Making The Case For INCREASED Gun Ownership

There is a city in Cobb County, GA called Kennesaw  – where gun ownership is mandatory. It’s not the “Wild West” like some people predicted when it passed a mandatory gun ownership law. “The city of Kennesaw was selected by Family Circle magazine as one of the nation’s ‘10 best towns for families.’

In 1982 the city passed the following ordinance [Sec 34-21] which was in response to a handgun ban in Morton Grove, Ill.

(a) In order to provide for the emergency management of the city, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore.

(b) Exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who suffer a physical or mental disability which would prohibit them from using such a firearm. Further exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who are paupers or who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine, or persons convicted of a felony.

The city's website states that Kennesaw “has the lowest crime rate in Cobb County,” one of the most populous counties in Georgia. In fact, from 1982 through 2009, Kennesaw had been nearly murder free with one murder occurring in 2007.

There were three murders in 2010 committed by the same man in what is described as a “school safety zone,” an area extending 1,000 feet from any school, including adult colleges and technical schools. This means that even though Kennesaw has the most liberal gun laws in the United States, employees at the facility where the murders were committed could not have a gun on the premises.

Statically, it has been shown that - nationwide - as legal gun ownership by law-abiding citizens increases, violent crime decreases.  Yet the left (including the socialist-dominated United Nations) constantly argues for greater restrictions on private firearms ownership.

There is a discomfiting pattern developing in the USA.  One of increased government intervention in, and control of, our Constitutional rights. One of collusion on an International scale, and one which could very easily permit Obama to abrogate his presidential responsibilities in favor of UN demands. The left-wing Obama administration is "chomping at the bit" for an opportunity to sign on to the UN's Arms Trade Treaty. That way - when the international gun grab begins - Obama can maintain a high degree of deniablility from the actions. There is much more to the UN ATT than meets the eye. It is worded in such a fashion that loopholes large enough to drive a military tank through exist... possibly for the purpose of actually driving military tanks through them, and down Mainstreet, USA, as the jackbooted, blue-helmeted UN thugs kick down doors and confiscate whatever they determine to be "illegal firearms". The goal of the "United Nations" is WORLD DOMINATION, and the majority of the 192 country/states that make up the UN are inimical to the USA, our successes, our freedom, and our way of life in general.

Contact your Senators and demand that they OPPOSE the UN's Arms Trade Treaty. It's not good for American citizens, and it's not good for the USA. In WWII, the Japanese decided against a land battle within the USA because - according to Isoroku Yamamoto, Commander-in-Chief of the Imperial Japanese Navy - "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." It is our ability, as a nation, to defend our country, our culture, our sovereignty and our Constitution, particularly at the individual level, that keeps us free from land invasions (other than via our southern border, anyway. Mexico has been invading us for decades!).

Here's Some Old News That Is Re-Emerging...

This was published about 2 years ago, but the issue remains open today - same requester, same amount, same Western nations targeted:

UN asks: How can we extract payment of $100 Billion a year from westerners to redistribute to other countries?

The Manchester (England) Guardian newspaper reports that Larry Summers, President Obama's chief economics adviser, George Soros, the hedge fund trader, Lord Stern, the economist, and others have met in London at the request of Ban Ki-moon to discuss ways in which $100 billion dollars a year could be raised from the citizens of western countries and redistributed to Africa, South and Central America and other poorer areas

QUOTE -

--------------------------------------…
"the world's top financiers have been told to work out how to raise at least $100bn a year for the rest of this decade, cash that will be used to help the world's poorest countries adapt to climate change.

"The prices we pay for our goods do not reflect one key cost: the damage that their production does to the planet's climate system," said Bob Ward, of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change at the LSE. "We need to find ways to extract payment from those who cause that damage and then use that money to fund developing nations so that they can protect themselves from the worst effects of global warming."

"The Trillion Dollar Question" The Guardian. Available online at:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/20…
--------------------------------------…

To use their terminology for a moment, as we "Western nations" are "the ones causing the damage", how do you think the UN could best "extract payment" from us in the west to give to other countries?
Please keep in mind that it's only $100 Billion dollars PER YEAR, for at least a decade... so where will the money come from? Numerically speaking, we're talking about $100,000,000,000. That's a number that very few people can relate to, and I'm one of the majority who cannot. It boggles the mind! How does one quantify and visualize a number containing 12 digits? It has been estimated that there are 100 billion stars in our galaxy - the Milky Way - but we can't see them all simultaneously. Besides, how many lifetimes would it take to count them?

Consider first of all, that the United Nations consists of 192 nations, most of which are communist, socialist, and/or dictatorships... which goes a long way toward explaining their failure to thrive. "Western Nations" - also known as "First World Nations" - are comprised, at the most, of only 25 countries (I say "at the most" because there is yet some discussion over exactly what qualifications a "Western Nation" must exhibit). The majority of those 25 nations are made up of Western European countries, the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Assuming this "global warming debt" is apportioned equally, the cost per nation, per year, is $4,000,000,000 - that's 4 Billion USD per Western Nation. If, however, only the top ten industrialized nations are expected to foot the bill for the UN, that expense increases to $10,000,000,000 (10 Billion USD) per Western Nation.

