Thursday July 19, 2012


National Debt Clock



UN Arms Trade Treaty: Citizen to Global Subject with Worldwide Control of Individual Arms

by Michael Chapdelaine


Page copy protected against web site content infringement by Copyscape


Totalitarian globalists and their collaborators in Washington, D.C. are angling to disarm you and alienate you from the civil right that ultimately defends all your civil rights.

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms

I laid out the Top Five Baseless and Subversive Arguments Against the Second Amendment in 2008. I will not rehash them here. The piece was quite popular in liberty circles and I was pleased some former opponents of arms for the people realized the wisdom of embracing all their civil liberties after having read it.

In brief, we have the unambiguous right, as individual citizens, to be heavily armed with military grade equipment. I refer readers taking issue with whether or not the Constitution recognizes such a right to my previous article.

Make no mistake, I don't like violence but I also dislike being helpless in the face of it. The naivety of the "I don't believe in violence" crowd is that they'll never be confronted by dark-hearted believers in violence.

Domestically Chipping Away at Your Right to Self Defense

Dilution and suppression of the right to keep and bear arms has happened steadily and incrementally since the Federal Government's initial evisceration of the Second Amendment: the 1934 National Firearms Act (Public Law Number 73-474; 26 U.S.C. Subtitle E Chapter 53). It is, by far, the most odious and egregious piece of legislation on the matter as it, for all intents and purposes, terminates citizen ownership or possession of military armaments and heavy weaponry. It is, moreover, a tax law to make it "constitutional." Sound familiar? At the Federal level alone, it has been followed with the

Disarmament Vis-a-Vis the United Nations

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you. Members of Congress have made further restrictive and prohibitive propositions, such as the

  • Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009 (H.R. 45) and

  • Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009 (H.R. 2159).

The latest step in the disarmament drive is the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty, in conference as I write this. The basic thrust of the treaty, as far as American citizens need be concerned, is toward

  • International licensing requirements and registration

  • Confiscation and destruction of "unauthorized" firearms

  • Banning the trade, sale and private ownership of semi-automatic firearms

De-facto domestic registration has been in place since 1968 via the Gun Control Act's establishment of the Federal Firearms License (FFL) system. The FFL system restricts and controls those individuals or companies engaging in business pertaining to the manufacture of firearms and ammunition or the interstate and intrastate sale of firearms. The FFL system demands a Firearms Transaction Record, or Federal Form 4473, be filled out when a person buys a firearm from an FFL holder. Form 4473 already gathers the

  • name, address, and driver's license or identification number of the purchaser;

  • National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) background check transaction number;

  • serial number and model of the firearm; and

  • Federal affidavit stating that the purchaser is eligible to purchase firearms under Federal law

Under the ubiquitous guise of global cooperation on anti-terrorism efforts and crime fighting, Americans' civil rights will be further abridged should the treaty be approved in Congress.

It is yet another outrage in a long list of outrages to the plain language of the Bill of Rights and obeisance to its meaning. It is completely out of character with the Founder's ideals.

Tench Coxe, a Pennsylvania delegate to the Continental Congress wrote in Benjamin Franklin’s Pennsylvania Gazette on February 20th 1788:

Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American... [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.

Samuel Adams, "extremist", "agitator", "radical", organizer of the Sons of Liberty revolutionary group, Continental Congress member, Declaration of Independence signatory, and later the Governor of Massachusetts, called for the following language in the Bill of Rights during the 1788 Massachusetts convention to ratify the Constitution:

That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.

The Power of the Sword in the Hands of the People

The Second Amendment is a recognition of the broad right of self defense: firstly, no one can be expected to face death and ruin and not fight for their life and liberty, it's human nature. In other words, it should come as no surprise that people will kill to protect themselves and that which is dear to them.

Arms afford us the means to protect our Constitutionally recognized civil rights and meet any private or public attempt to steal liberty with resistant and punishing force. Moreover, we might go so far as to remove or forcibly disband undesirable, oppressive, or irrevocably corrupt government.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, July 4, 1776, commonly known as the Declaration of Independence, was written and delivered in response to sustained tyranny, including in its message the following:

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

When the state abrogates the social contract, it loses its legitimacy, and has to go. To ensure the citizenry of the United States of America is always more powerful than the state and remain a free people, our Founders made no allowance for a standing army. Instead, as students of history, they made it clear we should take up arms to deliver us from and keep us out of conditions of bondage. Fantasy?

The Battle of Athens: Fighting for Liberty, Restoring the Rule of Law

In August 1946, American citizens in Athens and Etowah, McMinn County, Tennessee, among them veterans of the Second World War, took up arms to secure fair elections. They fought against a corrupt and machinating local government. Dozens of men possessing a few of the latest American battle rifles of the day, the M1 Garand, several semiautomatic pistols, a number of bolt-action Enfield rifles, an assortment of other firearms and some high explosives, in this case, dynamite, took on over a hundred deputies of the sheriff's department. With some injuries to both sides but without any deaths, these patriots routed the sheriff's force and unseated their political masters.

The Battle of Athens


The Second Amendment ensured these determined Americans had the means for effective resistance to a condition of abuse and disenfranchisement at the hands of government when other avenues were blocked.

Knox Henry Becomes Sheriff After the Battle of Athens (Associated Press)

Leveling the Playing Field

Noah Webster, Connecticut Militia member and later dictionary publisher, wrote in his 1787 An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution:

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.

Afrikaner Commandos

Second Boer War

An armed populace counters tyranny and dictatorship. Historically, such a populace can be devastating to an occupying army from foreign shores or an oppressively dispositioned domestic force, for example:

Credit Carlos Latuff

Even if not always successful, the deterrence value of an armed populace can be huge and it is almost always better than the alternative. An uprising in the Warsaw Ghetto, while ultimately crushed, was better than acceptance of a trip to Treblinka. Civil disobedience was not going to keep one out of a gas chamber.

More recently, arms in the hands of insurgent Iraqis (from lone snipers to roving, coordinated bands) had a punishing, clear effect on the U.S. military and spurred reformation of policy. The insurgency drove the U.S. to the negotiating table with both Sunni and Shiite leaders. The Madhi Army Militia, tamed but not domesticated, changed the course of history in Iraq.

While neither small arms in the hands of Japanese civilians nor defenses available to the Japanese military could resist the high-level strategic bombing and eventual nuclear attacks on Nagasaki and Hiroshima, they remained a huge deterrent to U.S. invasion. Of course, one of the main reasons America executed a nuclear attack on Japan was an aversion to experiencing a large body of armed civilians engaging in a guerilla campaign in addition to the remaining Japanese military forces.

Finnish "Minuteman" Simo Hayha

Finnish war hero Simo Hayha exemplifies the potential of a motivated, capable, armed individual. He spent a mandatory year in the regular army in the 1920s and then returned to civilian life as a farmer. With the outbreak of war as the Soviet Union launched an invasion in 1939, Hayha was called back to service. He did his part to help the outnumbered Finns repel the invading force, killing 505 Russians in just over 3 months as he scampered about in the forests and fields of snow. He ended up being shot in the jaw in March 1940; out of action but alive. Armed individuals can have a substantive effect in combat.

The Palestinian resistance involves multitudes of civilians, individually and in small groups, physically resisting the occupation with everything from a sling-and-stone to Katyusha rockets.

For centuries, from feudal Japan to to feudal England, ruling governments have sought a monopoly on force of arms and only orchestrated, compliant resistance, when and where useful -- like government distribution of arms used in the Rwandan genocide. The idea of people having comprehensive and ready means to resist real-world injustice and tyranny is an anathema to them.

Lizzie Van Zyl died in 1901 in Britain's Bloemfontein concentration camp for being the daughter of an armed Boer

In the modern historical record, inception of civilian disarmament correlates with democide or genocide:

  • 1911, Turkey: 1915 to 1920, over 2 million Armenians, Greeks, and Assyrians rounded up and exterminated

  • 1929, Soviet Union: 1929 to 1953, about 20 million ethnic undesirables starved and dissidents liquidated

  • 1935, China: 1948 to 1969, upwards of 70 million dissidents, ethnic undesirables, and social reformation casualties allowed to starve or rounded up and executed

  • 1938, Germany: 1939 to 1945, over 10 million dissidents and social and ethnic undesirables rounded up and exterminated

Hitler, Stalin, Mao: Three of the Twentieth Century's Leading Advocates of Civilian Disarmament

Artwork © Michael Chapdelaine

State-directed mass murder continued into Guatemala, Cambodia, North Korea, Uganda, and elsewhere, following similar arms restrictions.

Italian criminologist, philosopher, and politician Cesare, marchese di Beccaria-Bonesana pointed out in his 1764 On Crimes and Punishments:

Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.

Alexander Solzhenitsyn touches upon the value of armed resistance that America's Founding Fathers fully appreciated as he reflected upon the disarmed and terrified subjects within Stalin's Soviet Union:

And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the wicked witch of the West, reeking of hypocrisy, contemporarily expresses concern about government use of military force against civilians in the context of Western-backed uprisings in Libya and Syria. Clinton fully supports arms for expendable political pawns on the grand chessboard.

However, while her husband presided over the militarized siege and mass murder of 75 Branch Davidians at Mount Carmel in Waco, Texas, she shared no such public misgivings.

Waco: Trapped, Gassed, and Burned

Rather, she used her position to bury the Waco-siege-related records and investigative findings of her law partner, Deputy White House Counsel, Vince Foster, following his alleged suicide.

The truth is our criminal ruling class want to pick and choose distributing the means for uprisings and fomenting instability as its suits U.S. imperial grand strategy and back revolt when the revolutionaries are supposedly obedient lap dogs. As such, the U.S. funnels a cornucopia of small arms to Mexican drug cartels and Syrian opposition fighters while sending in the drones to wipe out frustratingly independent Pashtuns in the Hindu Kush.

"The Gun Markets of Pakistan," The Vice Guide to Travel, Suroosh Alvi


Palestinian writer Samah Jabr makes the same point as America's Founders with regard to self-defense according to Natural Law in his excellent commentary The Palestinian Resistance: Its Legitimate Right and the Moral Duty:

Our occupiers subject us to curfews, expulsions, home demolitions, legalized torture, and a highly imaginative assortment of human rights violations. No justifiable comparison can be drawn between the level of official accountability to which Palestinians are held for the actions of a few individuals and the responsibility for the systematic and intense violence against the entire Palestinian population practiced with impunity by the state of Israel... American media call our search for freedom "terrorism," ...Jihad is a rich concept which includes struggling against one's lesser self, the effort to do good deeds, actively opposing injustice, and being patient in times of hardship. It is not about violence against God's creatures, or not fearing death in defending the rights of God's creations. Violence can, however, be a rational human's means of defense. When a woman reacts violently when threatened with rape, that is a form of jihad... International law grants a people fighting an illegal occupation the right to use "all necessary means at their disposal" to end their occupation... Armed resistance was used in the American Revolution, the Afghan resistance against Russia (which the U.S. supported), the French resistance against the Nazis, and even in the Nazi concentration camps, or, more famously, in the Warsaw Ghetto... Our ambition is not to blow ourselves up in order to terrify others. We are asking for what all other people rightfully have: a decent life in the land of our birth.

Disarmed Subject versus Armed Citizen

Thomas Jefferson, chief drafter of the Declaration of Independence and third President of the United States, wrote in a November 13th 1787 letter to William Stephens Smith:

And what country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. …The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.

A gentleman is thought of in the modern, limited sense as a man having qualities of refinement associated with a good family, being cultured, courteous, and well-educated. Historically, a person of gentle birth, was importantly entitled to bear arms, ranking above other classes as lords. As expressed in Shakespeare's late 16th century comedy, The Taming of the Shrew, "And if no gentleman, why then no arms."

Rulers sought to restrict the keeping and bearing of arms as matter of classism. Those born to lower classes are expected to slog and toil for their masters; kept to lowly station and subject to governance, not participatory and without means to resist despotism.

Quiet Headline on the Virtue of an Armed Populace

The incredible societal advancement of the American Republic was its rejection of the divine right of kings, removal of the old-world social ceiling, and elimination of servitude; no man was a mere subject, American citizens could all keep and bear arms, putting them on equal footing with those that would be lords.

Arms can keep a man out of bondage and rebuff destruction; an unarmed man must depend upon mercy. The historical record shows that very few conquerors, governments, and rulers are merciful and truly beneficent.

Bowling for Columbine

Liberty has successfully coupled with responsibility in the United States since its inception. Richard Henry Lee, Continental Congress member, independence resolution sponsor, Declaration of Independence signatory, Westmoreland Militia colonel, sixth President of the United States in Congress assembled under the Articles of Confederation, member of the Virginia convention that ratified the Federal Constitution in 1788, and later a United States Senator, wrote in the Pennsylvania Gazette on February 20th 1788:

[W]hereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.

Today we have far less liberty and responsibility across the board. The nation has witnessed shocking instances of violence, particularly when children are victimized, and the backlash to the idea of an armed populace is profound. Nevertheless, anarchy and wanton violence isn't indivisible from an armed society.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) figures, the comparatively arms permissive U.S. has 10 deaths by guns per 100,000 people per year. According to UNESCO's own figures, arms permissive Brazil has 21.72 gun deaths per 100,000 people a year. Collectivist, socialist, individual-arms-prohibitive Venezuela has 34.3 gun deaths per 100,000.

Arms are widespread and legally permissible in Switzerland, Norway, and the Czech Republic and civil violence is neither frequent nor widespread. Mexico, by contrast, is among those nations with limitations on arms and the country now experiences regionalized anarchy and is near civil war. Innocent, law abiding people, denied arms for self defense, suffer and die -- like Don Alejo Garza Tamez -- while the criminal element runs amok. Arms-and-kitchen-implement-restrictive Britain also suffers from rampant violent crime.

Violence in a well-armed populace is tied to social and moral conditions. We don't lose our civil rights because a portion of society has lost its civility.

Individuals maliciously inclined will carry out their intentions regardless. If the potential for abuse of inanimate objects in the hands of people is intolerable, abolition will extend beyond arms to machetes, crow bars, cars, kitchen knives, axes and glass bottles.

On this July 4th 2012, I leave you with the words of Patrick Henry, "radical" advocate of the American Revolution, militia leader, and Virginia Governor, delivered in a 1788 speech to the Virginia convention to ratify the Constitution:

Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force: Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.


Buffer   Seed Newsvine  Delicious Save this on Delicious



comments powered by Disqus


[Most Recent Quotes from]



Sure Aqua - Portable Water Filter



  Change for green







Home | Mission | Show | News | The Poison Pen | Resources | Links | Contact | Advertise | Donate | Privacy


Truth Alert

Peak Oil ●  Population Bomb  ● Dollar Crisis ●  Global Warming ●  Police State ●  Consumer Culture

Copyright © 2012 Michael Chapdelaine; all rights reserved.