United Nations” Arms Transfer Treaty” & Hillary Clinton Want Your Guns

Filed Under (The HELL You Say!) by admin on 21-07-2012

In light of the recent and tragic shooting in a Denver movie theater by a clearly deranged James Holms, where he shot over 70 people and killed 12, it will not come as any surprise if the Obama administration uses this event in an attempt to substantiate their support of the ATT.

The United Nations is putting the finishing touches on its global gun grab initiative – aka the Arms Transfer Treaty (ATT) this month in a New York convention. This initiative would create a global registry of privately owned firearms WORLD WIDE. This treaty would also create an GLOBAL enforcement agency SEIZE those guns.   This would be a complete and blatant violation of the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment.

This abdication of US sovereignty to a global authority has long had the energetic support of the Obama State Department, headed by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

“Conventional arms transfers are a crucial national security concern for the United States, and we have always supported effective action to control the international transfer of arms,” Hillary Clinton noted as early as October 14, 2009. Clinton boasted that “the United States regularly engages other states to raise their standards and to prohibit the transfer or transshipment of capabilities to rogue states, terrorist groups, and groups seeking to unsettle regions.”

Of course, that speech was delivered at the same time the Obama administration was transferring some 2,000 small arms to Mexican drug gangs in the “Fast and Furious” gun-walking scandal.

But even in light of that deadly program which resulted in the deaths of innocent Americans – as well as the blatant refusal by Eric Holder and the Obama administration to allow the truth to come out,  Secretary of State Hillary Clinton continues to brazenly lead the charge to take away legal firearms from law abiding Americans; “The United States has in place an extensive and rigorous system of controls that most agree is the ‘gold standard’ of export controls for arms transfers.” Certainly, this will come as great comfort to the family of murdered Border Patrol agent Brian Terry!

In spite of the facts, the State Department in claiming “The Second Amendment to the Constitution must be upheld. There will be no restrictions on civilian possession or trade of firearms otherwise permitted by law or protected by the U.S. Constitution. There will be no dilution or diminishing of sovereign control over issues involving the private acquisition, ownership, or possession of firearms, which must remain matters of domestic law.” The Obama State Department also promises “There will be no mandate for an international body to enforce an ATT.”

But should we believe those assurances?  Should we believe them the same way we were asked to believe that Obamacare was NOT a tax?

So, should we feel secure about the safety of the Second Amendment?

Not on your life!!

Here’s the “cover story”……The draft of the treaty – prepared earlier this year by the UN Preparatory Committee (PrepCom) – explains that the treaty is aimed at crime control as well as rogue militias in developing nations:

“The majority of conflict deaths are caused by the use of small arms, and civilian populations bear the brunt of armed conflict more than ever. Also, small arms are the dominant tools of criminal violence.”

But no matter how loudly Hillary Clintons confederates swear otherwise, The PrepCom report of February 2012 is not limited merely to international transfer of firearms. The draft treaty covers “transfers” as well as imports and exports of firearms:

The international transactions or activities covered by this Treaty – defined in “Annex A” include:

(a) Import;

(b) Export;

(c) Transfer…

What does this mean?  I means that the 2012 conference is following the goals of the 2001 UN Programme of Action on small arms, which required national gun registries and collection agencies for those guns once they’ve been registered. The 2001 Programme of Action requires nations:

  • To ensure that comprehensive and accurate records are kept for as long as possible on the manufacture, holding and transfer of small arms and light weapons under their jurisdiction. These records should be organized and maintained in such a way as to ensure that accurate information can be promptly retrieved and collated by competent national authorities.
  • To develop and implement, where possible, effective disarmament, demobilization and reintegration programmes, including the effective collection, control, storage and destruction of small arms and light weapons…

The UN is still seeking this kind of broad control over private firearms ownership, and UN General Assembly resolution 66/47, adopted December 2, 2011 in advance of this month’s conference that it seeks to ban “The illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects.” [Emphasis added]

Moreover, the 2012 PrepCom report uses broad bans on any transfer of firearms:

  • A State Party shall not authorize a transfer of conventional arms if there is a substantial risk that those conventional arms would: Be used in a manner that would seriously undermine peace and security or provoke, prolong or aggravate internal, regional, subregional or international instability.

Approximately 56 U.S. senators have written a letter to President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton opposing this UN global gun registry, according to the National Rifle Association.

Senatorial opposition began with a July 26, 2011 letter claiming that “the establishment of any sort of international gun registry that would strip away the privacy rights of law-abiding gun owners.

This is exactly what happened in Rwanda, and was complicit in the genocide of some 800,000 innocent Tutsis.

UN Gun control in Rwanda was so effective at stripping the people of their ability to protect themselves, that much of the genocide of those 800,000 Tutsis was carried out by Hutu-aligned government forces with machetes, NOT guns. That’s definitely UN “peacekeeping” at its best! (A close second to the countless rapes by UN forces during their action in Haiti.)

In anticipation of this treaty, the U.S. State Department has already established the State Department Office of Weapons Removal and Abatement that would be used as a control agency for domestic “control” of firearms / and or firearms transfers.

The State Department policy on Conventional Weapons Destruction suggests: “The proliferation of illicit conventional weapons, including small arms and light weapons (SA/LW), in regions of the world suffering from political instability and violent conflict has proven a major obstacle to peace, economic development, and efforts to rebuild war-torn societies. In places like Afghanistan, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Sudan, and Colombia, thousands of innocent civilians have been killed and tens of thousands more displaced by ethnic and civil conflicts perpetuated in large part by easy access to illicit conventional weapons, particularly SA/LW.”

Many of the countries listed by State Department officials are the very nations that need “illicit” small arms the most, to fight back against genocidal governments the. Because, in most instances the sparse “illegal” weapons around the world are the ones that are being used by victims to shoot back against genocidal governments.

A prime example is Syria, where perfectly “legal” small are being used by the government to massacre a disarmed civilian population.

Another current example is South Sudan, where genocide was the order of the day. Until it recently won its independence from Sudan, by using “illicit” small arms – and thus putting an end to the mass killings.

In the 1994 Rwandan genocide, the “illegal” and “illicit” guns would have been those owned by the victims.

Since the UN has traditionally backed genocidal governments over the victims who use “illicit” guns to defend themselves, it’s not surprising that human rights violator Iran is one of several regional chairmen of the UN ATT convention…..REALLY!

Let us not lose sight of the fact, that the fundamental reason for the very existence of the Second Amendment – the primary motive that the Founding Fathers wrote it into the Constitution – was so that this country’s people could defend themselves against being brutalized by their government.

An unarmed and consequently defenseless populace will always end up as victims, and subjects of their rulers!

Comments:

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.