The true implications of the UN Small Arms Treaty

A lot of people claim the UN Small Arms Treaty to be “harmless” to the legal rights of American citizens, because it specifically states a sovereign nation's civilian firearms rights are not applicable to the treaty.

With that said, the treaty's stated goals and guidelines call for controls on what is exported out of the country, to prevent weapons from falling into the hands of “non-state actors”. Such a definition would include everyone that is not recognized as a legitimate government power. It would include everyone from Al Qaeda and Kony's child-soldier army, the Syrian rebels our country is giving monetary aid to (to finance a revolution, which would include the purchase of arms), the resistance fighters of WWII (whom we actually CREATED a pistol specifically for), and even the American colonial revolutionaries who founded this nation.

In 1986, the US congress passed what is known as the Firearms Owners Protection Act. While it included the controversial Hughes Amendment banning the registration of (and as a result, the private possession of) any and all full-auto “machine guns” produced after May 1986, it also prevented the BATFE from operating or maintaining any type of firearm registry or instituting new registration regulations after that date.

Now let's say hypothetically, the people of Cuba wanted to shed the shackles of communism. Due to ITAR restrictions banning the private shipment of firearms outside the US and its territories, it would be necessary to obtain permission from the state department and have them shipped under the official authority of the US government...who would, in turn, be in violation of the UN Arms Trade Treaty, because Cuban revolutionaries are considered “non-state actors”. Nevermind the fact that the US has had trade and travel embargoes on the nation of Cuba since the communist revolution, and even tried to help overthrow the Castro government in the past using methods that would put them in specific violation of the UN Arms Trade Treaty.

Now let's go a step further, and say the massive amount of second-generation American citizens of Cuban descent living in the US decide that they are unwilling to wait on the US government's assistance that would now be in violation of the UN treaty, and they're tired of waiting on the UN to recognize the resistance in Cuba to be recognized as a legitimate government.

These American citizens, children and even grandchildren of American citizens, have a close connection to the people of Cuba. Being roughly 80mi from the coast of Florida, there are many blood relatives still living under the bondage of communism and despotism. They also have the constitutionally-protected right to purchase firearms for self-protection, sporting purposes, or “just because they feel like it”...including semi-automatic versions of the very same rifles our state-actor troops are currently using in battle. Because of the FOPA of 1986, the US government is prohibited by law from keeping a registry of the current ownership status of these rifles beyond the initial sale from a licensed dealer.

Suppose 200 Cuban-Americans out of Miami's 400,000 people got together and decided to help out the Cuban resistance. Over a period of three months, each of these people could purchase three rifles, and say nothing to no one about their reasoning for doing so. Unless purchased from a very small gun shop, the purchase of one rifle per month would not raise suspicions...nor is it required to be reported to the BATFE. Within a three-month period, 600 rifles could be obtained in such a manner. That would be enough rifles to outfit a force roughly equivalent to three US Marine rifle companies.

Without specific knowledge of a conspiracy to violate ITAR regulations, the US government is constitutionally prohibited from keeping records of current ownership status or preventing the purchase of such rifles. Without specific knowledge that such a conspiracy even exists, the US government and its state and local counterparts are prohibited from even investigating the situation because the mere purchase of the rifles is “reasonably known to be” a constitutionally-protected act done in a manner not meeting the BATFE's standards of reporting suspicious purchases.

How, specifically, can the US be in compliance with the UN treaty by preventing the mass transfer of firearms to a non-state party? It cannot investigate the purchase of a rifle without a reasonable suspicion that it is to be used in a crime (such as a conspiracy to violate ITAR), nor can it create a registry of current ownership status due to the FOPA of 1986.

Essentially, the US will be forced to be in violation of either existing US law, be in violation of the UN treaty, or be forced to repeal specific portions of the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986.

Rebuttal to a naysayer...

My firearm collection is not based upon corporate influences instilling widespread panic to sell more firearms, as a significant portion of my collection cannot even be imported into this country since the administration of Bush I...and the majority of my collection came from private sales, meaning these corporations got dick squat from those purchases. What I did buy NIB was purchased because I wanted something specific, not because I felt the need to run out and buy the first firearm I could find. My three favorite pieces are actually home-builds from parts kits using the specific pieces I wanted and sought after.

This is about "gun rights", but not wholly about gun rights. It's about a government controlling every single aspect of our lives. I agree that political parties are total whores. That's why I am an anarchist. I didn't vote for Romney in the last election, I gave a write-in for my uncle as a joke and took a photo of it to post on his FB wall. You will be hard-pressed to find a bigger critic of GWBush than this man right here, and I loathe Obama equally.