The first question that comes to my mind is; Who objectively says there is such a thing as man-made global warming? Larry Summers, George Soros, and Lord Stern are all notorious left-wingers! Who were the "others"? Where is the balance in this meeting?
My second question is; Where does the U.N. get its authority to determine who must pay for this man-made non-problem?

THE "RIGHT" TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS?

There has been much discussion over our Constitutional guarantee, as explained in the Second Amendment, of the "right to keep and bear arms". The divergence of understanding of this right is not one of language, but rather one of reader intent. In our Constitutional Republic, unlimited power is not automatically bestowed upon the government to cavalierly change those first ten amendments - also known as "The Bill of Rights". According to the Constitution, which at least for the time being is - ostensibly - the supreme law of the land, our government gets its power from the consent of the people! And, how do we exercise that "consent"? By way of elected "representatives". These "representatives", for more than a century and a half, have represented their own best interests... which are determined by a minuscule (but wealthy, influential, and therefore powerful) portion of their constituency. Can we correct this gross deviation from the intent of our Constitution? Idealistic desires aside, my answer is probably not.

Corruption is self-propagating, and corruption is rampant within our government. Not just in the present administration, but most likely in all administrations since our founding. In the beginning it may have been just a few minor officials who were corrupt, but corruption spread like a cancer to all levels. Today, our elected officials are simply better at concealing their corruption than were their predecessors and foreign counterparts. They are like rodents, in that for every one that is exposed for corruption, there are ten others that haven't yet been discovered. There are few persons of true "honor" left in the world of politics. Why would I say such a thing? Because in today's world it takes many millions of dollars to mount an election campaign. and where do politicians get that money? For the most part from donors. Oh, sure, you donated - but your ten, twenty or even one thousand dollar donation is insignificant. If you are lucky, you will get a letter of thanks from the campaign headquarters, complete with an electronic signature from the candidate. "Every man has his price", is a well-known quote from Robert Bolt, author of "A Man For All Seasons", referring to Thomas Cromwell's corruption in the service of his King. Cromwell's price - power - was met by the King, and to fail the King would result in the removal of Cromwell's power... and his head. The less obvious, underlying tenet in that quote was a reflection of Sir Thomas More's philosophy: "The integrity of oneself should be one's major goal. Without it, life is really not worth living. Death is unpleasant, but losing that part of oneself that guides our actions on the path that we deem to be correct would be unbearable." A philosophy in which principles cost Sir Thomas his own head. Politics is ruled by the fear of possible loss... loss of stature, loss of reputation, loss of position, loss of power, loss of money, and in extreme cases, the possibility of loss of life, etc. But, I digress...

The First Amendment requires that: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." It establishes basic individual freedoms concerning religious belief (or non-belief), the freedom to speak against those things we determine to be inimical (even within our government) to our Constitutional freedoms, it protects the left-wing media as well as the minority right-wing media, and our right to "petition the Government for a redress of grievances" (such as forcing Obamacare upon us, and the so-called "Patriot Act", which identifies military veterans as "potential terrorists", etc.). The Second Amendment received the prestigious second spot because it insures the citizens right to protect all the other rights and freedoms established by our Constitution. A citizenry, disarmed, are called subjects. They cannot protect themselves, or their countrymen, from the whims of those who would rule rather than govern. It was said in "Cato's Letters" (England, early 1720s) that "Power is like fire. It warms, scorches or destroys, according as it is watched, provoked or increased." Power, when not watched and controlled, is also all-consuming. The more power an individual (or government) has, the more they want.

A government that is unanswerable to its people is a dictatorship. Ours has not yet reached that stage of development. They are still technically answerable to the people... they just choose to ignore our inquiries and our expressed desires! Why? Because Big Brother knows better what is right, fair and just for its people, and they will determine what rights and freedoms are appropriate for those of us with less intelligence than they, and relatively little power to change things. We have three choices: vote for a different, but no less corrupt replacement, at the ballot box; reinstate the same corrupt individual at the ballot box; or, as Thomas Jefferson once said, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." As unpalatable as the third option may be to Americans, is it not better than the loss of our Constitution, our freedoms, and the consequent subjugation and enslavement of a free people? (The downside to a second American Revolution would be that all those who envy and despise us [i.e. - the 191 "United Nations"] would seize such a discordant opportunity to conquer, subjugate and enslave the survivors of such an action, and then divide the spoils among themselves.)

THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS THE FOUNDATION OF "HOMELAND SECURITY"! Without it, we have none. The current administration (Obama, Clinton, Holder, et al) has designs upon dismantling as much of the Constitution as meets their desires to rule. Should they be successful in infringing upon our Second Amendment rights, all the other rights will fall like standing dominoes.

