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:
www.jpfo.org/proposaldestruction.pdf .
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 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_ (
www.innocentsbetrayed.com ) 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 at www.jpfo.org/proposaldestruction.pdf
. 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"
http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/ArmsTrade/SmallArms.asp.
