citizen and instead become a subject, or worse, a slave.

If this treaty passes, and becomes the law of the land, it will be because of those people reading Snopes and the like, with their heads in the sand. "It can't happen here" are some of the most famous last words. It ranks right up there with "Hey, hold my beer and watch this"...

weiner resigns...

Well it's about damn time. It didn't take long for him to decide to throw in the towel after his wife got home. How would liked to have been a fly on the wall in the weiner household for their reunion? I'm guessing that got ugly quick.

Put yourself in this woman's place for just a second, wouldn't you dump this  loser in a hurry? There isn't much of a way I would tolerate this crap from a spouse. But then, consider who her mentor is. hillary clinton has stuck with a habitual cheater for years. The difference is, she stuck with bill clinton for purely political purposes. weiner's wife has no such reason, at least not after the press conference today.

I'm sure that most politicians are decent ethical people, but it sure is hard to imagine that with as many of them that get busted doing stupid shit. Did weiner really think he was so much smarter than all the other dumbasses that got busted, that he could get away with it?

Look, I'm going to do something I don't normally do. Here is some advice for all politicians out there. Most of you aren't real bright, face it. When you do stupid shit like take pictures of your crotch and send them out to people, those people are going to talk. There will always be some "news" agency that will pay people nice money to rat your dumb ass out. Always. If you think otherwise, well, your career is going to end with you on a podium announcing your resignation for being a dipshit.

Here's the part that kills me though, several  articles have pointed out today that weiner will still be eligible for his pension... What? Aren't there some rules about being an unethical douche bag? Even the NFL has morals clauses in most contracts. It irks me to no end that weiner was forced to resign in disgrace and we, the taxpayers, will be paying his pension. It's bullshit...

u.n. small arms treaty...

Yesterday I posted a story from Forbes about the u.n. small arms treaty.
http://hellonearth-1.blogspot.com/2011/06/un-agreement-should-have-all-gun-owners.html

Basically it will allow the u.n. to enforce some international gun control laws. On it's surface it is supposed to keep small arms out of the hands of terrorists. But underneath it is a way for hillary clinton, obama and the u.n. to force gun control on law abiding American citizens. Possibly even resulting in seizure of firearms.

This scares the hell out of gun owners, as it should. But it should also scare the hell out of EVERY American for several reasons.

First, it is a direct violation of our sovereignty. When we start allowing the u.n. to enter our Country as law enforcement agents, we are done. There will be no more United States.

Second, our Second Amendment right guarantees all of the others. Without our right to keep and bear arms, we have no way to ensure the government or some other entity, like the u.n., doesn't take those away as well.

Even if you hate guns, keep in mind that the fact that there are gun owners in this Country and they are willing to protect YOUR rights as well as their own. Without the gun owners in this Country, we might live in a very different place. If you want to think that guns don't keep you safe, that's fine. But there are lots of historical examples that tell a different story. There are examples of weapon seizures in foreign countries that were followed very closely by mass murders and genocide by the very government that seized the firearms.

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and other minorities who were unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1970 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million 'educated' people, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

 

Maybe you think something like that can't or won't happen here. Is that a chance you are willing to take? Look into the eyes of your children when you ask yourself that question.

U.N. Agreement Should Have All Gun Owners Up In Arms

It's one thing when you get lame emails talking about this stuff, it's another when Forbes is on it. This is getting all too serious very fast. If hillary clinton is able to get this past congress we are screwed. We will no longer be the United States of America. We will be just another in a random bunch of nations. If we quietly give up our Constitutional Rights we open ourselves up to rule by the u.n.

We are a sovereign Nation. We hold allegiance to no foreign nation or body. Passing this will violate all that our Nation has stood for for the last 235 years.

How would you like to have u.n. police thugs cruising the streets of your city? Enforcing international gun control laws? Seizing your firearms? No? You better get on the horn with your congress critters. I'll be on the phone and email and facebook and twitter and even snailmail with mine...

By Larry Bell - Forbes

It may not come as surprising news to many of you that the United Nations doesn’t approve of our Second Amendment. Not one bit. And they very much hope to do something about it with help from some powerful American friends. Under the guise of a proposed global “Small Arms Treaty” premised to fight “terrorism”, “insurgency” and “international crime syndicates” you can be quite certain that an even more insidious threat is being targeted – our Constitutional right for law-abiding citizens to own and bear arms.

What, exactly, does the intended agreement entail?

While the terms have yet to be made public, if passed by the U.N. and ratified by our Senate, it will almost certainly force the U.S. to:

1.Enact tougher licensing requirements, creating additional bureaucratic red tape for legal firearms ownership.

2.Confiscate and destroy all “unauthorized” civilian firearms (exempting those owned by our government of course).

3.Ban the trade, sale and private ownership of all semi-automatic weapons (any that have magazines even though they still operate in the same one trigger pull – one single “bang” manner as revolvers, a simple fact the ant-gun media never seem to grasp).

4.Create an international gun registry, clearly setting the stage for full-scale gun confiscation.

5.In short, overriding our national sovereignty, and in the process, providing license for the federal government to assert preemptive powers over state regulatory powers guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment in addition to our Second Amendment rights.

 

Have no doubt that this plan is very real, with strong Obama administration support. In January 2010 the U.S. joined 152 other countries in endorsing a U.N. Arms Treaty Resolution that will establish a 2012 conference to draft a blueprint for enactment. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has pledged to push for Senate ratification.

Former U.N. ambassador John Bolton has cautioned gun owners to take this initiative seriously, stating that the U.N. “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.”

Read the rest at the link above...