Gun registration paranoia -- nope -- just the facts

By Cynthia A. Janak

"Jeez, with all that paranoia, do you ever have any moments of peace? I'm all for gun licensing and registration. Our nation has had over 200 years of uninterrupted democracy, and that compact hasn't been based on private firepower." — That is a quote from an email that was sent in response to my last article. I want to say thank you openly to the submitter for giving me the impetus for my following article.

Let me start by saying that I believe that the criminals should not have any firearms whatsoever. I believe that using a firearm in a criminal act should be severely punished. I also believe that there should be background checks on any individual purchasing a firearm. I believe that the checks will deter the illegal purchasing of arms by criminals and terrorists. I also believe that the law-abiding citizens by virtue of our Constitution have the right to purchase a firearm for their own enjoyment and/or protection. Whether it is for recreational trap shooting, legal hunting or practice at a legal gun range.

I also believe that we have had over 200 years of freedom because we are armed and we know how to use our firearms. We fought for our freedoms and many patriots died for their beliefs of freedom from oppression. Our nation was formed because our want of freedom was so strong that we were forced to use war to attain those freedoms when negotiations failed. We would not be enjoying the freedoms we have today if it were not for a gun. The beginnings of this nation was based on private firepower and the continuation of that power needs to stay intact. To this day our sense of freedom is so strong that our valiant and courageous men and women of our military are defending other peoples in other lands their right to freedom from oppression.

Now to get to my article. It has been proven in history the criminal or terrorist will find a way to get their hands on a weapon no matter what the cost is to human life and property. They will steal or kill to attain that goal. This has been the way of armed conflict throughout the ages. It is not going to change now. If you think that gun control will change that then I have a bridge to sell you, cheap.

Our Constitution was written in a certain way to prevent any outside source/power from taking the freedom from the people. They knew that an armed populace was the only deterrent to domination by a foreign power or coup. They understood that total disarmament opens the way for any power to walk in and take over control of any people without regard for the sanctity of freedom.

So pay attention you gun control advocates because you are at risk just like the rest of the law-abiding citizens that still believe in the sovereignty of the United States of America. You are at risk of losing your freedoms just like the rest of us. You are at risk of imprisonment and execution for not following the edicts of the United Nations if total disarmament becomes the law of the land. It has happened in the past. I reported the stats in my last article.

What I am going to start with is a United Nations document dated the 15 January 1996, A/RES/50/70. http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N96/760/63/PDF/N9676063.pdf?OpenElement Within this 27-page document, they talk about total disarmament. They are not talking about just the criminals or terrorists. They are talking about total, across the board, control of the right of the law-abiding populace and others to have a gun of any sort. They are talking about international control, which means the UN controls it all. There is nothing in this document that states any given country by name. They do mention member states, which we are one via the OAS. However, remember, the OAS is subject to the UN.

I take that last statement back. It does mention Mali. This is what it says.

Basing itself on the statement of the Secretary-General relating to the request of Mali concerning United Nations assistance for the collection of small arms,

Gravely concerned at the extent of the insecurity and banditry linked to the illicit circulation of small arms in Mali and the other affected States of the Saharo-Sahelian subregion,

1. Welcomes the initiative taken by Mali concerning the question of the illicit circulation of small arms and their collection in the affected States of the Saharo-Sahelian subregion;
   
   

I want you to remember that the last section that pertain to Mali state "collection of small arms." Part of the title of this UN document is "Complete and Total Disarmament."

Within the context of this document Section B, Small Arms, it states, "Realizing the urgent need to resolve underlying conflicts, to diminish tensions and to accelerate efforts towards general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control with a view to maintaining regional and international peace and security in a world free from the scourge of war and the burden of armaments,"

In this paragraph, you need to focus on "maintaining regional... peace and security in a world free from ... the burden of armaments," What do you think that the word regional means here? My opinion is that they are talking about a region like Canada or the US or Mexico, for some examples. They are saying that they want the world to be free of any arms whatsoever, which in itself is not a bad thing. They want this firearms free world to be controlled internationally (UN). That could be a bad thing to the sovereignty of a country.

