Home > National > Give me liberty or … and My deep dark conspiracy theory

Give me liberty or … and My deep dark conspiracy theory

May 10, 2010
Give me liberty or …

Posted: May 03, 2010
1:00 am Eastern

by Chuck Norris
© 2010 

(Editor’s note: This is Part Two of a three-part series on the threat to the Second Amendment and Americans’ firearm freedoms.)

I believe the political stars are aligning right now for the opening of a new front in the battle against our gun rights: via the election and work of an anti-gun president, the disarmament passions of the Washington majority and the United Nations, the appointments of gun prohibitionists from the White House to the Supreme Court and the funding of an anti-Second Amendment movement by billionaire progressives like George Soros.

In Part One last week, I discussed President Obama’s anti-Second Amendment record and his administration’s goals to use dormant treaties and global agencies to loosen the boundaries and binds of the Second Amendment. I wish to expand upon the United Nation’s participation a little further in this second part of my trilogy.

In October 2009, the Obama administration reversed the position taken by the Bush White House by stating its support for a process that could, in 2012, result in an international treaty to regulate conventional arms sales. Of course, “regulate” is a euphemism here for “the beginning of banning.”

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the United States would support the talks as long as the negotiating forum, the so-called Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty, “operates under the rules of consensus decision-making.”

Without a single mention of the Second Amendment or America’s sovereignty in her entire statement, Clinton said, “The United States is committed to actively pursuing a strong and robust treaty that contains the highest possible, legally binding standards for the international transfer of conventional weapons.”

Amnesty International and Oxfam International jointly declared the action “a major breakthrough in launching formal negotiations at the United Nations.” But do Americans really want or need the U.N. to tell us what to do with our guns with an international treaty? And when negotiating with other countries, do we really expect non-U.S. delegates to be conciliatory to America’s unique Second Amendment rights? James Madison noted in the Federalist, No. 46, “The Constitution preserves ‘the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation … (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.'”

In 2006, the U.N. General Assembly passed a resolution titled “Toward an arms trade treaty.” In 2008, the General Assembly passed another resolution, accelerating efforts toward an arms trade treaty. In both cases, the U.S. was the only opposing vote of 154 countries. Now, it would appear that Obama and Clinton have ordered our team of U.N negotiators to drop their opposition and move forward to develop “consensus.”

With the Obama administration receptive and on board, the General Assembly (with the U.S. in complete compliance) is moving forward with a U.N. conference to produce an arms trade treaty in 2012 – perhaps sooner. In fact, the U.N. is hosting a major conference on this subject in June this year.

I would bet my finest pistol that rather than reinvent the treaty wheel the U.S. will propose wording (if not the entire document) from the CIFTA treaty. Of course, arms exporters China, Russia and Israel will again abstain, realizing (unlike U.S. officials in our recession) that limiting the trade of firearms is merely one more unwise economic move for what’s left of our manufacturing base. (In 2008, the United States accounted for more than two-thirds of some $55.2 billion in global arms transfer deals.)

John Bolton, Bush administration ambassador to the U.N., explained last November (2009): “The administration [in Washington] is trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about international arms trade between nation states, but there’s no doubt – as was the case back over a decade ago – that the real agenda here is domestic firearms control. After the treaty is approved and it comes into force, you will find out that it … requires the Congress to adopt some measure that restricts ownership of firearms. The administration knows it cannot obtain this kind of legislation purely in a domestic context. … They will use an international agreement as an excuse to get domestically what they couldn’t otherwise.”

Unfortunately, President Obama and his administration would rather limit American’s rights to keep and bear arms inside the borders – rather than stop contraband at our borders by proper patrolling and enforcement. Arturo Valenzuela, assistant secretary of state for Western Hemisphere affairs, even told reporters in March that a bigger priority than the treaty right now is for both the U.S. and Mexico to “manage the border.” If we properly “managed the border,” there would be no need for a treaty!

Of course, any international treaty needs two-thirds the votes of the Senate to be ratified, and critics on both sides say there’s no way that will happen. Again, Cato Institute scholar Ted Galen Carpenter spoke for many others when he said, “There is no chance of getting a two-thirds vote in the Senate to pass this treaty; it has too many implications for gun rights in the United States.” I would respectfully beg to differ. Look how Obamacare was shoved through the Senate like a ramrod, even after the landmark election of “no” vote Scott Brown from Massachusetts. Believe me, if there’s a will, they’ll find a way.

Why the Constitution is so complicated to some, I’ll never understand. Our founders ratified a Second Amendment as a right and defense for all Americans. There’s nothing easy about defending your life. And taking a life is mega-tragic. But when your life is in danger, the Second Amendment provides for your and your loved ones’ security.

Case in point: At the beginning of this month, Michael Lish and his wife arrived home in Tulsa, Okla., at 10 p.m. to find the back door ajar and a window open. Unbeknownst to the couple, the intruder in their house has been recently released from jail and had a history of drug offenses and driving under the influence. Michael had just entered his house when he heard a noise coming from the master bedroom. Once Michael neared the bedroom, the intruder, 19-year-old Billy Jean Tiffey III, approached Michael with a sword that he was in the process of stealing from the house. When Tiffey did not comply with his order to stop approaching him, Michael, who had a concealed weapons permit, pulled out his gun and shot him in the abdomen. However, the intruder dropped to his knees and reached behind his back, appearing to the homeowner as if he was reaching for another weapon (in addition to the sword, he was also packing a .38-caliber pistol, a 9 mm pistol, a knife and a stun gun). Michael had no choice – and he shot Tiffey two more times in the chest, killing him.

