I want to talk about the U.N. Small Arms Treaty. I have a written a couple of articles about it before, but in light of some recent developments, like the EU calling for the ratification of the treaty among European Union states for instance, it may be time to discuss it again. Also, lets not forget the U.N. just issued resolution 2117, which calls for member states to collect civilian arms and destroy them. My friends, you only need to look at Australia, Canada and Britain to see that civilian disarmament is their goal.
To truly understand what is at stake here you simply need to look at the state of the country and how the left uses propaganda to distort everything. My friends, provisions are written into the treaty which authorize the United Nations to act as peace keepers within the borders of "conflict areas." What is happening here in our country? The United States could very well be considered an "unstable" region in the event of an economic collapse. The fact that many Americans are vigorously standing for their second amendment rights while it has been written into policy that doing so makes you a terrorist, could be all the excuse the U.N. needs in the event of this treaties ratification. Escalating tensions over the erosion of our constitutional rights could very well see the deploying of U.N. troops to deescalate tensions, and disarm so called "hostile" parties. That would be the patriots defending liberty of course.
Understand that this treaty puts all control of firearms production into the hands of government while drastically diminishing your rights to own them. Also, understand that nowhere in the treaty is the right to self defense recognized by the U.N. Nor is the right to self defense a recognized right in the U.N. Charter of human rights. http://www.ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Documents/UDHR_Translations/eng.pdf What they do promise however is the right to be secure in a social and "international order" in which their interpretation of human rights can be fully realized. Better wake up folks, I don't think they are on the same page as you and I.
Many of you are likely thinking that we are free and clear from any danger of this treaty being ratified. Several senators have taken a bold stand which makes the two thirds majority a virtual impossibility, for now. Can anyone explain to me the real purpose for all the radical rule changes in the senate? While they may revolve around other issues such as judicial appointments and other nominations, it clearly demonstrates an ability on the part of the democrats to do whatever they wish unchallenged by any opposition. Who can say that any of these rule changes haven't already increased the chances of this treaties ratification? Sadly, with the republican party as split as it is on many issues, this is one we simply cannot ignore folks. The politicians we support will be feeling the heat to ratify this treaty at some point, probably after another Sandy Hook event.
The bottom line is this, the United States is one of the last remaining nations that recognizes the inalienable right to own weapons for self defense. Self defense isn't even accurate description, we have the right to bear arms in order to protect our freedoms. Clearly, a global organization like the U.N. pushing an anti freedom agenda like agenda 21 is not going to allow this to continue. Especially after they have successfully implemented their disarmament plans in so many other parts of the world. I have said this before and I will say it again. Every bit of propaganda is designed to psychologically disarm you, take you off your guard if you will. Once they have done this physically disarming you is easy. This is why they try so hard to demonize gun owners. They are trying to psychologically condition you to voluntarily surrender your guns. Clearly, they weren't expecting the American population to respond to this little scheme by purchasing more firearms. Eighty million gun owners determined to protect their freedoms should be quite an obstacle in the minds of U.N. gun grabbers.