EDITORIAL BY LYNN TEGER
Founder, Citizens for Protection of Property Rights in Rockland County
The United Nations is working towards global disarmament through their US Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty (“ATT”) which is being held this week in New York. Many UN Member Nations have already disarmed their own citizens and that is exactly what they would like to see happen in the United States. The United Nations is an unelected body, accountable to no one, working to outlaw our gun rights.
However, the UN is not working alone. They’ve got a propaganda machine tirelessly working every day targeting the NRA and gun owners as evil. That propaganda machine is known as “The International Action Network on Small Arms” (“IANSA”) located in London, England.
According to IANSA’s mission statement, through research, advocacy and campaigning, IANSA members are promoting local, national, regional and global measures and, its goal is “to stop the proliferation and misuse of small arms and light weapons.” IANSA’s power and influence comes from over 500 anti-gun, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) who are members of the group.
Rebecca Peters, who originally headed up IANSA, also worked for well-known philanthropist, billionaire and gun-hater George Soros’ Open Society Institute. Ms. Peters has been successful in obtaining an endless supply of money for IANSA’s gun control agenda.
Ms. Peters led the gun ban in Australia, and is resigned to do the same to Americans. Ms. Peters is now an international arms control advocate. With her leadership, the Australian gun law banned all gun ownership. The Australian government destroyed more than about 650,000 of these weapons, with the largest gun buyback and destruction program in history.
Britain gave a $2 million grant to IANSA in 2001 through an organization Britain created to hide the real source of this money, known as the Global Conflict Prevention Pools (“GCPP”), whose purpose is disarmament and tackling the proliferation of small arms. It makes one wonder, after over 230 years: Did we really ever truly win our freedom from the King of England?
UNICEF, a UN organization which always had a reputation for benevolence in the world, is a partner in all of this. According to Carol Bellamy, Executive Director, “The spread of small arms creates a serious global problem and requires an equally urgent response because the lives and futures of children are at stake. These weapons have extinguished more young lives than they have protected.”
England and Australia have already proven that their gun bans have backfired. Crimes have sky rocketed and innocent victims have been left defenseless. However, many countries are already enforcing the UN’s agenda, such as Japan, England, and surprisingly, Canada – leading the way.
The UN’s ultimate goal is a binding international treaty and the UN just may succeed. If a treaty is ratified, our rights will be gone. Or, maybe all we need is an anti-gun President, who will pass an executive order, such as President Clinton did in the early 1990s with the implementation of United Nations Agenda 21, which has been stealthily being implemented under the name of “Sustainable Development” for the past 20 years.
Thomas P. Kilgannon, President of the Freedom Alliance, and author of “Diplomatic Divorce: Why the US Should End its Love Affair with the UN” describes the UN’s Arms Trade Treaty being discussed in New York this week, as “an international agreement that is very broad and overreaching.”
Mr. Kilgannon claims that the UN Arms Trade Treaty is trying to regulate the manufacture, ownership and possession of conventional firearms, big and small. It would also reach into other aspects of the manufacturing, technology, related parts and equipment that are all part of the firearms industry and create an international bureaucracy that would adjudicate and enforce the provisions of the treaty.
According to Mr. Kilgannon, the UN Arms Trade Treaty aims to “track and regulate every gun ever made.” The NRA said the treaty would also regulate the manufacture of shotguns.
So, the question is, do we currently have an anti-gun President and Senate? During the Democratic Presidential debate back in 2008 between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, a question was asked about Washington DC’s then gun control law which had been in place since 1976 and which was before the Supreme Court at that time.
The question asked was if this gun control law, which “prohibited” gun ownership conflicted with an individual’s right to bear arms. President Obama replied, “Just because you have an individual right doesn’t mean that that state or local government can’t “constrain” the exercise of that right.” Is “prohibition” the same as “constraint”? Doesn’t our Second Amendment state that our right to bear arms “shall not be infringed”?
Americans have more to be concerned about than Cuomo’s SAFE Act and the Federal regulations to disarm us. It’s time for us to look back at history, look at the big picture and connect the dots over the past 100 years.
It’s time to get the United Nations out of the United States.