“When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” – Thomas Jefferson
Government Control of Guns
By Dave Robbins
After years of slavery, our forefathers defected from England with dreams of a land that would be governed by the people, not a tyrannical king. In an effort to guarantee more freedom and less control, they signed the Constitution of the United States, which limited governmental control of the people.
To further restrict any ability to establish a strong central government, the US House of Representatives devoted the first ten amendments (Bill of Rights) of the Constitution to the protection of individual liberties. Of these, the Second Amendment gives every United States citizen the right to keep and bear arms—not with the intent of providing weapons to hunt rabbits, but as a means of defense against a tyrannical government that might seek to enslave individuals and to strip them of their God given right to “…Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.”
The Second Amendment states: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Some say this is not an individual right, but merely gives each state government the power to maintain a military force.
The reason for the debate is simple. All men are endowed by their Creator, not government, with certain unalienable rights. One of those rights is the ability to keep and protect their freedom. Consequently, any government or dictator seeking to strip United States citizens of those freedoms and to control the people must intentionally misinterpret the Second Amendment and take away the citizens’ ability to resist. Hence, gun control laws.
Isn’t it clear why our forefathers signed the Second Amendment into law? They knew exactly what it was like to live in slavery under a dictator who disarmed the masses and left no means for resistance. The critical question today then is this: If the only reason for disarmament is to control the masses, why is there presently such a push for gun control in the United States and around the world?
From Armed Citizens to Slaves
For over one thousand years, it had been customary for an Englishman to serve in a citizen’s army or militia, which originally required every individual to be armed and to defend the realm if needed. This system of universal armament was successful for two reasons: (1) Each citizen had a way to defend himself and to protect his individual liberties. (2) Monarchial rule was kept in check by sheer physical force, should a tyrannical government try to enslave the population.
During the Stuart Period (1603-1714 AD), there was civil war between the kings and Parliaments, which resulted in each side vying for control of the militia. Consequently, this led to the disarmament of many English citizens because both sought to confiscate the arms of the opposing faction. In the end, Parliament forces prevailed and the citizen-soldiers of England were turned into the “New Model Army” in 1645.
However, Parliament misjudged the loyalty of the army to the people of England. This, coupled with no Parliament paycheck and an attack on their religious freedoms, led to the Rump Parliament where the army actually took over the government under the leadership of Oliver Cromwell. But Cromwell died in 1659 and the Parliament was reinstated by General George Monk in 1660.
This new Parliament, which was made up of those that favored the monarchy, placed Charles II on the throne. Charles disbanded the army, except for those that were loyal to the crown. Immediately, Charles began to disarm any person who was judged dangerous to his empire. This left the standing armies in the power of the king to protect his kingdom and, without the system of universal armament, ended the ability of English citizens to defend their individual liberties and forced them into slavery.
After defecting from England because of the tyrannical rule of King George, our forefathers sought to build a new country that was governed by the people. These were educated men, and they knew that, over time, there would be those that would try to usurp authority over free American citizens. In order to declare our freedom from oppression and provide a safeguard against a tyrannical government ever enforcing its will upon free people, the original founders wrote the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. These documents clearly define the mindset of our forefathers in the late eighteenth century.
The opening statements of the Declaration of Independence provide a distinct remedy for the infectious disease of a tyrannical government, which would seek to deprive free men of their God-given rights to, “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” The Declaration states, “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government…” and “…it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
In an effort to further restrict governmental encroachment upon the people, the Constitution of the United States was signed into law in 1787 and remains the supreme law of the land. In essence, it tells the government what it can and cannot do. In order to avoid a dictatorship or tyranny, the original framers built a system of checks and balances into the government by dividing it into three parts: legislative, executive and judicial, thus limiting the ability of any one political entity from retaining all the power. Regardless of which state each framer was representing, one main determination propelled them all… No dictatorship shall ever run the United States of America!
After the Constitution was adopted, several state representatives determined that the wording of the Constitution was vague concerning individual liberties. As a result, James Madison wrote the first ten amendments to the Constitution known as the Bill of Rights. These ten amendments are a very specific list of restrictions placed on the federal government, further protecting the individual rights of each United States citizen and cannot be usurped under any circumstance.
In forging these documents history tells us that, even though our founding fathers did not always see eye-to-eye, there were two things that all of them agreed on: (1) A central government or dictator should never be allowed to usurp the authority of the people. (2) Universal armament is the only check against a tyrannical government. Consequently, the first point is addressed in the Constitution, while protection for the latter is clearly stated in the Second Amendment.
The Second Amendment
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed,”
Of the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment is the most debated today. Some have said that it gives the state the right to control any militia and that only those individuals should be armed. Others say, because of the Game Act Law passed by the English in 1671, which restricted hunting to those of wealth, that the Second Amendment only allows citizens a weapon capable of hunting. But this is simply not the case.