I want you to remember the phrase. "Absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Section D, Transparency in armaments, it states, "Continuing to take the view that an enhanced level of transparency in armaments contributes greatly to confidence-building and security among States and that the establishment of the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms 10/ military matter,

Now remember this statement, transparency in armaments. This comes up many times in this document. The definition to this phrase is to build the confidence of the people so that they will give up their arms without issue to their respective government. They want to build the confidence of the people to think that the government on a national and local level is enacting measures to ensure their safety. They are, in their own way, putting the information out there for you to find but it is written in such a way that you miss the big picture. If you read just one document from the UN on a given issue, you do not get it. You have to go back and read many documents to see the true reasoning's.

However, in essence what they are doing is paving the way to the total confiscation of arms from law-abiding people so that they will not have any problems when it comes to the ultimate coup of the world population.

Welcoming the consolidated report of the Secretary-General on the Register, 11/ which includes the returns of Member States for 1994,

With this statement, we see that there is a yearly report that is given to the UN by the Secretary-General from the member states such as the OAS, which we are a member. This report gives the UN insight as to the progress of the states on the control of arms.

Welcoming also the response of Member States to the requests contained in Paragraphs 9 and 10 of resolution 46/36 L to provide data on their imports and exports of arms, as well as available background information regarding their military holdings, procurement through national production and relevant policies,

This statement is a hottie. The UN wants to know the military might of every member state, the US included. Why do you think that they would want this information? My opinion is that they will be able to strategize what will be necessary for the world coup. They are setting themselves up to be the world power. They are also sending mandates to the member states to decrease their military spending and to decrease their military personnel.

We have been witnesses to this diabolical agenda since the Clinton years with the base closings and the reduction in our own military personnel. Also, President Bush is continuing this agenda today and our legislators are going along with promoting this mandate by a foreign power, namely the UN. Question for you political science majors. If any person in our government, no matter at what level, has knowledge of and promotes the mandate of a foreign power, can the people demand their immediate resignation from office and/or incarceration for being a spy?

Back to the document.

Stressing that the continuing operation of the Register and its further development should be reviewed in order to secure a Register that is capable of attracting the widest possible participation, ...

In this last paragraph it makes mention of a register that is being held by the UN. They also mention that they want it to be as complete as possible, meaning that they want every country to participate and everyone who has a firearm to be registered within that country. (Reference my last two articles "We are not free so do not kid yourself" and "Gun registration list retraction — Nope."

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/janak/050725

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/janak/050801

5. Invites the Conference on Disarmament to consider continuing its work undertaken in the field of transparency in armaments;
   
   
6. Reiterates its call upon all Member States to cooperate at the regional and subregional levels, taking fully into account the specific conditions prevailing in the region or subregion, with a view to enhancing and coordinating international efforts aimed at increased openness and transparency in armaments;
   
   
7. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the General Assembly at its fifty-first session on the progress made in implementing the present resolution;
   
   
8. Decides to include in the provisional agenda of its fifty-first session the item entitled "Transparency in armaments."
   
   

These bullet points are just reiterating at what level the UN wants state participation. My opinion is that the UN's meaning behind regional is the states like Maine, Arkansas, Texas, etc. and the meaning behind sub region is the cities and towns of each state.

In Section H, Assistance to States for curbing the illicit traffic in small arms and collecting them states, Considering that the circulation of massive quantities of small arms throughout the world impedes development and is a source of increased insecurity,...

Now, being the United Nations, wouldn't you consider the circulation of massive quantities of small arms to impede the development of a one-world society and increase insecurity in reaching that goal? I know if I were the United Nations I sure would because an armed populace would not allow a foreign entity come in and take away their freedoms.

In a free society such as in the United States, we have the right to possess small arms. The law-abiding citizen can purchase a small arm in various venues for legal purpose. Now, I want you to tell me, what would you do if the government of the United States decides to remove that right and announces that you are now a citizen of the United Nations? What would you do if the United Nations decides to take over our government and subject us to international law?

Here is an example of an armed populace. No one messed with Switzerland during World War II because the populace was educated in the use of firearms and everyone in the country had them. Every male in the country was required to conscript to the military when they are young. http://europeforvisitors.com/switzaustria/articles/swiss_army.htm Therefore, everyone in the Switzerland is the military might of the country. Switzerland demonstrated military readiness with the general mobilization in 1939 and border occupation by 430,000 troops (20 % of the employed persons). This is besides the fact that they are surrounded by mountains, which makes it hard for a foot soldiers to get around. That is why it is easy for Switzerland to remain neutral and besides they are good bankers. http://history-switzerland.geschichte-schweiz.ch/switzerland-second-world-war-ii.html

Now to get back to the document.