It was certainly an understatement of Thomas Jefferson, when he wrote to George Washington these words in 1796, “One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them.”

Chuck Norris is the star of more than 20 films and the long-running TV series “Walker, Texas Ranger.” His latest book is entitled The Official Chuck Norris Fact Book: 101 of Chuck’s Favorite Facts and Stories” Learn more about his life and ministry at his official website, ChuckNorris.com.

My deep dark conspiracy theory

Posted: May 01, 2010
1:00 am Eastern

© 2010 

Some alarming news is coming to light about governmental attempts to disarm Americans through the back-door method of signing international treaties on gun control. Frankly I don’t see what an international treaty has to do with domestic gun ownership, but hey, I’m just a simple north Idaho housewife and don’t pretend to understand this stuff.

Let me clarify that: I’m a simple north Idaho housewife who’s packing heat. And no, I’m not unusual around these parts. Far from it. And that’s the dirty little secret our government doesn’t like to hear: that millions of primitive unedjikated redneck hicks in Flyover Country are bitterly-clinging, law-abiding gun owners. And we’ll only give up those guns when they’re pried from our cold, dead hands.

So how will international treaties affect Joe Sixpack here in Real America? What I mean is, international treaty or not, by what actual means will the government go about disarming us when we have no intention of turning in our firearms?

Unfortunately, the answer is simple: Guns are useless without ammunition. And ammunition is something all gun owners need to purchase at one time or another. If ammunition sales are restricted, all those guns become nothing more than clicking machines. This seems to be the favored tactic among progressives. (It’s so much safer than door-to-door confiscation, don’t you know.)

Questions about guns? Here are all the answers — the ultimate searchable research guide to firearms, ammo on DVD

Naturally, there are many dimwits who applaud these treaties and restrictions. I long ago gave up hope that these people ever read history. It’s been documented again and again that disarming citizens is inevitably followed by tyrannical dictatorships and the deaths of millions. I guess the progressives think this time it will be different.

Quite simply, a government cannot subdue an armed citizenry, which is why our Founding Fathers saw fit to include the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights and why the government has tried, ever since, to restrict that right.

You’ll notice it’s only the precious Second Amendment we’re so eager to turn over to international authority. You don’t see our government turning over our freedom of speech or our right to peaceably assemble or our freedom of religion to the U.N., do you? Of course not. (At least, not yet.)

Therefore, I am forced to conclude the government is incrementally and deliberately disarming us so it can stop being a government of, by and for the people and start becoming the “fearful master” George Washington predicted. (His full quote, italics added: “Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”)

Remember, I’m a simple north Idaho housewife. I don’t pretend to understand the complexity and scope of international treaties and laws. But I do know this: The only thing that stands between us and an American Hitler is our guns … and our willingness to use them.

As Maj. L. Caudill, USMC (Ret.), wisely pointed out, “Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it. … When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.”

Take away our guns – disarm us – and the government no longer needs to persuade us. It can force us. And we would be powerless to resist.

If you disagree with this deep, dark conspiracy theory, then please – I beg you – tell me where I’m wrong. Because believe me, I would be thrilled to learn that our government has no interest or plans to disarm us and in fact strongly upholds and supports the Second Amendment.

I’m waiting …

Naturally, disarming a nation is not easy. In a place as entrenched in freedom as America, it must take place over several generations. And so it has. Patriotism is no longer taught in our schools; instead, our children are taught the benefits of groveling before foreign potentates for having the temerity to be strong and successful and (ahem) well-armed. Thus our schools become social laboratories to persuade children, as they grow into adults, to shun firearms and even to think guns are bad. If you don’t believe me, show me a government school where the Second Amendment is not only taught, but applauded as the pivotal freedom of our founding documents.

Of course, there’s nothing new in this idea of disarming America. The conspiracy theorists have been postulating it for years with accelerating hysteria. In fact, the paranoid among us believe, to quote Chuck Norris, the political stars are aligning for just such a “perfect storm” of domestic disarmament. And remember: Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean you’re wrong.

Those of us leading humble, ordinary, law-abiding lives in Real America can do very little to stop the terrible chain of events unfolding before our eyes. All we can do is continue to cling bitterly to our guns and our faith, recognizing the two are inextricably interwoven.

Whatever the future holds for our country, it comes down to a question of how we want to be remembered, because we may well be writing our own epitaph. Do we want to be remembered as valiant freedom fighters, heroically trying to force a tyrannical government to adhere to the restrictions outlined in the founding documents?

Or do we want to go down in history as a bunch of spineless sheep who uncomplainingly gave up our freedoms, our God-given rights and our firearms to let a despotic government rule every aspect of our lives?

One thing’s for sure. They won’t get my Rossi .38 caliber revolver from me until they pry it from my cold, dead hands.

And maybe that’s a fitting epitaph.

Patrice Lewis is a freelance writer and the author of “The Home Craft Business: How to Make it Survive and Thrive.” She is co-founder (with her husband) of a home woodcraft business. The Lewises live on 40 acres in north Idaho with their two homeschooled children, assorted livestock, and a shop that overflows into the house with depressing regularity. Visit her blog at http://www.patricelewis.blogspot.com/
%d bloggers like this: