In part one I described what Canadians have had to endure with respect to gun control. I used Canada because it is not only what I’m actually having to personally deal with, but we seem to be in the middle of the gun control spectrum when compared to other countries. That could go either way after the next election in October. A conservative government recognizes that shooting sports and hunting are an integral part of Canadian Culture. They don’t want to disarm us. With the right pressure, we might get even more of the gun-grabbing laws changed to be more rational.
But that is not the case with the other two political parties: the Liberals, who are center-left, and the New Democrats, who are far left. During the writing of C-68, the Liberal’s draconian gun law, their view was that only the military and the police should have guns. No civilian ownership of any firearm.
“I came to Ottawa . . . with the firm belief that the only people in this country who should have guns are police officers and soldiers.” –Liberal minister of justice, Allan Rock, 1994.
“Canada will be one of the first unarmed countries in the world.” –Liberal foreign affairs minister Lloyd Axworthy, 1998.
“Disarming the Canadian public is part of the new humanitarian social agenda.” — Liberal foreign affairs minister Lloyd Axworthy at a gun control conference, Oslo, Norway, 1998
Hence the attempt to disarm Canadians through C-68, and the powers the Liberals gave to police agencies to make their own laws with no oversight, and no recourse.
Those two parties have been clear, should they win the next election, they would make gun control even more strict, including banning of all handguns.
They know criminals won’t abide to any gun control laws. If anything these socialists would require criminals to invoke fear in the public to make them more willing to have our freedoms sucked away.
We are not unique in this regard.
Australian gun laws are even more strict than Canada’s. After several mass shootings occurred their conservative Government imposed one of the strictest controls on gun ownership in the Western World. It resulted in the destruction of nearly a million firearms. Even pump action shotguns were included in the banning. By law the government was required to pay everyone who handed in a gun. Nearly a billion dollars was paid, which came from a special one off tax on their health care.
New laws on ownership included air-rifles and even paintball guns. One needs a “Genuine Reason” to own any firearm, including a paintball gun! Airsoft guns are banned outright. Airsoft “guns” fire plastic pellets using CO2 pressure. They are very popular with re-enactors because these devices often resemble the firearms the re-enactors need for their events.
The interesting aspect of the Australian gun control is the government sent everyone a pamphlet stating in no uncertain terms, that no one has the right to use guns for self-defence.
Such is the case in Canada too.
The Australian government claims gun related crime has dropped. Suicides by guns have dropped. What they don’t want people to know is that overall crime rate has increased, dramatically, specifically home invasions. Suicides actually increased in the years after the gun control. People just found other means.
What the government also doesn’t want people to know is how many of the illegal guns are buried in the Outback. Estimates are it could be a million of them.
In the UK, things are much worse.
When the final stage arrived in 1997, and virtually all handguns were banned via the Firearms Act, the promise was a reduction in crime and greater safety for the British people. But the result was the emergence of Britain as the “most violent country in Europe.”
In the years since these two countries have had strict gun laws, with the promise of people being more safe we have this:
Strict gun laws in Great Britain and Australia haven’t made their people noticeably safer, nor have they prevented massacres. The two major countries held up as models for the U.S. don’t provide much evidence that strict gun laws will solve our problems.
Criminals, it seems, don’t care about gun laws. Go figure.
Now we come to the US. The current government has been using shootings to justify confiscating or at least restricting gun ownership. Indeed, this is a tough battle because of the Second Amendment, but that doesn’t stop the US government, some states, and some cities from imposing gun bans. But then the US Supreme Court puts an end to those bans.
So what is the reason for the attempt at confiscating firearms from private ownership if it isn’t to curb crime?
“C-68 has little to do with gun control or crime control, but it is the first step necessary to begin the social re-engineering of Canada.” –Liberal senator Sharon Carstairs, 1996.
That “re-engineering” is UN Agenda 21.
Agenda 21 was made public in 1992. Canada’s gun control came in 1995. Australian gun control came in 1996. Though British gun control started before then, beginning in earnest after WWII, the current gun laws came into effect in 1997. I don’t like co-incidences on that scale.
Agenda 21 is the UN vision of what the world should be in the 21st century. It’s a communist’s wet dream. No private ownership of anything, not land, not possessions. It firmly requires redistribution of resources evenly around the world. It requires people to be packed into urban cubicles to limit the human impact on the environment.
“Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class — involving high meat intake, the use of fossil fuels, electrical appliances, home and work-place air-conditioning and suburban housing — are not sustainable,” explained UN Earth Summit Secretary-General Maurice Strong as he ushered in Agenda 21 two decades ago. In other words, the UN sustainability agenda eventually seeks to curtail people’s choices in terms of food, transportation, housing, and much more. The document itself makes that abundantly clear, too.
No government can implement Agenda 21 while private citizens are armed, hence the 2006 UN Small Arms Treaty.
The original idea was simple: Recognising the terrible damage caused by the unchecked global trade in arms, a group of Nobel Peace Laureates drafted a set of principles that would apply existing international human rights and humanitarian law to international arms transfers.
These principles were developed into a draft arms trade treaty (ATT) that would oblige states to regulate and report all international arms transfers, and to prevent transfers where the arms would be likely to be used to commit war crimes or human rights abuses.
It’s all in the interpretation of the wording. The Treaty states that countries should not be selling arms to countries where “…they would contribute to or undermine peace and security; or could be used to commit or facilitate a serious violation of international humanitarian law, human rights law, terrorism or transnational organised crime. The risk of a contributing to or facilitating serious acts of gender based violence or violence against women or children is also included.” Link.
The NRA claimed, “Barack Obama or a future anti-gun president could use [the treaty] and international norms compliance to rationalize enacting gun control politics through executive actions, especially in the import and export realms.”
Liberal minded people in positions of government look to the UN as the world authority on, well, everything. So when the UN says countries should control guns more, they expect countries to abide. Progressive politicians are all too keen to abide. The wording of the Treaty could be used by gun-grabbing governments to stop the importation of firearms into their country because criminals are using those firearms to commit crimes, be it domestic violence resulting in murdered women, or mass shootings.
Couple all this with the state of the world economy: it’s collapsing. It’s only a matter of time before the debt bomb goes off. When it does it will make the 1930 depression look like good times. That will mean rioting in the streets.
However, a disarmed public is an obeying public when confronted with armed police willing to use lethal force when ordered to, or so socialist governments hope. Though they are likely to find out that assumption is very wrong.
The US government has been on an ammunition-buying spree. Agencies are stockpiling billions of rounds.
…some of this purchase order is for hollow-point rounds, forbidden by international law for use in war, along with a frightening amount specialized for snipers.
Why? Does the government feel something is coming that they think they will need billions of rounds to control the populous?
Couple this with the rumors of FEMA camps being readied to detain Americans during civil unrest (link) and the dots start to get connected.