But, that's just the way I see things. Perhaps my world view is naive... idealistic... perhaps it is "radical"... or perhaps it is realistic. No matter... it is what it is. And, at least for the time being, my world view is protected under the First Amendment, which is protected by the Second Amendment. I do not encourage a second American Revolution, but I do see it as a possibility when individual freedoms are infringed upon or removed by any government.

Here's An Eye-Opener For The Sheep of The World

For those of you who think the United Nations is the savior of the world, the following was taken directly from the UN website (http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/lang/eng.htm) under the heading of "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" (UDHR).:

"Article 29

1. Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.

2. In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to suchlimitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

3. These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations."

The coloring and bold facing of the text was added by myself for emphasis - to make a point - but the words are theirs. That point being, the UN says we have rights and freedoms so long as they don't conflict with the interests of the UN (plans for world domination?). So, any freedom you may choose to exercise could be found to be "contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations" (even though "1984" is 25 years in the past, that phrase has a very Orwellian sound to it).

IF I believed all the lunatic "conspiracy theories" on the Internet, I would be in some totally uncontrollable maximum panic mode by now. I do, however, read and comprehend the English language... an ability which tells me that there is a very definite threat implied in the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Perhaps everybody needs to pay closer attention to what's going on in the world around us...

I could be wrong about this... I could also be a space alien from the planet Urantia (somebody call Las Vegas and get the odds on that!).

The U.N. ~ STILL Trying to Control the Sovereign Nations of the World!

From Reuters News Service, today, July 24th, 2008: "The United Nations human rights committee said on Thursday Britain should ease back on tough "anti-terror" measures and take firm action to combat "negative public attitudes" towards Muslims."

and

"In separate comment, the 9-member body, composed of legal experts from a range of countries, also called on Ireland to open up its largely Catholic primary school system to secular education, and to moderate tough abortion laws."

EXCUSE ME?? I'm not sure the Crown, or its subjects, would benefit greatly from lax anti-terror laws. As for "negative public attitudes", could it be that those attitudes have been earned by the Muzzies? The Muslim community has probably been responsible for more terrorist acts within England than has the IRA. And, inasmuch as Ireland's population is PRIMARILY CATHOLIC, could that have something to do with the fact that Ireland's school system is primarily Catholic? Ya think? Why shouldn't their school system reflect that? Has the U.N. even suggested that the Arabic nations modify their Islamic school systems (such as they are)? NO! They wouldn't want to "offend" the Muslims ... but to offend Christians, of any stripe, is fine with the U.N.. The curriculum of school systems is, and always has been, reflective of the national culture. In many countries, education always takes a back seat to theological and political indoctrination. Instead of providing "secondary education", education becomes secondary! That doesn't make it right, but it is the way it is.

I hope, for their own sake, that the British government summarily rejects the bogus U.N. Human Rights Committees recommendations, tells them "Piss off and mind your own business!", and then drops out of the United Nations. But, that's just the way I see things ...

Gil

United Nations - Those Who Would Rule The World

Our left-wing loonies, most of whom worship at the temple of the United Nations in New York City, are supporting the following, extracted from the United Nations "Declaration of Human Rights" (emphasis added to Article 29 (3)):

Article 29.

(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.

(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Congratulations, Article 29(3) has given you the right to agree with the UN (in their infinite wisdom)! According to (1) you also may fully develop your personality within the scope of your "duties" to the community (this sounds quite Orwellian to me ... shades of 1984). And then there's (2), wherein your "rights and freedoms" are restricted "as are determined by law", as distinguished from a Constitution - which is the basis for OUR laws. Exactly whose "laws" are we talking about here? The UN's laws? It couldn't possibly be the individual laws of each sovereign nation, because there are too many inconsistencies between the cultures - and therefore the laws - of each country. It would also be a virtual impossibility for any objective organization to accurately monitor and interpret 192 assorted laws covering a single infraction, misdemeanor or felony. So, it appears that the UN is out to establish a universal set of laws ... perhaps cloaked in the mantle of "International Law". Good luck with that!

I'm not claiming that there are no good aspects to the UN's UDoHR, there are many ... but they are, for the most part, vaguely worded and easily interpreted in any manner the reader desires. Am I the only person who has wondered (sometimes aloud to others) if the EU, and NAFTA (the obvious precursor to the North American Union, or perhaps just the American Union) are the first two steps to world domination by the UN? The third, and final step, would be the formation of the Asian Union - which, given the significant antagonism and distrust between most of the Asian countries, will be the greatest challenge of this unification project. It is much easier to exercise control over 3 entities than 192 independent ones. BUT, once the Asian Union has been accomplished through 'diplomacy' (read: intimidation and ostracism), there is only one obvious Puppet Master. What controlling body would be more apparent than the UN? There would be only one independent state left in the world - The Vatcian - assuming the UN allows them to retain their independent status , rather than incorporating the Vatican into Italy. You can use your own imagination for drawing further conclusions ... my imagination is fatigued!