And yes, there is an ongoing attempt to disarm the citizenry. While our government is railing against high-capacity magazines and "assault rifles" for anyone that can pass a standard background checks. I shot my first deer with a rifle I built in my bedroom, and that rifle would have been felonious to own when I came of age to actually buy the parts to build it.

I do not buy into the notion of it being a "left" or "right" issue, as I have always believed that government is a dangerous thing. It is responsible for more deaths in the past hundred years than any other cause...and yet, while my government tries to pass laws limiting the size of the magazine a common man may have in his hunting rifle or home-defense handgun, that same government continues to allow civilian possession of machine guns, hand grenades, sawed-off shotguns, silencers, etc. The kicker? One must go through a lengthy, protracted background check...or, in the case of Chris Dorner, create a legal fiction on paper to bypass the background check and required signature from the chief of police.

The suggestion of a "paper trail" via background checks is nothing more than a backdoor to gun registration, regardless of whether the law allows for such registrations. If you think this is paranoia, I must ask you. If you honestly think our government will not do something against the law, why did they give retroactive immunity to telecom providers?

The second amendment was designed for the armament of the common man at a level identical to that of a professional soldier, so that he might become a soldier if necessary. For anyone to suggest anything else is ludicrous. In the state of Texas, my home, one may walk down the street peacefully with an AR15 slung across his back without fear of legal repercussion aside from cases where an overzealous policeman takes matters into his own hands and writes the rules as he goes. Actually aim that rifle at someone without a legitimate fear for loss of life or property, and it's serious prison time. There is a huge difference. That's not a "right-wing ideology", that's common sense.

I see no reason whatsoever that a man should not be able to do the same in the capitol of his nation, home to the whores that rob him of his wages, aside from the fact that those very same whores are afraid of persons other than those hired to protect them.

More thoughts on the Open Carry March #130704

First off, the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right of the people to not only “keep”, but also to “bear”, arms...meaning that they may not only be possessed, but also held upon their person.

The notion that our 2nd Amendment rights may be regulated in a manner prohibiting the peaceful carrying of firearms in public because there are also restrictions upon the 1st Amendment is, in all actuality, simply ridiculous and intellectually dishonest. Restrictions on a person's freedoms of religion, speech, and assembly are lawful under our constitution only when used to prevent the free exercise of rights by others.

The dictionary definition of the verb “infringe” is “To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate”. If the right to carry a firearm in a peaceful manner is completely outlawed, the right of the people to bear arms has been infringed, period. The act of bearing arms is, in the very literal sense of the word, merely carrying them.

Obviously, it is illegal to go around randomly pointing a firearm at someone that is not a threat to a person's life or liberty, as that is an infringement upon his right to be secure in his person...a right that is guaranteed by our 4th Amendment. However, peacefully existing on a public street is not a threat to another person. There is a difference between “brandishing” (“To wave or flourish menacingly”) and merely possessing upon ones' person (to “bear”). Brandishing arms is a violation of a person's 4th Amendment rights, while bearing arms is not.

Now let's move right along and look at the logic of those who are opposed to this demonstration, they fall into three camps. One would be the government officials, namely the DC Metro Police and their spokeswhore chief, who decry the notion of peaceful people carrying guns as a threat to safety...while suggesting that they should be stopped and arrested by force at the hands of people with *gasp!* firearms. The second would be the Obamaton leftist camp who also scream about the supposed threat to public safety...while simultaneously suggesting that the marchers be mowed down by police officers carrying *gasp!* firearms. The third would be the so-called “conservatives” and “libertarians” who want to keep claiming that the march should not take place because it is a violation of the law.

Let's get this straight here. The police say it's somehow “dangerous” for people to walk down the street carrying guns...so they plan to meet these people with guns. And tasers. And batons. And pepper spray. That's absolutely brilliant. Given the statistical accuracy of these “highly-trained brave officers” in on-duty firefights, I'm just not buying the notion that it's somehow safe for them to walk down the street with guns while it's unsafe for you or I to do it.

The Obamatons, self-described “liberals”, “left-wingers”, and those “in favor of common-sense gun laws”, claim that having a bunch of “guntard toothless hillbillies marching down the street with their AK47s is a threat to public safety”. Their solution? When not expressing a desire to see them murdered in the street for walking down it while possessing inanimate objects carried peacefully upon their backs, they are also planning a “counter-demonstration”...one that entails meeting the armed march with squirt guns and water balloons in order to harass, annoy, and assault people peaceably walking down the street. Just to be sure everyone understands this brilliant logic, people having firearms on their person in public are dangerous individuals that should be shot on sight...so the appropriate response, in their eyes, is to pelt them with water balloons. Yeah, people with guns are dangerous, so in order to demonstrate this danger, they're going to actively provoke them with water balloons. That's beyond brilliant. That's Einstein-level genius.