The original framers of the Constitution knew that there needed to be a specific provision to arm the people. Why? The answer is clearly found throughout the documents that were used to forge our nation. Armed United States citizens have the right to protect their individual liberties and property against any government or dictatorship that would try to strip them of either.
Not only were arms to be used as a defense against a tyrannical government, but our forefathers also believed that it was the duty of every American citizen to throw off any such government or dictator and to provide new leadership for the future of this nation. That is the reason for the Second Amendment. Without the universal armament of the population, this would not be possible.
For this cause our forefathers pledged their “…Lives, Fortunes and sacred Honor,” to the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States and the Second Amendment—thus protecting the right of every individual United States citizen to keep and bear arms. They understood there was only one reason why any government or dictator would seek to disarm the population…absolute control with no means of resistance!
Disarming the United States
Gun control in the United States was virtually unheard of until the early nineteen hundreds. Since then, at the federal level, three sets of gun control laws have been passed, upon which most disarmament lawsuits are founded: (1) National Firearms Act of 1934 placed a huge tax on machine guns and other “gangster” weapons. (2) The Gun Control Act of 1968 made it illegal to purchase a rifle or shotgun by mail order (President Kennedy was shot with a mail order rifle), and called for stricter licensing requirements for dealers and further detailed individuals restricted from purchasing a firearm. (3) The Brady Handgun Violence Protection Act of 1993 required a five day waiting period and background check for the sale of handguns as well as requiring the establishment of a National Instant Criminal Background Check System.
Over the past few years, attempts at gun control legislation in the United States have been almost non-existent at the federal level. Even with these laws on the books, Americans still find it fairly easy to acquire a gun. With recent victories such as McDonald vs. Heller, in which the Supreme Court ruled that the Chicago, Illinois ban on “Handgun Ownership” was unconstitutional, it is not the past or present that has gun owners concerned, but the future.
To everyone’s surprise, during his first term, President Obama has been fairly mute on the issue of gun control. However, all one has to do is look at his previous voting record and statements on the issue prior to taking office, to see why everyone is concerned. According to www.ontheissues.org, these are the important ones:
1998 – Voted to ban semi-automatics and add more possession restrictions
2000 – Co-sponsored bill to limit purchases to one gun per month
2004 – Claimed that Bush erred in failing to renew the assault weapons ban
2005 – Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits on gun manufacturers
2006 – I believe in keeping guns out of inner cities
2007 – Stop unscrupulous gun dealers dumping guns in cities
2008 – Opposed bill that would allow illegal gun use in home invasions
2008 – FactCheck: Yes, Obama endorsed Illinois handgun ban
2008 – “Bittergate” – Obama said at private fundraiser about working class voters, “They cling to guns or religion…as a way to explain their frustrations.”
2008 – Provide some common-sense enforcement on gun licensing
Furthermore, while speaking at a Democratic Primary Debate on April 16, 2008, he stated: “As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can’t constrain the exercise of that right,” advocating a restriction of gun rights at the state and local levels.
Consequently, with the possibility of Barack Obama being re-elected in 2012, gun sales have hit record levels, just like they did in his election year. Why? Because Americans believe that, once the president no longer has to worry about being re-elected, he will show his true colors concerning gun control.
Is he capable of this? Absolutely! On March 26, while discussing European missile defense, President Obama told Russian President Dmitry Medvedev that the issue could be solved, but Moscow would need to give him space (referring to incoming President Vladimir Putin). He went on to say, “This is my last election… After my election, I have more flexibility.”
Because of this, most gun owners feel that they are in a proverbial “calm before the storm” concerning gun rights and rightfully so!
America’s Leaders are Pro-Gun Control
Unfortunately, President Obama is not the only one who favors gun control in this country. He has surrounded himself with a plethora of like-minded individuals, intent on eviscerating our Second Amendment rights. Here are a few:
The first step is to take weapons off the streets and to put more police on them. The Brady Bill, which my husband signed into law in 1995, imposes a 5-day waiting period for gun purchases—time enough for authorities to check out a buyer’s record and for the buyer to cool down about any conflict he might have intended the gun to resolve. Since it was enacted, more than 40,000 people with criminal records have been prevented from buying guns. The 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act banned 19 types of military-style assault weapons whose only purpose is to kill people.
