U.S. Citizens: the Coming UN-Led Push
recently, the federal government pledged to contribute $1.3 billion
in taxpayer dollars to the United Nations’ anti-AIDS campaign. This
came about as part of a three-day convention on AIDS. On Monday,
internationalist Colin Powell pledged that the U.S. (i.e., U.S.
taxpayers) would give still more money to fight AIDS. The dominant
media dutifully reported all of this.
wonders to what extent they will report the 11-day confab scheduled
to begin on July 9. As of this writing, I’ve seen nothing except
on the Internet.
topic of this upcoming event is gun control, so-called. Its purpose
is discussing various strategies for controlling the distribution
of "small arms," i.e., a global strategy for disarming
not governments but citizens. It is fair to say that UN superelites
and the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution are on direct
collision course and have been for several years now. Gun control,
so-called, has been a popular stance for doctrinaire leftists of
all stripes, with some of them vocally wishing they could make every
gun just disappear whatever this means.
use the phrase gun control, so-called, to underscore the
fact that what is proposed is not so much the control of guns
but the control of people. If laws banning guns were intended
to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, then these laws are
dismal failures all over the world. In the late 1990s Australia
passed some of the strictest gun measures in the world. Violent
crime immediately skyrocketed. Other nations have had similar experiences.
The American city with the strictest gun laws, Washington, D.C.,
is also the most crime-ridden. John Lott has demonstrated in a book
and in any number of articles that there is a direct relationship
between the crime rate and the perception that citizens are unable
to defend themselves. While the media has maintained a strict blackout
on Lott’s work, his results make perfect sense. Criminals may be
immoral but they are not irrational; they will usually think twice
about holding someone up who might be carrying a concealed weapon,
or robbing a house if they are afraid the owner will shoot back.
the UN wants to finish the job of disarming us that U.S. leftists
have started. The upcoming summit, to begin on July 9 and run until
July 20, is called the United Nations Conference on the Illlicit
Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons In All Its Aspects. According
to the UN’s website
which provides a wealth of information on the conference, "Small
arms are weapons designed for personal use, while light weapons
are designed for use by several persons serving as a crew. Examples
of small arms include revolvers and self-loading pistols, rifles,
sub-machine guns, assault rifles and light machine-guns. Light weapons
include heavy machine-guns, mortars, hand grenades, grenade launchers,
portable anti-aircraft and anti-tank guns and portable missile launchers."
Small arms, in other words, are weapons that can be carried by one
person, e.g., handguns. Much of the material on the UN website seems
– shall we say – intended to disarm with its overall tenor. The
press kit stresses the humanitarian goals of the UN in the face
of the roles played by small arms and light weapons in the conflicts
of the past few years, the effects of these conflicts on children,
and so on. (Never mind that most of the conflicts of recent years
have been fomented by the same superelites that are now pushing
for controls on weapons; the push for global government has gained
by leaps and bounds by destabilizing regions such as the former
introductory statement concludes, "The international community
has come to recognize that the excessive and destabilizing accumulation
of and illicit trafficking in those weapons is a global threat to
peace and security. Small arms fuel conflicts and pose serious danger
to innocent civilians as well as to humanitarian workers and peacekeepers.
The international community needs to take concerted action to end
this scourge." While claiming that "A ban is impossible
because … small arms and light weapons are necessary for a State’s
legitimate right of self-defence," the overall strategy is
toward "a politically binding declaration a programme
of action that will continue the process of controlling small
arms and light weapons. Two areas cited by the draft plan are ‘negotiation
of an international instrument to identify and trace the lines of
supply of small arms and light weapons’ and negotiations on an international
instrument ‘to restrict the production and trade in small arms and
light weapons to registered manufacturers and brokers’ authorized
other words, we are looking at gun control, so-called, going international,
with ownership and trade of guns out of the hands of private citizens
and controlled by governments under the watchful eye of the
UN. Ensuing material elaborates the efforts involved in putting
"into place laws to exercise effective control over the legal
manufacturing, transfer and possession of small arms and light weapons
and to ensure punishment for the breaking of those laws." Other
programs are also in the works. One "would … establish a standardized
marking system so that weapons can be traced in the event of their
illegal use or transfer. Unmarked weapons could be destroyed."
Another would set out to "establish tighter export controls
with enhanced end-user certificates to ensure that small arms and
light weapons are exported only to legitimate recipients; this could
be supplemented by national systems for regulating arms brokers."
