July 10, 2006

So, The UN Doesn't Want Your Guns?

"Gone long ago is the time when we Europeans could subdue other continents because we had firearms and the local
peoples had not. In 1999 it was reported that an AK-47 assault rifle could be bought in Uganda for the price of
a chicken." - Robert Neild [1]

Time and again we hear, "The UN doesn't want to take your guns. They just want to control illegal arms trade."
Try to protest, and you're dismissed as "one of those wacky gun nuts."

Perhaps this will wake a few folks up. Click here.

This paper, entitled "Safe and Efficient Small Arms Collection and Destruction Programmes: A Proposal for Practical Technical Measures," describes in detail a plan to eliminate small arms from civilians. It was prepared for the 2001 UN Small Arms Conference.

SOME CHOICE QUOTES:

The paper is quite unabashed in its aims: total civilian disarmament. Read the quotes below:

* "To prevent conflict and violence from undermining development, effective disarmament programmes are vital..."

* "Disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration (DDR) is one precursor to the establishment of a stable and secure environment..."

* "[Small arms] are fundamentally dangerous and their removal from the equation either by control, neutralisation or removal is essential. The first step is to gain information on their numbers and whereabouts."

(That last quote is for the benefit of those folks who believe that firearms registration is merely "common sense". No, registration is -- and has always been intended as -- a first step toward confiscation. The proof is there in black and white.)

At this same conference, the Ambassador of Colombia was quoted as stating:

"I must . express my disappointment over the Conference's inability to agree ... on language recognizing the need to establish and maintain controls over private ownership of these deadly weapons and the need for preventing sales of such arms to non-State groups." [2]

For those unfamiliar with politician-speak, "non-State groups" means "anyone not representing a government", i.e. civilians.

WHY THE DOUBLE-TALK?

So why does the UN and its proponents claim they aren't pushing for total civilian disarmament? Easy -- they're scared. The Small Arms paper linked above tells us plainly, "Insensitive removal of weapons may have cultural and social implications, and indeed may inspire an unexpected political backlash."

In other words, they aren't telling us what they're doing because they know we won't like it. And we might even do
something about it. Consequently, they lull us with talk of "reasonable" and "common sense" measures ... all the
while plotting and planning for eventual confiscation.

WE KNOW WHAT HAPPENS THEN

Our documentary Innocents Betrayed shows what happens next: genocide. Uganda, Rwanda, Cambodia, China, the USSR, Nazi Germany ... the list goes on and on.

The UN presents "gun control" as a way to make people safer, to protect them from violence. Yet the UN's own stated policies would allow -- nay, ASSIST -- the brutal oppression of helpless citizens by regimes such as these, without fear of reprisal.

Don't be fooled by the smooth words and placating rhetoric. Read the Small Arms paper. Dust off your copy of Innocents Betrayed and "Gun Control": Gateway to Tyranny. Educate those around you who believe the UN is only looking out for everyone's best interest.

And just maybe ... stock up on chickens.

- The Liberty Crew

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Robert Neild, Public Corruption; The Dark Side of
Social Evolution, (London: Anthem Press, 2002), p. 131
[2] "Arms Trade: A Major Cause of Suffering" .

JPFO's Campaigns

Pick your campaign and keep your guns (and your other rights!)

* Boot the BATFE
* Bring Back a Bill of Rights Culture
* Encourage a Teen to Rebel
* Get "Bill of Rights or Bust" into a school
* Innocents Betrayed: Winning hearts and minds by showing gun prohibitionists the side of the firearm story they never knew.