MY WORD: Some history on the presidential gun-grab

-A A +A

By Eugene Maynard

What I have to say about President Barack Obama’s “gun grab” is lengthy but necessary in order to give a proper historical approach and clear up the most recent root cause or the origin of his mindset.

This is not a new idea or effort that has just occurred to Mr. Obama, he and others of his persuasion have labored from time to time toward this end. The horrible event at Newtown, Conn., was not the trigger, but it is just the opportunity to make inroads toward the goal to remove guns and repeal (in some form) the Second Amendment to our Constitution.

The United Nations and its member organizations have been at work toward this end for a lot of years. They have been successful where many countries are concerned and have them on the way to having their citizens indefensible, i.e., Australia, Canada and other European Union countries.

The UN “Small Arms Treaty,” aboard which our president and secretary of state eagerly climbed, is the vehicle that presently is the root cause of this effort. All those nations who are either ruled by tyrants, kings, oligarchy and dictators who have already disarmed their citizens would like to do the same to the U.S. We are the largest hold-out nation.

Our Second Amendment to our Constitution is in the way of this group’s thinking, a group made up of both foreign and domestic content. This group fears the freedom the Second Amendment offers, and it rankles them to their core. In their minds common citizens should not have this liberty and should be “reined in.”

When a nation allows a free society to institute “gun-free zones” such as theaters, schools and shopping malls, they are a draw to a mentally unstable people who want to pour out their displeasure and misery by ending the lives of innocents.

Using this chink or weakness in our culture gives these creatures free access to unarmed populations. While these people may be unhinged mentally, they understand the soft underbelly this presents – and they take advantage.

Using these disastrous incidents, the UN bureaucrats and their domestic cronies will stop at nothing to restrict the lawful population of any means of defense by gun banning. They intend to register, ban and confiscate firearms owned by private citizens at every opportunity. So far, the gun-grabbers have successfully kept many of their schemes under wraps.

But an event like the insane shooting at Newtown was too great of an opportunity to waste.

Ever since its founding 65 years ago, the UN has been consistently bent on bringing the U.S. to its knees in any way possible. Most of these nations are not our friends. They are our friends only when they want funds but are working against our freedoms when possible. The idea and intended mission of the UN was good at its beginning – but the true mission that has developed over the years is now to use the organization to our disadvantage.

The UN would like – as would many of our liberal citizens – to inculcate into the U.S. a totally disarmed society. To do this they must (a) enact tougher licensing requirement; making the law-abiding citizens efforts difficult in order to cut through the red-tape; (b) confiscate and destroy “all unauthorized” civilian firearms; (c) ban the sale, trade and private ownership of all semi-automatic weapons; and in the end (d) create an international gun registry that sets the stage for a full-scale gun confiscation.

This agenda is not intended to take place in an immediate manner but, in our case, take part over many years.

Persons who believe in a disarmament campaign should look to those nations who have gone down that road previously. Gun-banners like to use England as an example of what a great thing a weaponless society would be, where crime is reduced greatly. This is fiction and full of  made-up statistics.

England’s crime rate is nearly four times as great as the U.S. rate. In England the shooting at Newtown would be reported on their statistics as one event or crime. This statistic would stand even though more than 20 humans were slaughtered. The UK’s total number of violent offenses recorded compared to populations, is higher than any country in Europe (reported by the UK Telegraph, July 2, 2009).

The violent offenses are higher than any country in Europe as well as the U.S., Canada, Australia or South Africa. UK had a greater number of murders in 2007 than any EU country – 927 – and at a relative rate higher than most European neighbors.
Overall, 5.4 million crimes were recorded in the UK in 2007 – more than 10 per minute – second only to Sweden. That means more than 2,000 crimes recorded per 100,000 populations. That makes England the most violent place in Europe.

As previously stated, Great Britain’s crime rate is nearly four times that of the U.S. By comparison, America has an estimated rate of 466 violent crimes per 100,000 population.

If you think our president isn’t worried about the violent crime rate, why would he grant himself and his family lifetime Secret Service protection? He did so through legislation this month, also including George W. Bush and his family who preceded him (possibly to get support for the legislation by Republicans). The previous law only permitted protection for a period of 10 years after leaving office.

In the face of this legislation the president would like to remove or interfere with the armament of citizens who are not of the elite class. That doesn’t seem right in a constitutional republic in which our representatives are democratically elected to office.

Are we headed toward a form of government that our Founding Fathers escaped at the inception of this nation? I labor under the understanding that our politicians swore to uphold the U.S. Constitution, which contains the Second Amendment.

It says: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Eugene Maynard lives in Simpsonville.