Then we have the folks who are self-proclaimed protectors of our gun rights, but do nothing aside from complain about liberals, worshiping at the altar of Media Personality XX, and claim that because something is considered illegal by the state that it must not be done.

These are, perhaps, the people I take the most issue with. At least the cops and the commies are honest about who they are. I would like to point out that the people at Fox News and WorldNetDaily don't give a rat's ass about you. They don't know your name, they wouldn't speak to you if it wasn't at a book signing, and they really just don't give a flying fuck about your life or liberty. Glenn Beck, Michael Savage, Bill O'Reilly, mAnn Coulter, Sean Hannity, etc do not hate people like Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews...they LOVE these people, because pretending to hate them makes for good entertainment and a healthy paycheck. Pro wrestling is fake, son. Grow the hell up already. Your “No Spin Zone” doormat may impress your neighbors, but O'Reilly and Maher have as much of an impact upon the fate of your God-given rights as Hulk Hogan had on the cold war when the WWF was staging his "fights" against the Bolsheviks and the Iran Sheik. Likewise, self-proclaimed “liberals” and “conservatives” have as much chance of changing this world as fans of the Boston Red Sox and New York Mets. They can hate each other all they want, but in the end, they're nothing more than useful idiots used as pawns by the people who actually do control your life. Real heroes have real mugshots.

The notion that a person should not stand up for what is right, simply because it is illegal, is morally reprehensible. At various points in this nation's history, beer was illegal while slavery wasn't. It took people being willing to stand up for what was right (and occasionally arrested, shot, beaten, hanged, etc) in order for change to be effected.

If not me, who? If not here, where? If not this, what? If not now, when?

Isaiah 6:8, and may the Force be with you.

The locked & loaded march on the White House is set for this year's Independence Day, July 4th 2013.  Adam Kokesh (host of "Adam vs The Man" on YouTube, political activist, former US Marine) is planning on taking one thousand men armed with loaded (but politely slung) rifles across the Memorial Bridge between Virginia and Washington DC.

It will be an illegal march.  Even though the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution guarantees every American the right to both keep AND bear arms, the District of Columbia (like most jurisdictions in America) does not recognize the right to openly carry a firearm.  In addition to the Washington DC Metro and US Park Police departments, the FBI and Secret Service will also likely be on hand.

Given the nature of the march, I think it's a good idea for men with families at home to sit this one out. For God's sake, don't be a retard and bring your kids to this, if you're going.

I look at four possible outcomes of this event.  Only one of them works out good for the marchers, and all four will end up badly for government.

1) The march is allowed to take place.  The police ignore it, the march goes through unimpeded and everyone goes home.  The government is shown to be powerless, and the government loses.

2) The march is stopped by police before it crosses the bridge.  The government is shown to be resentful of peaceful people.  The government loses.

3) The marchers are summarily arrested for attempting to cross the bridge.  The government creates a thousand political prisoners.  The government loses.

4) The marchers are mowed down by government agents.  The government creates a thousand martyrs and starts a revolution.  The government loses.

Scenario 1 is very unlikely to happen, for the same reason governments will offer a reduced-charge plea with "time served" to people they've knowingly and wrongfully convicted.  They don't want to lose face and admit wrongdoing.

Scenario 2, which is the stated intent of the march, is also unlikely to happen (in my opinion, anyway) because police officers have a history of pack mentality and hunger for power. 

Scenarios 3 and 4 are, in my opinion, the two most likely outcomes.  Cops, especially when in large groups, appear to love the notion of being "in control of the situation"...and generally like having an excuse to use force, be it justified or not.  That statement is not opinion, but rather, a proven historical fact that has been shown to be true countless times in the past few years. 

This is going to light the fuse.  Like any other time dynamite is used, it's gonna be messy...it may be necessary, but I don't think I wanna be standing next to it.

Peaceful Evolution or Violent Revolution?

Years ago, I was the "small-government libertarian" type, even registering as a republican to vote for Ron Paul in the primaries (2008 and 2012) and even gave a day's pay to help his son Rand win a seat in the US Senate.  Even though I ran out of excuses and had become a full-blown anarchist prior to the 2012 election cycle, I still don't mind taking a few hours per year of my time to help the system dismantle itself from the inside...which is exactly what I envisioned Dr. Paul's plan to be when he was running for representative and for president.  His son Rand?  Well, I'd say I was a bit naive in thinking he and his father are the same person with the same values, but I digress. 