In other words, universal gun registration, taken to an international
level as seen by the following: "Laws could also be changed
to make violations of United Nations arms embargoes a breach of
national laws." The UN acts, in a power grab of unprecedented
proportions, implementing policy that will supercede national law
in a manner similar to how centralized national law has come to
supercede state and local law. "Tighter controls over the possession
of and access to small arms and light weapons by both authorized
government bodies (police, armed forces) and by civilians would
also help stem the illicit flow of arms."
we are talking about here is the centralization of control over
guns, and therefore over law-abiding citizens’ ability to defend
themselves from power-grabbers, on a scale never dreamt of until
just the past few years. The above statements are all off the UN’s
own website, where anyone can check their accuracy and context.
The global gun grabbers are not hiding; they are not conspiring
behind our backs. What is going on, as I have long insisted, is
going on right before our eyes; anyone who knows how to access the
Internet can read the full extent of the documentation for himself.
calls by leftists for gun control go back many years, of course,
the UN’s current plans got underway in 1995, when then-Secretary
General Boutros Boutros-Ghali was asked to appoint a "panel
of government experts" to prepare a report on the distribution
of small arms. This report was finally submitted to the current
UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan, in 1997. It included such provisions
as: "All States should determine in their national laws and
regulations which arms are permitted for civilian possession and
the conditions under which they can be used." And: "All
States should ensure that they have in place adequate laws, regulations
and administrative procedures to exercise effective control over
the legal possession of small arms and light weapons and over their
new group of "government experts" convened in 1998 to
report on the progress of implementing the 1997 recommendations.
Their report was submitted in August, 1999. It took note of the
gun control initiatives in various countries such as Australia.
The panel further recommended: "States [i.e., nations]
should work toward the introduction of appropriate national legislation,
administrative regulations and licensing requirements that define
conditions under which firearms can be acquired, used and traded
by private persons. In particular, they should consider the prohibition
of unrestricted trade and private ownership of small arms and light
is, in the United States, an important stumbling block to all this:
the U.S. Constitution. The Second Amendment articulates the right
of law-abiding citizens to bear arms: "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." Notice
there is no reference here to Congress or any other governmental
body, as can be found in the First Amendment. A great deal of ink
has been spilled on the "interpretations" of the Second
Amendment, including whether it applies to individual citizens or
to some other entity. I shall take the position that it means just
what it says, and is very fundamental: clearly the Constitution
cannot protect itself. An armed citizenry has always had the potential
to restrain the growth of government. Disarmed people are no longer
citizens of a free republic but subjects of an empire. Dr. Herbert
L. Calhoun, the U.S. representative on the "panel of government
experts," endorsed the UN’s plans anyway.
fact, discussions of the U.S. Constitution or the Second Amendment
are conspicuous in their absence from the UN statements we have
considered. A standard browser search of the various pages of the
UN website dealing specifically with the Conference on the Illlicit
Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons In All Its Aspects turned
up no references to either the Second Amendment or the Constitution
itself. So despite the appeals to "international law,"
the rule of law does not appear to be foremost in the minds of those
in the UN General Assembly nearly all of whom, after all,
come from places with no tradition of liberty and the rule of law
whatsoever. It is clear, moreover, that even if the UN cannot, all
by itself, compel the U.S. government to implement its massive agenda
of gun control, UN superelites and their supporters are in a position
to place enormous pressure on the U.S. All they have to do is exploit
their wealth of contacts in the media. All of a sudden we will see
an avalanche of unsigned editorials and other commentaries on how
dangerous guns are. We read about every single instance of a child
being killed accidentally by a gun. (In fact the numbers here are
statistically insignificant there are far more people killed
in automobile accidents annually than will ever be killed by guns.).
The dominant media will deluge us about how other nations are implementing
measures to control guns, and how the U.S. needs to "get with
the program," get into the 21st century and follow
suit. The ridicule and fear of being ostracized in the "international
community" will be too great for the majority of politicians
to resist. (At present, only the ever-reliable Ron Paul, R-Tx, is
putting up a gallant effort to defend the Constitution from the
UN globalists.) They can also exploit corporate America, which having
fallen hook, line and sinker for every politically correct fad of
the 1990s, is fruit ripe for the picking for the global statism
now emerging. Some companies, such as K-Mart, are already curtailing
sales of ammunition, in response to the popular ambience in which
guns are considered sources of evil. Can other large chains be far
behind, if pressure is actually placed on them by the media?
the greatest danger – as one would expect – is coming from American
politicians’ falling in step with the UN’s plans for disarming citizens
the world over. Consider, for example, the "bipartisan" McCain-Leiberman
Bill (S.890), otherwise known as the "Gun Show Loophole Closing
and Gun Law Enforcement Act of 2001." To say the least, it does
far more than deal with an alleged "loophole" allowing criminals
to buy guns at gun shows, as Brad Edmonds has already
shown. Those who have studied this bill even further such as
Alan Korwin, author of Gun
Laws of America and other books, serve up a frightening spector.
