Right now, Washington is scheming and scamming to erode and then erase the Second Amendment from our Constitution. And it will accomplish it through the signing of international treaties on gun control, bypassing the normal legislative process in Congress, tightening regulations upon firearm and ammunition manufacturers, using the anti-gun financing of tycoons and ultimately confiscating all firearms under the guise of terrorism patrol and enforcement. Without public debate and cloaked in secrecy, gun control covertly will come upon us like a thief in the night. One day, we will wake up to discover that the U.S. has signed a global treaty that will prohibit any transfer of firearm ownership, force reductions in the number of firearms privately owned and eventually eradicate the planet of guns for law-abiding citizens. Of course, the criminals still will have their guns illegally. And on that day, if you do not comply with that global treaty, you will be fined and face imprisonment. This is not a fictitious story or false warning. As sure as government health care has been shoved down our throats, so will the barrels of our guns. And left with little defense, we will go as lambs to the slaughter.
I believe the political stars are aligning right now for just such a “perfect storm” of domestic disarmament, via the election and work of an anti-gun president, the disarmament passions of the Washington elites and the United Nations, the appointments of gun prohibitionists in the White House and Supreme Court, and the funding of an anti-Second Amendment movement by billionaire progressives, such as George Soros.
This is part one of three articles in which I’ll be addressing the evidence — the smoking gun, if you will — of the pressing threat to the Second Amendment and our firearm freedoms.
As Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association, wrote in the American Rifleman in February: “President Obama’s political mantra of ‘hope and change’ has morphed into a very real threat. Obama’s deep curtsy to international arms control has given ‘hope’ to the international gun-ban crowd that they will prevail.”
It was no surprise when Barack Obama was elected that the nation was consumed with other domestic issues and had selected a president with one of the most anti-firearm records in American history. During Obama’s presidential campaign, the National Rifle Association outlined more than two dozen ways in which Obama had fought against America’s Second Amendment firearm freedoms over the years — so much so that the NRA graded Obama’s (and Hillary Clinton’s) voting record among other presidential candidates as an F. (Does that give any freedom-loving firearm bearer any hope now that both are part of the same administration?) No wonder an October Gallup Poll revealed that 41 percent of all Americans and 52 percent of gun owners believe that Obama will try eventually to ban the sale of guns.
It was also no surprise, therefore, a year ago this month, when President Obama personally promised Mexican President Felipe Calderon that the White House would push to ratify through the U.S. Senate the Inter-American Convention Against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, or CIFTA, treaty, which has sat tabled and unapproved by the Senate since 1997.
But then, as quickly as he initiated the debate, the president just as quickly ceased trying to ratify CIFTA in the Senate. Why was that? Cato Institute scholar Ted Galen Carpenter said there was a reason that the treaty was tabled a year ago by Obama. I agree. I believe that reason was Obamacare. He knew he couldn’t tackle and force through Congress two incredibly hot and volatile issues at once, at least of this caliber. But now that Obamacare is law, it’s no surprise that both CIFTA and a separate U.N. small-arms treaty are experiencing renewed lives. And just as Obamacare was pitched solely under “health care reform,” you can bet that a small-arms ban will be pitched under “a fight against global terrorism and drug wars.”
Trust me that what sounds like a tool being used against terrorism or illegal arms trading will actually further restrict Americans’ right to bear arms. Under the disguise of an effort to combat drug violence, the passage of CIFTA or its equal will clamp down further upon our Second Amendment freedoms.
Again, as LaPierre summarized, “The administration is trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about international trade between nations, but there’s no doubt … that the real agenda here is domestic firearms control.”
“NRA” might mean “National Rifle Association,” but to me, it also means “Never Remove (your) Arms.” The fact is the Second Amendment could even save your life.
That was the case this past year for Vern Grant, a 75-year-old Army veteran with Parkinson’s disease and diabetes who had just suffered through the death of his wife. Grant was attacked by a burglar in his Carnation, Wash., home. After smashing the windows of Grant’s handicap van and scavenging through his medicines, the intruder broke the glass of Grant’s back door and entered his home. Grant says the intruder was incoherently screaming.
The intruder nearly killed Grant after hitting him in the head. But Grant was able to grab and fire his gun in self-defense, hitting the attacker. Grant miraculously made it to his neighbor’s house, where he sought help.
The suspect was airlifted to a hospital with non-life-threatening injuries, and Grant was released from the hospital after his head wounds were treated.
Grateful for his life and the Second Amendment, Grant asked a question to a reporter that we all should answer easily: “You’d do the same if you thought he was going to kill you, wouldn’t you?”
Yes, I would, Vern. In fact, by way of fair warning for any would-be burglars at my house, I hope they read the sign on my front porch first, which says, “We don’t dial 911 here.”