A Glimpse of UN Darkness

After reading Wayne LaPierre’s “The Global War on Your Guns: Inside the UN Plan to Destroy the Bill of Rights” and experiencing vicariously the boot-stomping good times of globalists as they play the latest round of Guns-Be-Gone, Rosie O’Donnell’s call-for-all-arms seems almost patriotic.

“Most discussions at the United Nations are deservedly obscure, but the debate over guns really matters,” LaPierre begins. “It’s about firearm ownership … individual liberty and national sovereignty. It’s a battle for America’s soul.”

If soul-battling seems too radical a concept to accept — if you’re of the opinion the global government is a distant entity having little to do with day-to-day affairs of America — then close the cover, close your eyes and return your mind to its rightful dimension, the Land of Oz. On the way, dismiss LaPierre as a gun-totin’ redneck, leader of the gun-totin’ redneck society — the National Rifle Association — and repeat this mantra as needed until peaceful oblivion returns.

For the rest, the f-word takes front and center: facts. Beginning with a description of the UN treaty banning guns and its effects nationally and globally, and leading into analysis of the test-casing disarmament efforts that plagued Brazil and led to the lesson of chapter 11, “Don’t Trust Direct Democracy,” LaPierre weaves more pesky, inconvenient facts into his conclusions than the average Kofi Annan yes-man can stand. The result: a solid accounting of the vulnerability of the 2nd Amendment that’s more than insightful — it’s important.

A UN treaty banning gun ownership in America has yet to gain majority approval of the nation or Senate ratification, thanks in large part to U.S. Ambassador to the UN John Bolton.

But, LaPierre writes, “There are many ways in which extreme UN gun laws could be enforced in the U.S., even without ratification of a repressive treaty by the U.S. Senate.”

For instance: “The President could call the documentan ‘an agreement’ rather than a ‘treaty.’ Then, instead of needing two-thirds of the Senate, the document simply needs a majority in the U.S. House and Senate for approval.”

Or: “Another back-door approach to extreme gun control would be an international treaty that, on its face, looks innocuous … Then, a President might convince a majority of both houses … to make the document into law, since it appears to be harmless to U.S. rights.”

There’s the knocking off “One Country at a Time” method. For example, in Cambodia, even after years of abuse by a government upon its people, the steady call for arms never stops. It only adjusts its pitch. Cambodia is now faced with choosing between schools and guns. “(If) a community does not surrender its (guns) … the government will not build any schools, clinics, roads or bridges,” he explains.

But that couldn’t happen here, right?

Put aside for the moment the Clinton Administration’s effort to compel Housing and Urban Development residents to surrender their weapons, and the state of 2nd Amendment America still looks shaky. The nation’s normal day to celebrate independence, July 4, is itself target for subtle UN attack. This is the day delegates next meet to discuss how best to bring America into acquiescence with the gun-ban treaty.

A good defense against this assault would be to read LaPierre’s book.