I was writing a follow up to our grass roots effort to contact New Hampshire Senator Kelly Ayotte--to push her off the fence, basically, to vote against the UN Arms Treaty. Senator Ayotte eventually agreed with us and along with Senator Portman–who is typically an unreliable centrist on issues like this–made it impossible for the treaty to get Senate Approval.
Yeah, we were pretty jacked about it. But not everyone was convinced it was the right thing to do.
I had a gentleman on Facebook ask me if I could show him how the UN Arms-treaty would put the second amendment at risk. I embarked on a round-about explanation of how the UN and the left have been circling the issue for years and are patiently trying to put into place the pieces so that they cane eventually declare check mate. That there is no exact language just a lot if implied language.
He accused me of not being able to prove it. He even decided to tell me I had never read the treaty and was just, basically, being a knee-jerk, right-wing, blame George Soros, robot. I was more interested in singing to the choir than convincing people like himself. He was polite enough about it, and I will not speculate on other potential motivations….but he was wrong and I laid it out with a few direct references to the treaty.
I read the treaty. I read analysis of the treaty. I am familiar with the(stated) goals of several UN programs and their underlying goals. I am aware of the primary motivators behind Social justice programs, NGO’s, pro-globalization legislation written by people like Mr. Obama (as a US Senator), and the commitment of the left to disarm law abiding citizens by any and all means necessary, by obvious or clandestine means. I am familiar with the use of legal challenge to advance an agenda.
I also know that what I write is opinion, that it is how I spend my free time, and I am not all that interested in convincing people of anything nor do I seek praise or reassurance that I am” right.” My goal is to ridicule Progressives, their ridiculously dangerous ideas, to observe instances of hypocrisy, to speculate about the far reaching effects of policy, and to amuse.
If you are looking for a white paper on the dangerously and intentionally vague parts of the ATT, I’m not your guy. If you refuse to believe that these are chess pieces being moved by the anti-gun establishment for a larger purpose, then don’t believe it. If you don’t think the combination of Article 12 A and Article 5 C thru E present a giant opportunity for lawyers and legislation to grab guns then why should I care? If you don’t think the phrase ‘gender based violence’ does not invite a ton of left wing legal challenges under the umbrella of a legally enforceable UN treaty with deep tentacles into domestic policy….why would I give a damn?
Does 14.5 suggest that other countries could challenge US gun laws and use ATT to drive domestic gun grabbing policy? Does 15.B excuse taxing us to help pay other nations to control small arms even if doing so here would violate the second amendment? So many questions . So much potential for people who have a stated mission to disarm us to get that much closer. Finally. The actual content of the post we are commenting under was about the world blaming Obama for ATT failing and how it is actually about Senators having issue with the small arms language. Do you have comments about that by chance, or are we done.
I don’t know the guy from Adam but he abandoned that thread after that. Was he convinced? Did he really want to be? No idea. But I felt like I made my point.
This is how the left works. They have to work that way because when they do what the Democrat Majority congress and Obama did in the two years after the 2008 election, the nation revolts at the ballot box. People do not want what the left wants so Democrat/Progressives have to lie, deceive, mislead, intimidate, and at all expense try to control the message to advance their agenda, including the silencing of opposition speech.
Most people, including most elected Republicans, lack the spine to stand up to it so for decades the left has successfully advanced the idea of a big centralized government, run by experts, with near totalitarian control, administered by impenetrable regulations, executed with the force of law, by unaccountable bureaucrats.
But none of this amounts to a hill of beans unless the left can get the guns. A lawfully armed and trained populace is the single biggest obstacle to totalitarian rule. That is why both the domestic and global left take every opportunity history presents them as another chance to whittle away at the second amendment.
Name a gun related tragedy that did not result in some socialist Democrat(s) calling for new limitations on private ownership of firearms? They are not all national. Some are local. But they all provide an opportunity to spot the big government gun grabbing socialist. In the immediate wake of the tragedy, when emotions are highest, some Democrat or Democrats (even a few Democrats hiding in the Republican Party) float the idea that now is time time to consider more restriction on personal ownership of firearms.
No Democrat ever suggests we limit access to automobiles in the wake of motor-vehicle tragedies that claim exponentially more lives per year than the unlawful use of firearms. Why? Because it is not about life or death. Democrats only think they care about life, while continually electing and re-electing people who defend the right to kill the unborn. It is about power and control. Guns are a barrier to the kind of government they believe is best for you.
The UN is just helping all of this along.
So make note of any public figure who seeks to capitalize on tragedy or the unlawful use of firearms to place limits on lawful gun owners. Write the name down. Do not ever vote for them. Do everything legal in your power to keep them from public office, elected or appointed; it matters not whether they are handing out the Kool-Aid® or just drinking it. They represent a danger to liberty and freedom.
RightOnline Blogger KrisAnne Hall, in a recent post on the Treaty, pulled a great quote from Patrick Henry that brings this argument all the way home.
“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined. 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…Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation…inflicted by those who had no power at all.”
Emphasis hers, and mine.