Second Amendment Abolitionists Bolster Global Arms Treaty in Wake of Colorado Tragedy


Former UN ambassador John Bolton, says that the UN “is trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about international arms trade between nation states, but there is no doubt that the real agenda here is domestic firearms control.”

The Colorado massacre was hours old when the anti-gun abolitionists appeared to demand strict regulations be placed on private gun ownership.

From the Brady people to Mayor Bloomberg to the liberal media, attacks on the Second Amendment abounded.

The NRA is being attacked and now joins doctors, Tea Party people, Cambridge police officers, health insurance companies, gas and oil companies, banks, rich people, Catholics, Israel, Netanyahu, and so many others for demonization.

The NRA is successful because they represent what Americans want, which is something this administration doesn’t understand.

The Colorado Massacre is not about guns. It is about an evil deranged individual.

Checking the background of people who buy guns and reporting the sales of assault weapons and ammo is reasonable, but eliminating the second amendment is not. I don’t see why anyone needs magazine clips with a 100 shots. I do think that is not the issue we should be concentrating on in this case. The murderer could just as easily thrown a bomb into the theatre or used a timed explosive device.

If we are going to blame guns for the Colorado Massacre, why not blame armor, home made explosives, canisters, the Internet, Hollywood, society, and computer games? We must eliminate ownership of tripping wires, fertilizer, swords, and action movies – why stop at guns?

While we are blaming everyone but the killer, whose name will not be mentioned in this post, let’s blame Hollywood.

It is horrifyingly ironic that this tragedy took place during a violent action movie.

Hollywood movies often mock religion and family values while frequently relying on violence, wild sex, and amoral behavior. Isn’t the shooting more about Hollywood? Let’s shut down Hollywood (actually that might not be a bad idea.)

Violent computer games and vulgar music are also to blame and need to be eliminated by the standard being used by the gun haters.

President Obama came out right away to say he supported the second amendment. Does anyone really believe that? He’s running for office.

At the same time he is saying he is an advocate for gun rights, his administration is putting the final touches to a small arms treaty being negotiated with the U.N., a world body comprised of dictators, socialists and tyrannical regimes.

Obama and Hillary have both said they will sign the treaty (July 27th), which has to be ratified by the Senate but is in effect until the vote takes place, a vote which could be delayed endlessly by Harry Reid.

The U.N. Arms Treaty gives the U.N. authority over the second amendment. Our anti-gun administration will be able to use the treaty to clamp down on gun rights without having to worry about legislation blocking their efforts.

They will be able to blame the U.N. for every limitation they put on our gun rights and there will be many that will keep on coming.

The goal of the U.N. is the universal elimination of private gun ownership though the U.N. claims they don’t want to interfere with any individual country’s sovereign rights.

To see where this is going, we might want to consider Australia’s erosion of gun rights, though they never had a second amendment for protection.

Australia had a massive confiscation of private guns in 1996. Now the government wants to eliminate ownership of many types of knives and there is talk of disallowing any private ownership of guns.

The Australian confiscation began with the installation of Prime Minister, John Howard, who said, “I hate guns,” and unilaterally took them away.

He said guns were an American disease that he did not want in Australia. His thinking is in line with the entire U.K. where there is no shortage of violence.

Some people are allowed to own guns privately in Australia, but only for sports and target shooting, and only after they navigate a formidable morass of bureaucracy.

Both the pro and con gun advocates tout Australia as the model. The pro gun people say that crime doubled once they took the guns. The anti-gun people say that crime has gone down.

The fact is that the only evidence to support either side is from bloggers who take one side or the other.

One study claims that it is likely there is no difference because Australia never had a second amendment. They had so few guns that it is almost impossible to judge the issue with any certainty.

The Australian government studies are biased in favor of gun control.

Their studies omitted variables. For example, it is believed that 90% of the gun deaths prior to 1996 were due to suicides. Those have gone way down but suicides by other means have gone up significantly.

There is a growing illegal arms trade in Australia which is causing concerns.

Australians began the gun confiscation in response to a massacre of the type in Colorado. It had been the third one over the course of decades.