In Section J, Measures to curb the illicit transfer and use of conventional arms, states that, Recognizing that the availability of massive quantities of conventional weapons and especially their illicit transfer, often associated with destabilizing activities, are most disturbing and dangerous phenomena,...

Bearing in mind that in certain situations mercenaries, terrorists and child soldiers are supplied with weapons acquired from illicit transfers of conventional arms,

What I want to point out here is it states the availability of massive quantities of conventional weapons. From documents, that I have read, conventional weapons span many areas and that includes small arms that the law-abiding citizen of the United States is allowed to purchase. The UN is calling this disturbing and dangerous phenomenon. I do not think of owning a firearm a phenomenon. I think of it as a deterrent and my given right under my constitution.

In the next section, they are talking about mercenaries, terrorists, etc. I want to expound on what the United States government believes a terrorist to be. I am going to inform you about the definition of a domestic terrorist.

In our Patriot Act http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:h.r.03162: the definition of a domestic terrorist is:

''(5) the term 'domestic terrorism' means activities that —


''(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;

''(B) appear to be intended —


''(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;

''(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or

''(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping;and


''(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.''.


(b) Conforming Amendment. — Section 3077(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:


''(1) 'act of terrorism' means an act of domestic or international terrorism as defined in section 2331;''.

Section (A) makes me wonder as to the wording here. Now we all know that terrorism is against the laws of the United States, which encompasses all the states within the United States. My question here is why they inserted "any State." Could they mean any state that is within the OAS or any state within the UN? I know I could be reading a little more into this section, but am I. What do you think?

What I want you to focus on now is (B) and the three sub sections. (B) States appear to be intended. What this says is that they do not need concrete proof to put anyone behind bars with this vague statement. It only has to appear to be. Now I believe that this is going to be at the discretion of whomever. My opinion is that you will be guilty until proven innocent with this one.

In subsection (i) and (ii) you will notice that they are rather vague and they can be construed to mean anything, sort of. My opinion of what they could mean is that our freedom of speech could be eliminated. Let me explain.

In subsection (i) let us say you are a writer and you, write about something of an important nature that could or would expose and organization with the hopes of informing the civilian population to their activities. To the writer they are only informing the public about activities that are unconstitutional. In the Patriot Act, this could mean to "intimidate or coerce a civilian population" to act unfavorably towards that organization. This would give the government cause to take that person into custody as being a domestic terrorist.

Now on to Subsection (ii) let's say you are a political watchdog organization and when a bill comes up for a vote that you do not believe to be constitutional you contact your constituents to write in or send petitions to vote down the bill or not support the measure. Now according to the Patriot Act those actions could be construed as trying "to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion." This would also give the government cause to take that person and/or organization and the people supporting the action into custody as domestic terrorists. Hey, ACLU where are you on this issue. You are the biggest offenders of this part of the Patriot Act.

It is further finalized in the next subsection when it defines the meaning of "act of terrorism." With this law, I am subject to arrest because I write articles that expose the unconstitutional activities to the citizens of the United States. With my articles, they could say that I am trying to coerce the civilian population and influence policy. It does not matter that I tell the truth and back up everything with fact or I will stress "in my opinion." When the time comes, I can be arrested under the Patriot Act for being a domestic terrorist because my writing appears to coerce.

I want you to think about what the ramifications of this part of the Patriot Act could or would be. It is a scary thought but I want you to think about what is going on in the United States and in other countries around the world.

My question for you today is do you think that the Republican and/or Democrats are passing all this legislation with the interests of the sovereignty of the citizens of the United States in mind.

Just a little footnote, I am not paranoid. I am a patriot and I have decided to take a stand against anyone and/or organization that will try to take away our freedoms given to us by our ancestors. I sleep well at night because I know I am doing what I can to promote the adherence to our Constitution and Bill of Rights by informing the citizens of the United States to facts that are going unreported in the media.

© Cynthia A. Janak