It Takes A Village, by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
In the so-called Biden crime bill, we put 100,000 cops on the street. I’ve worked with law enforcement for the past 30 years, with armor-piercing bullets, waiting periods, etc. But the one thing that’s clear: We should not have let the assault weapons ban lapse. – Vice President Joe Biden
What we need to do is change the way in which people think about guns, especially young people, and make it something that’s not cool, that it’s not acceptable, it’s not hip to carry a gun anymore, in the way in which we changed our attitudes about cigarettes.” “…really brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way. – Attorney General Eric Holder
Even with the threat of a “seemingly” tyrannical government at the helm, Americans still believe that we are the last bastion of freedom in the world today. We have the one unique document that separates us from all other nations on the earth, the Constitution of the United States of America. It protects our right to keep and bear arms, and no government on earth can supersede its authority. Or can it?
Recently, when asked before a Senate Armed Services Committee if he thought he could initiate a no-fly zone over Syria without Congressional approval, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta replied, “Our goal would be to seek international permission, and we would come to the Congress and inform you.”
Wow! Is this to become the new mode of operation for the United States of America? Could it be possible, knowing that he could never get restrictive gun control laws passed in the United States, that President Obama would now subject American citizens to the United Nations universal disarmament efforts? The answer is yes!
Arms Trade Treaty
When an international treaty on the sale of small arms was proposed in 2006, the Bush administration opposed it due to potential loopholes in the treaty, choosing rather to rely on national control. At that time, the United States was the only nation to stand in opposition.
However, President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced in October 2010 that they would reverse the United States position and support the United Nations sponsored talks on a proposed Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), with final negotiations occurring in July 2012.
Although the United Nations would like to pass this off as an international treaty restricting the exporting and importing of illegal firearms, former United Nation’s Ambassador John Bolton set the record straight in an interview with USRKBA concerning the UN treaty: “The hidden agenda of a lot of the people who sought to negotiate a small arms treaty really had less to do with reducing dangers internationally and a lot more to do with creating a frame work for gun control statutes at the national level. There was very little doubt, if you looked at the non-governmental organizations that were surrounding the UN and the negotiations they were perusing, some of the language they were trying to introduce into the negotiations, that the international aspects of the whole process were much less significant, from their point of view, than trying to constrain national government. And, specifically, and most importantly, constrain the United States.”
He went on to say that, “After the treaty is approved and it comes into force, you will find out that it has this implication or that implication and it requires the Congress to adopt some measure that restricts ownership of firearms. The [Obama] administration knows it cannot obtain this kind of legislation purely in a domestic context. … They will use an international agreement as an excuse to get domestically what they couldn’t otherwise.”
No wonder President Obama and Mrs. Clinton have signed on to support this treaty. If ratified in the US Senate, it would accomplish overnight what they have been trying to do for years…place stricter gun control laws on each and every United States citizen!
It is now obvious that Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and Eric Holder, among others, are willing to sidestep the Constitution of the United States and work hand-in-hand with the United Nations for the universal disarmament of every person on earth in order to achieve one common goal…
What does the United Nations really hope to gain from an international arms treaty?
Control! Control! Control!
As an institution of global governance since its inception, the United Nations’ founding members have dreamed of a globalized world where all nations would operate under the rule of international law. The only way for that to happen would be for them to universally disarm the planet, which would allow them to strategically position their “fully armed” UN peacekeeping forces around the world to “keep the peace”.
With this in mind, the United Nations Charter, which was drafted by Alger Hiss (a convicted communist spy) and signed in 1945, gives the UN Security Council the responsibility of, with the help of a Military Staff Committee, the regulation and possible disarmament of the world’s weapons. Hence, the arms treaties!
If these treaties are ratified by the US Senate, the United Nations and President Obama would have accomplished the goal of by-passing the Second Amendment to implement stricter gun control laws on American citizens.
The United Nations does not have a Second Amendment because it is diametrically opposed to the idea of arming citizens. Why?
Absolute control with no means of resistance!
The Bible Prophesies World Government
According to the Bible, there will be a world government established on earth just before the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. It will control the world politically, religiously and economically. This global government will eventually be ruled by one man, a personage referred to in scripture as the Antichrist.
Revelation 13 describes this coming New World Order. Verses 1-8 describe the one-world government, verses 11-15 the global religious system, and verses 16-18 the world economic system.
Each of these globalized governing entities will be used to force every citizen on earth to pledge allegiance to the world government and its ruler, the Antichrist.
Just like the United Nations platform today, the Antichrist will come into power with a plan for the universal disarmament of the planet, all “in the name of peace.”
Wake Up, Citizens of the World!
Was peace the reason the world empires of Babylon, Media-Persia, Greece and Rome conquered their adversaries and turned them into slaves? No!
Maybe peace is what Adolph Hitler was thinking when he disarmed the Jews and led them to the gas chambers? No!
Perhaps it was peace that motivated Mao Tse-tung and Joseph Stalin to kill millions? No!
Is it possible that peace was behind the disarmament of England, which led to the slavery of our forefathers? No!
There is only one reason in history for the universal disarmament of citizens. Absolute control with no means of resistance!
Leave a Reply