Obama-Kerry United Nations Treaty Requires US To Hand Over American Gun Registrations By redflagnews.com January 21, 2014
Did you know this? During September of 2013, John Kerry “on behalf of President Obama and the United States of America”, said (lied?) at the United Nations in New York, “This treaty will not diminish anyone’s freedom. In fact, the treaty recognizes the freedom of both individuals and states to obtain, possess, and use arms for legitimate purposes. Make no mistake, we would never think about supporting a treaty that is inconsistent with the rights of Americans … to be able to exercise their guaranteed rights under our constitution.” But here’s where he misled you about the UN Arms Trade Treaty… The New American reports that the UN Arms Trade Treaty was written in secret by the Obama/Hillary Clinton State Department, along with Russia, China, France and Britain. Not exactly a lineup of champions of liberty.
What does the treaty actually say? Article 2 defines the conventional arms covered, which include battle tanks, artillery systems, combat aircraft, attack helicopters, warships, missiles — and “small arms and light weapons.” Article 3 of the treaty places UN prohibitions on “ammunition/munitions fired, launched or delivered by the conventional arms (including small arms) covered under Article 2.” Article 4 puts all “parts and components” of weapons (including small arms) within the scheme. Several places in the treaty text, including Article 5, require all countries to “establish and maintain a national control system, including a national control list.” Moreover, it declares, “Each State Party is encouraged to apply the provisions of this Treaty to the broadest range of conventional arms.” Article 5, Section 4 says each State Party “shall provide its national control list to the Secretariat, which shall make it available to other States Parties.” The way I read this is it means our federal government will provide the guns and ammo registration list to the UN, which will provide it to Russia, China, Cuba — any and every State Party that wants it. If Secretary Kerry assures us that this treaty will not diminish anyone’s freedom, then why do the articles within the treaty say otherwise? This is more erosion of United States sovereignty while freedoms of Americans are being relinquished to other ‘state players’ of the United Nations to establish more ‘global’ control.
Racist Gun Control Laws Denied Martin Luther King Jr The Right To Defend Himself by bulletsfirst Jan 20, 2014 The basis for gun control has always been racist in nature. It started in the South to ensure that freed slaves wouldn’t be allowed to defend themselves. It has expanded over the years to encompass a larger range of goals such as controlling the populace at large and centralizing power within the government; can’t have those uppity peons thinking they are citizens after all. So it should come as no surprise that in 1956 when Dr. Martin Luther King Jr applied for a concealed weapons permit in Alabama, due to his receiving constant death threats and having his house BOMBED, he was denied. If a man like Dr. King wasn’t “worthy” to be given a concealed weapons permit then I submit that as proof that any notion of needing to ask the government for permission before exercising a right is flawed. If a civil rights leader who promotes non-violence and is a national figure who gets death threats constantly and has attempts made on his life does not meet the measure of gaining a CCW in a state that can arbitrarily deny him his right to keep and bear arms then the states themselves should have no say in it. This is what oppression looks like. This is tyranny. This is also a successful application of gun control. This is gun control working. It kept guns out of the hands of a man the government wanted disarmed. Since Dr. King wasn’t a criminal he did not illegally carry a gun. Let gun control activists crow about how the world is safer because Dr. King was disarmed. That’s all gun control CAN do…disarm the law abiding; the criminals just don’t care because THEY’RE CRIMINALS and will carry anyways.
And if you think that it is incongruent for a man of peace and non violence to carry a gun it’s not. It’s naive to think that a man who preaches non-violence must in turn be a sacrificial lamb for any racist who wants to do him and his family harm. So in the end, Martin Luther King Jr, a black Republican pastor who preached non violence and who had quantifiable reasons to be allowed to carry concealed was denied a permit because the government said he didn’t DESERVE that right. In 1968 an assassin took Dr. King’s life. Another life to add to the growing number of innocent people who gun control has had a hand in killing. You want to fight racism? Fight gun control. Every free man and women should be allowed to defend themselves and their families from threats and oppression; it’s been 151 years since the emancipation proclamation…isn’t it about time that all people were allowed to exercise their rights freely regardless of the color of their skin? Why Martin Luther King Would Not Have Supported Gun Control VIDEO BELOW http://conservativevideos.com/2014/01/martin-luther-king-supported-gun-control/ Police State 2000 VIDEO BELOW http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKty_3IlXOc Police State 4: The Rise of FEMA VIDEO BELOW http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Klqv9t1zVww
INFOWARS.COM BECAUSE THERE'S A WAR ON FOR YOUR MIND