What this bill does is call for a massive centralization of all
transactions at such shows, even those not involving guns, and for
massive information-gathering not just on vendors but all attendees
as well. Here, according to Korwin, is what the bill calls for:
control will be asserted over gun shows nationwide otherwise
legal gun shows will have to be licensed, registered, and granted
promoters must obtain federal licenses and registration.
vendor at a gun-show even those not selling guns
also must obtain federal licenses and registration. (For one
of us to attend a show for the purpose of selling a book we
still have to preregister with the federal government or risk
being arrested and charged with a federal crime.)
person who attends a gun show must be registered with the federal
government even if you have nothing to sell and buy nothing.
You will not be allowed in without registering.
of "any other information" on gun-show attendees will
be required. What any other information means is determined
solely by the Secretary of the Treasury.
will be the penalty for anyone who attends a gun show and fails
to supply the information required by these new regulations.
will be the penalty for any promoter who allows a single vendor
into the show without federal registration.
will be the penalty for any promoter who cannot prove he notified
every person attending the gun show of the new rules and obtained
the required information.
will have to submit vendor registration logs at least 30 days
before the gun show, submit updated vendor registration logs
72 hours before any gun show, and supply additional vendor registration
logs within five days of the close of any gun show noncompliance
again resulting in arrest and imprisonment.
must by identified with a federally approved photo ID that may
include a social security number, electronically encoded information
or biometric identifiers such as fingerprints, voice print,
retinal scan, iris scan or similar (as defined under 18 US 1028(d)(2).
new license will be created (in addition to the gun-show promoter’s
license) for individuals who want access to the NICS national
background check system for facilitating gun-show sales for
will be issued by the Secretary of the Treasury on procedures,
data collection, methods and implementation of the entire process
of centrally regulating gun shows; the full scope of these central
regulations will not even be drafted until after McCain-Lieberman
governments will be placed under pressure so that at least 95
percent of their law enforcement records open to federal inspection
for the past 30 years, with:
quantities of federal funds so the states can comply with
review of states’ compliance,
penalites (up to ten years imprisonment) for record-keeping
granted to state governments to make even more restrictive
requirements without being out of compliance with the federal
ones (and, by implication, placing states that resist these
rules in federal trouble),
of millions of taxpayer dollars supplied for more law enforcement
hiring of 200 more BATF agents
$10 million to the National Institute for Justice to research
"technologies that limit the use of a gun to the owner,"
annual reports to be made by the Attorney General to Congress
on whether the Brady law is working.
federal bureaucracy will be expanded and appropriation of however
many taxpayer dollars are required to license, register and
monitor perhaps ten million law-abiding citizens who attend
the thousands of gun shows held annually in the United States.
finally, for good measure, there is a clause that makes a private
citizen engaging in a voluntary transaction with another private
citizen a federal criminal if the transaction involves the first
selling a gun to the second without registering the transfer
and getting the permission of the federal bureaucrats in the
data complex in Clarksburg, W.Va.
McCain-Leiberman bill thus dovetails nicely with the UN agenda
so nicely, in fact, that it ought to be difficult to believe, even
for those not prone to accepting "conspiracy theories,"
that we are looking at what is fundamentally a single package here.
The aim of that package (of laws, licenses, technology, etc.) is
to disarm law-abiding U.S. citizens. It is worth remembering, in
this context, that every 20th century dictatorship, whether
of the communist variety or the fascist variety, climbed to power
on the backs of a disarmed citizenry. There is a great deal more
to this agenda, and no doubt more details are unearthed of the efforts
by UN superelites to turn us all into subjects of a global police
state. The fact that this article is based only on a small portion
of the UN’s website ought to give all of us a few extra sleepless
Yates [send him mail]
has a Ph.D. in Philosophy and is the author of Civil
Wrongs: What Went Wrong With Affirmative Action. He is presently
compiling selected essays into a single volume tentatively entitled
What Is Wrong With the New World Order and Other Essays and
Commentary and a work on a second book, The Paradox of Liberty.
He also writes for the Edgefield
Journal, and is available for lectures. He lives in Columbia,
South Carolina, and is starting his own freelance writing business,
Millennium 3 Communications.
© 2001 LewRockwell.com