UN Treaty and Fast & Furious —Tools of Gun Control


The history of the UN-ATT is intertwined with Fast & Furious and other false flags

David Knight
Infowars.com
September 25, 2013

It was just a few days ago that Henry Porter of the London Observer said:

This has reached the point where it has ceased to be a domestic issue. The world cannot stand idly by.

The UN has been working for a long time on tactics to disarm and control Americans. The purpose of the UN Arms Trade Treaty (UN-ATT) is to regulate the transfer of guns. That obviously requires that all guns be registered and tracked by governments — which is really about registering and tracking gun owners.

To get the ATT ratified, a watered down version is offered as a Trojan Horse with just a passing reference to “small arms”. Once it’s ratified, it can easily be changed and expanded with only 75% of UN countries voting for changes. That won’t be difficult considering it passed nearly unanimously, with only 3 countries (Iran, Syria and North Korea) voting against.

FALSE FLAGS & PUBLIC OPINION

The history of the UN-ATT is intertwined with false flags. Fast & Furious was supposed to lay the groundwork to scare the public about arms crossing the border. Even the NY Times pointed out that the purpose of our government shipping guns to Mexico in the “Gunwalker” programs was to scare the public about arms moving across borders and get the public to cry out for protection. And the UN-ATT was the legislation they had already prepared to offer as a solution.

The UN-ATT was originally scheduled for a vote last July. But Fast & Furious had been exposed and was in full blown controversy because the GOP wanted to use it for political gain — not because they wanted to end the BATF abuses or send anyone to jail for criminal behavior. The “Gunwalker” programs had been run under Bush prior to Obama.

Exactly one week before the UN was to vote on the UN-ATT, the Aurora, CO shooting was staged to try to energize gun control, take away attention from Fast & Furious and get American public opinion to support UN-ATT passage.

The history of the UN-ATT is intertwined with false flags.

The history of the UN-ATT is intertwined with false flags.

I was at the UN that week covering it for a pro-Second Amendment organization. There were a couple of groups demonstrating for passage and the corporate media was in full court press calling for gun control. But the Feds didn’t get the traction from Aurora that they needed thanks to the authentic media. So they decided to wait until after the US election and even made public statements to that effect. If Obama lost, it would be done after election but before the new President took office.

Within hours of Obama winning re-election and the Senate Democrats increasing in numbers, they announced that they wouldn’t do it in the lame duck session after all but in the spring. The Sandy Hook shooting took place Dec 15 and for 3 months Sandy Hook and gun control were the corporate media’s theme. Then the UN passed the Arms Trade Treaty on April 2.

THE RATIFICATION PROCESS

Kerry signed the UN-ATT today. Senators have warned that the treaty has to be ratified by the Senate (probably because Obama has a history of violating the Constitution and ignoring requirements for Congressional authorization).

Constitutionally, it doesn’t matter that the Secretary of State signed the treaty. President Clinton’s Secretary of State, Madeline Albright, signed another terrible UN treaty — the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, attacking the family — back in 1995. It never got any farther.

If Obama signs the treaty it still has to be ratified by the Senate. But it’s important to note that the Constitution doesn’t require 2/3 of the Senate to approve — only 2/3 of those PRESENT have to sign it. Will Harry Reid schedule a vote during a recess to get it ratified?

TREATIES DON’T CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION

Treaties don’t amend the Constitution but neither does regulatory law. However, the Feds act as if both do. Once the government passes a “law” or “regulation”, they enforce it. Citizens can fight them in court, but even when governments lose, it’s not uncommon for them to ignore the court decision. Washington, DC ignores the fact that the Supreme Court struck down their gun laws 5 years ago in DC v Heller. And court decisions striking down laws against photographing cops are being ignored across the country.

INFRINGING RIGHTS

Former General McChrystal, has publicly supported banning military weapons from being possessed by the people

That’s what our soldiers ought to carry. I personally don’t think there’s any need for that kind of weaponry on the streets

and at the same time has called for re-instating the draft. Admiral Mike Mullen, the ex-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said

he feared US civilians “do not know us” while the military had become increasingly “insular.”

McChrystal went on to say something very telling:

“Serious action is necessary. Sometimes we talk about very limited actions on the edges and I just don’t think that’s enough.”

“Very limited action around the edges” is exactly what “infringement” is. But not content with infringement, McChrystal is calling for more “serious action” implying, he’s ready to move on to confiscation. Clearly McChrystal & Mullen have no respect for the constitutional prohibition of a standing army and reject the constitutional prescription of a citizen militia like Switzerland.

The Founders used the term “shall not be infringed” in the Second Amendment because they knew that arms could never be confiscated from the people unless it was a gradual infringement, gradual and “limited actions on the edges” as McChrystal puts it.

One might ask why they used the term “shall not infringe” rather than “Congress shall pass no law” as in the First Amendment. If we look at Article 1, Sec 8, we see that Congress had already given authorization to pass laws that affected the militia. Congress was to organize, arm and call forth the people as a militia, i.e. support and aid the militia.

There is a clear distinction in the Constitution between a standing army (which was not to be funded for more than 2 years) and the militia. The militia, not the army, was tasked with “suppressing insurrections and repelling invasions” according to Article 1, Sec 8, Clause 15. The next clause, Article 1, Sec 8, Clause 16, gave Congress authority to organize, arm and train the militia and to appoint officers. That was what the term “well regulated” referred to in the Second Amendment — not the infringement of rights by bureaucratic “regulations”.

The Congress was tasked with arming the militia, not disarming it incrementally. The public’s understanding of militias and the army has been turned upside down by the schools and the corporate media. To correct it, we need to understand that a standing army and a national bank were correctly understood by the Founders to be the greatest threats to our liberties. The Constitution calls for a citizen militia, not a standing professional army, to defend the country.


Infowars.com Videos:


Comments are closed.