ABCs OF ATT: GOVERNMENTAL GUN-TRUSION
August 18, 2012
Yet again, senseless gun violence left its unsuspecting victims bereaved, bloodied, stunned, and inconsolably shaken; some less fortunate moviegoers didn’t survive this month’s deadly attack in Aurora, Colorado. It stands to reason that high-profile incidents, as this, demand public debate regarding gun ownership and safety.
Given a documentable, nationwide pattern of annual gun abuse in America’s schools, it’s becoming increasingly indefensible to argue that mass shooting incidents are “rare.” Sharing the frustration of most, and parroting increasingly popular belief, my hairdresser offered his solution: “Guns shouldn’t be legal.” He added, “We need to confiscate them all.”
Compelling as this sounds, attorney Phyllis Schlafly notes that, despite widespread misconceptions, gun control will not reduce firearms violence. Case in point: Passed five years before the Columbine massacre, the last significant federal gun law (Assault Weapons Ban, 1994) failed to abate subsequent gun rampages.
While there’s no easy solution, there is an obvious one. Benito Mussolini understood that, to restore public order, it’s necessary to issue a categorical order to confiscate the largest possible number of weapons of every sort and kind. The result he described as “satisfactory.” But for whom?
In 1788, George Mason warned “to disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” Hitler agreed. One of his first acts was to confiscate firearms from Jews. In Hitler’s view, "the most foolish mistake … would be to allow the subject races to possess arms.” Purporting "all political power comes from the barrel of a gun,” Chairman Mao insisted “the communist party must command all the guns; that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party."?
In contrast, when ratified in 1791, the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution established the right of Americans to keep and bear arms, a right “not to be infringed." Not by Hitler; not by Mao; not even by the President of the United States.
Terrorism on the Taxpayer’s Dime
Wearied by gun violence, often in normally peaceful communities, many believe instead that guns belong in the hands of authorities alone. Political correctness tramples common sense when Second Amendment naysayers accept that government can be trusted; but “we, the people” can’t.
Fostering this politically correct mindset, today’s public schools force children to endure realistic, very intense, and deeply traumatizing drills in preparation for potential gun attacks. Sometimes unbeknownst even to teachers, men in full military gear point guns, then fire blank rounds, at unsuspecting kids. Disturbingly, “children’s war games,” as this, are being mandated at the state level from coast to coast—annually, monthly, or several times a year.
Sometimes parents and teachers are notified in advance; sometimes not. Imagine the terror of finding local roads closed and emergency vehicles surrounding your child’s school and, then, discovering that your kid had been terrorized, shot at, instructed to feign gun injuries, forcefully relocated (some, temporarily housed elsewhere) away from parents with whom they’ve been denied cell phone contact.
Good Guys—or Bad?
Just when you think it can’t get any worse, you learn that in Muskegon County, Michigan, students and teachers are told that imaginary homeschoolers placed and detonated a bomb on a school bus. In New Jersey, they heard that “pretend” gunmen were "The New Crusaders"—specifically, rightwing, fundamentalist Christians who don't believe in separation of church and state.
Children under siege learn quickly that seemingly harmless neighbors and friends aren’t to be trusted, and government knows best. It’s been said, “When facts, truth and reality don't matter, critical thinking is an unnecessary skill.” Then again, facts, truth and reality DO matter. Think Castro, Qaddafi, Stalin, Idi Amin, Mao Tse-tung, and Pol Pot. To this list, I add the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
In June, a Greeley, Colorado woman filed a lawsuit—a legitimate one, in my view. While looking for a previous tenant who had left the address more than a year earlier, armed ATF agents violently stormed her home—without a warrant—broke down her son’s bedroom door, slammed her against a wall, then handcuffed and pointed multiple machine pistols at her eight-year old son and her. Upon emptying her purse for ID, the intruders realized she was not the person they were after. Those charged with protecting instead terrorized mother and child and, then, left the two unnerved and forever traumatized. No apologizes offered.
When the Indiana Supreme Court ruled “there is no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry” by gun-wielding police officers, the court admitted it was overturning hundreds of years of law going back to the Magna Carta, not to mention U.S. Supreme Court decisions. While authorities have a job to do, terrorizing unarmed, law-abiding citizens shouldn’t be one of them.
Infringement by Design
Even so, American citizens have a constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms; moreover, they have a right to defend themselves against crime and tyranny. Nevertheless, modern liberals believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans pose more of a threat than, say, nuclear weapons in the hands of the Red Chinese. Forget the Reds; gun-toting civilians must be stopped.
Someone’s got to do something, and Obama’s just the man to do it! Ostensibly to fight against terrorism, insurgency, and international crime syndicates, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently announced that the Obama Administration is working with the United Nations on a globally enforceable Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) to regulate firearms and prevent their exportation.
Global Gun-trusion Under Fire
The ATT has been met with a firestorm of opposition. But, never fear: "Urban myth" tester, Snopes.com, has a word for viral e-mails that allege this treaty provides a "legal way around the Second Amendment." That word is "scarelore."
But what’s “scary” isn’t always “lore.” Guess who holds the conference’s top, elected post? You got it: Iran. The same Iran that (1) imposes (to quote Ahmadinejad) “burning in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury” on “anybody who recognizes Israel” and (2) supplies Syria with weaponry to massacre its own civilians. Yes, that Iran.
With Iran tasked to devise a treaty to regulate global trade of conventional arms, it’s no big stretch to imagine how the ATT scheme will unfold. First, it will require countries to inventory and, then, register all guns. Eventually, guns previously owned by private citizens will be banned. In the end, a newly created international gun registry will set the stage for full-scale gun confiscation. Urban myth? I think not.
Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts!
“Scarelore” or “Scheme-antics”?
When nations of the world meet in New York this July 27, 2012, Hillary will be among the treaty’s likely signers. A goodly number of U.S. Senators oppose ATT—double the number needed—but that won’t stop her. If a ratification vote destines the treaty for defeat, why, then, would she sign? Be sure Hillary has a trick up her sleeve—namely, the Vienna Convention to which the United States is signatory.
According to the convention, an international treaty is enforceable unless (1) rejected by the Senate or (2) renounced by the President. With Obama’s reelection, four and one-half years of gun control will become established law; and U.S. District Courts will rule accordingly. Under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, the ATT would wield power of a constitutional amendment. So: Bye-bye, Second Amendment.
Frankly, I don’t feel any safer for it.
� 2012 Debra Rae - All Rights Reserved
Line of Worldwide School and Mass Shootings
2. Anti-homeschooling bigots strike again, Michelle Malkin
3. ATF Agents poing gun at 8 year old, WND - 6-5-12
4. UN Turns to Iran to Negotiate Global Arms Control Deal.