Strict gun controls have not prevented gun-related massacres in Scotland, Germany, India, England and Norway. To date, there have been none in Australia.

However, as one researcher, Samara McPhedran, an academic from the University of Sydney, argues, “mass shootings have been such a rare event historically … it’s incredibly difficult to perform a reliable statistical test on such rare events.”

Massacres, she argues, are a separate research question. McPhedran is the coauthor of a paper that reviews a selection of previous studies on the effects of the 1996 legislation. The conclusion she reaches is that these studies are “all over the place.”

The Sport Shooters Association of Australia said that they believe there is a “connection between the United Nations {UN} and Australia’s new so-called ‘national’ gun laws.

” Look no further than the UN Security Council’s pronouncements; they endorsed sweeping gun control measures, including a ban on private ownership of assault rifles.

Secretary-General Kofi Annan called for ways to reduce the global stockpile of some 500 million handguns, rifles, shotguns and assault weapons. The Australian government offered to buy back all of the listed firearms. They then imposed a 1% tax on everybody to raise the money necessary to secure the “illegal” firearms.

The massive 500 million buy back program was quickly, but poorly  implemented. Of the estimated 7 million firearms, roughly 40% are now prohibited. Close to 2.8 million firearms should have been surrendered to authorities.” About 600,000 were actually confiscated. Many people claim they buried their guns.

The association says “the anti-gun movement is the “creature of the most radical leftist elements of the worldwide movement. The tactics are the same, with only slight propaganda alterations to fit each country. It’s not surprising that the internationalist nose of the United Nations poked its way into the gun issue.”

In the United States, the National Center for Policy Analysis stated that “Despite some 20,000 gun laws in the United States, mostly at the state and local levels, there is little evidence that any but the most weakly motivated citizens have been discouraged from gun ownership. And there is no evidence that these gun-control laws have made a dent in the crime rate.”

Some examples they cite –

  • In 1976, Washington, D.C. enacted one of the most restrictive 
gun control laws in the nation. Since then, the city’s murder rate has 
risen 134 percent while the national murder rate has dropped 2 percent.
  • After Evanston, Ill., a Chicago suburb of 75,000 residents, 
became the largest town to ban handgun ownership in September 1982, it
experienced no decline in violent crime.
  • Among the 15 states with the highest homicide rates, 10 have
 restrictive or very restrictive gun laws.
  • Twenty percent of U.S. homicides occur in four cities with just 
six percent of the population — New York, Chicago, Detroit and
 Washington, D.C. — and each has a virtual prohibition on private
  • New York has one of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation
– and 20 percent of the armed robberies. Even more troublesome is the
 fact that the places where gun control laws are toughest tend to be the
 places where the most crime is committed with illegal weapons.

The center said that other countries have had the same experience. “After Canada passed a gun control law in 1977, the murder rate failed to decline, but armed robbery and burglary, crimes frequently deterred by gun ownership, increased.”

Massacres have occurred throughout our history and there is no indication that any of them would have been prevented if private gun ownership was banned. Criminals know how to find guns and banning them will open a more flourishing illegal gun trade.

In the case of the Colorado murderer, he could have simply dropped a bomb in the theatre as I said.

The United States had a ban on assault weapons and some handguns from 1994 to 2004. While it was in effect, there was no appreciable difference in gun crime. The opposition says there were loopholes that neutralized the ban such as grandfathering in people who already owned assault weapons.

The United States has the highest gun ownership rate in the world and that figure continues to grow. Despite this, the incidence of homicidal violence in the United States has declined. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the murder rate peaked in 1980 at 10.7 per 100,000 people and fell down to 4.8 in 2010.

The second amendment is a bipartisan issue. Democrats and Republicans alike support it. The Obama administration would never be able to pass legislation to severely restrict it, but the U.N. Small Arms Treaty will have the force of law, superseding our constitution. Our government will use it to erode our rights until we end up like Australia.

Sources: WikiGun Owners Org., Kellerman Study, AIC 2003 government study2006 University of Sydney analysis 2008 analysis University of Melbourne, Gun Owners/AuTime Magazine, National Center for Policy Analysis