Back to what I was getting at, it has been years since I held an honest belief that the nation-state we call home could cure itself of its ills, because I believe that statism is the disease it suffers from.  By its very nature, it is doomed to fail.  I also realize that while the philosophy of anarchism (or "voluntaryism" as it is called by those who feel the term "anarchism" carries a negative stigma) has been around for quite some time, there has been no other time in the history of this world where so many people firmly believed and understood that people are not to be the slaves of others in any form, be their chains of bondage literal or metaphorical.

Likewise, there have been only two other times in the history of this nation where grown, thinking, rational men have seriously debated both the merits and the possibility of an armed revolt.  One of those times saw the creation of this nation, while the other came very close to destroying it.

Today, I stumbled across a YooToob video created by one Christopher Cantwell (liberty activist, aspiring comedian, unapologetic drunkard, parking-meter Robin Hood, and the list of hats he wears goes on and on), in which he espoused a view I've held for quite some time. 

I highly suggest you watch it. 

While I do not know Mr. Cantwell personally, we have conversed on occasion via social media networks, and it would appear that we have very similar opinions on this particular subject.  Within our circle of friends, and even outside it with the rest of the country, there is a growing debate.  It centers around whether it is proper to peacefully resist by voting against those who are wrecking this place, simply act as if the state does not exist and peacefully resist by ignoring the actions and edicts of government while being willing to be kidnapped, or to be prepared to actually physically resist with violence when given no other option.

As Cantwell (and countless others within our circles of contact and conversation) are fully aware,  this country is headed straight to hell in the proverbial handbasket.  Those who still haven't decided to eat their "red pill" yet also understand this, even though they don't quite seem to understand why. 

So-called conservatives wish to blame it God supposedly being banned from public schools, legalization of pot, Muslim terrorism, etc.  Those leaning a bit farther to the left seem to think it has something to do with "capitalism", class warfare, the death of polar bears, and the perceived shortage of taxpayer-funded social programs.  Then there's the rest of us, who understand the nature of the state and are generally just pissed off about it.

In the meantime, more and more people are starting to wake up to the fact that our laws have made a mockery of justice.  Our constitution has gone from being "the law of the land" to being some mythical document oft-ignored by those sworn to uphold it, to the point where it is illegal to even cultivate the very plants used to create the paper it was written on. 

Since the beginning of this nation, our laws were written to benefit the men who were wealthy enough to buy the men who wrote the laws.  Today, they call it "lobbying".  Once upon a time, it was called by its true name of "bribery".  There are so many laws on our books that even those charged with enforcing them don't even know what they are...regardless of the fact that most of them had no intention of actually following them in the first place. 

There was once a time when slavery was legal in this country, in the sense of a man being allowed by law to actually own another man as property based solely upon the color of his skin.  Negro slavery became extinct across the nation with the civil war, but the wealthiest among us still desired control over others and would stop at nothing to maintain control over the masses.  It hasn't stopped yet, and has no sign of even wanting to slow down.  Negro slavery was never abolished...it was just expanded to be race-neutral and include everyone not wealthy and powerful enough to be immune to the laws written by the wealthy and powerful.

While bringing up subjects such as disarmament, theft by taxation, a worthless fiat money system, and a nation under constant surveillance and fear of police brutality would have had you pegged as a conspiracy theorist who needed to loosen his tin-foil hat ten or even five years ago, the masses of this country are finally waking up to realize maybe those "kooks" aren't so crazy after all. If these things sound strange, it's likely because you have heard them packaged in a different wrapper and are simply unfamiliar with the root causes of the issues at hand.  I could go on and on with all manner of issues, but these are what I find to be most pressing at the moment.

For the first time since the US civil war (or the "War of Northern Aggression", as we Texans like to call it!), roughly one third of polled Americans think an armed rebellion will be necessary to reclaim our freedom.

**************************************************

So what does it all mean?  Your government hates you, thinks you are second-class, and has every intention of keeping you subservient.  There is a financial incentive to disarm you, rob you, keep you as poor as possible, and beat your ass (or kidnap you, or even kill you) if you step out of line...just the same as every other slave-master throughout history. 

You, as well as the rest of America, has a choice.  You can either continue to hope that voting or ignoring the problem will solve it, or you can realize that the slaves vastly outnumber the masters and overseers and put that opportunity to good use while you still can.

This is not an incitation to violence, it's merely an effort to make you think.  Ready or not, this nation is ready to crash.  You can sit there and wish it didn't happen, or you can strap on your seatbelt and hit the brakes.