Letter to the Editor

UN, Obama preparing to take gun rights away

Wednesday, December 31, 2014

Dear editor:

Christmas Eve, 2014, while much of America was in "last minute" mode Christmas shopping, our rights were under assault once again by this administration. In a page from the "Yamamoto Pearl Harbor Playbook", we were blindsided again (except those of us "paranoids" who keep vigil over each Democratic administration). The Obama administration has signed a "small arms treaty" with the U.N., set to take effect this past Christmas eve.

Didn't hear about it on your favorite news channel? Fancy that. Like a "sleepy Sunday morning at Pearl," Christmas eve was perfect timing to try to slip something by unnoticed.

Looks OK on the surface, one of those world-wide "kumbaya" moments. But like Obamacare, you scoffers need to READ the thing before you SAY anything, in particular, Articles 5, 12, and ESPECIALLY 16. (Don't take my word for it------LOOK IT UP!) Been TELLIN' ya' this forever! Yes, yes, "it could never happen HERE!" Look it up anyway.

While this was no surprise (the Democrats have been after our private gun rights for decades), they didn't sneak this one "under the radar" as they'd hoped to. Ever since the early Clinton days, we've carefully tracked this "party of the people." The same ones who've chanted from childhood that "only the police and the military should have guns" (except in Ferguson and other such places, of course).

Now, technically it has to be ratified by the Senate (which HASN'T happened yet), but if you're an honest gun owner, you HAVE to be concerned that even if the NEW Senate turns it down, this current president thinks he's the "king" now, and will NOT be challenged by neither media nor congress. He just does what he wants, and to oppose ANYTHING he does makes one a nationwide bigot.

But here's where it gets sticky. This administration has most Dems convinced that the U.N. is some kind of "parent figure" or "final authority." It is NOT. They lease a large building in New York, where they harbor terrorist nations, and vote AGAINST us 82 percent of the time, even though we foolishly pay the lion's share of its operating cost. We do NOT "answer" to the U.N. They are NOT our "mommy and daddy." They have never been a part of our Constitution and we are under NO obligation to obey the "One-World-Order United Nations."

NOBODY, politician or military, has ever taken an oath to protect or defend the U.N. While I sadly KNOW of a few military members who've told me they WOULD obey an order from a U.N. commander, I myself would NOT, nor would MOST in my estimation. I'm an AMERICAN, who takes no orders from foreigners nor traitors. Not now. Not ever.

I am not PERSONNALLY overly concerned because when it finally DOES "hit the fan," I'm gonna do what I need to do -- "from ALL enemies, both FOREIGN and DOMESTIC." And I'm not by ANY means, the "lone ranger" around here, or across the country. I'm just a little more vocal about it than most.

Most prolific gun owners have known this was coming since September of last year. The bulk of us "old timers" have had the "radar on" since the original "Slick Willie assault gun ban," which cost him both of HIS Houses in '94. Nobody I know has been sitting around to just "wait and see." We all knew this was coming somewhere down the line, we just didn't know WHEN or under WHO. We DID know it would be a Democrat administration. Had to be, that's always been where anti-gun assaults against honest citizens have always come from. Always.

To the majority of gun owners reading this, I'm merely "preaching to the choir." But all REAL Americans need to know how their rights are being given away behind closed doors, (which is the only way a DESPOTIC regime CAN operate while trying to shun the light of day).

If they're actually "brassy" enough to IMPLEMENT this, it'll most likely begin with martial law, under some guise of "safety measures for the American people." If you ever give them up, you will never get them back. Ask any Australian about that, and we would be at the total mercy of the hoods. It takes a "special kind of stupid" to think criminals will obey gun laws.

Fellow vets. I'll leave it with THIS: it's no longer on foreign soil. This time it really IS for "mom's apple pie." He who beats his sword into plowshares, will plow for those who didn't.

'Nuff said.

Oh, and by all means, Happy New Year.

-- Mike Bradbury

Comments
View 16 comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.
  • *

    Nice write-up. This subject indeed didn't get a whole lot of attention in the media. Even TheBlaze was kind of light on it. Strangly, our involvement with the U.N. rarely gets much press. Kind of bothersome when compared to other stories. I like my entertainment news as much as the next person, but to see this get not much attention, and to see a celebrity start trending; that scares me a little and validates that focus isn't on real news.

    -- Posted by Darksc8p on Fri, Jan 2, 2015, at 1:28 PM
  • We have been hearing, reading and suffering through the misinformation and scare tactics from the right for 6 years; The * Obama is coming to get your guns * lies has been thrown around for a long time; the right wing revolution and civil war planning is done lies; the right wing wars will start soon lies. And 6 years later Obama hasn't taken your guns; no wars; not even any widespread street protests. We wonder what happened. The right wing hasn't explained those little discrepancies.

    But just to keep the misinformation train chugging along, the right stokes the steam engine with their newest boogeyman; Obama and the UN will take your guns away. Then they heap more wood on the fire by throwing in the words * communist, Nazi, Hitler, King Barry * to really stoke the fires of the ignorant; the ignorance of people who refuse to do the most basic research on the arms treaty; the Tea Party; the Republicans; senior citizens. The easiest scared groups in the USA.

    We hope for the impossible from the people who are again spreading the misinformation about the treaty; about Obama and the UN coming to get your guns; about communist takeover of the USA; we hope these people will admit they were lying; they were deceiving, they were wrong. Will these right wing fanatics do the moral and correct thing in the near future? We hope so.

    -- Posted by sara-connor on Sat, Jan 3, 2015, at 9:38 PM
  • Mike Bradbury; we are very sorry for angering you with our opinion. We will go back to the banter box where we belong. Let freedom ring, Boys.

    -- Posted by sara-connor on Sun, Jan 4, 2015, at 7:55 AM
  • Well Mike, I have read the whole thing and here's my take. The sections you mention are long on shoulds and short on shalls. You also forgot or deliberately failed to mention. Treaties can be signed left and right till the cows come home, but it matters not until the treaties are ratified by the Senate. This is the Constitution at work!

    Here is a link you really should check out. This is no liberal left-wing communist site! Read it and then reply if you dare!

    http://gunssavelives.net/gun-politics/complete-text-of-the-un-arms-treaty-along-...

    -- Posted by the old progressive on Mon, Jan 5, 2015, at 7:53 AM
  • Mike, thanks for the civil manner you responded to my post. Please do me a favor though. Don't assume I am anti-gun. I am anti stupid actions by some gun owners. I am anti selling small arms to groups like Boko Harem, because there is no way to track these kind of sales at present. Foreign small arms manufacturers and foreign ammo manufacturers not sell their product here is better for our companies, don't you agree?

    The treaty addresses many problems, but contains many potential landmines.

    This treaty will never be brought up for consideration unless there are some serious modifications. The slaughter of innocents by small arms that are sold with impunity overseas needs to be stopped!

    I hope these are points we can agree on.

    -- Posted by the old progressive on Mon, Jan 5, 2015, at 3:36 PM
  • Mike, about your stand on the 2nd amendment. In reality it is not an absolute right. Felons aren't allowed to own firearms for example. Those who are under an order of protection for domestic violence is another. The third applies to those who have been involuntarily committed to a mental institution. I just wanted to clear that up.

    Now as to bad guys here in this country, those I referred to above, in too many states, they can simply show up to a gun show, look for a private seller and buy as many guns as they have cash for.This is WRONG on more levels than I can list, but yet there is still no universal background check, and guns in the wrong hands being used to kill innocents. WHY????? I just don't get it. Do you have a rational explanation?

    Now onto your last comment, while the Republicans hold a majority in the Senate, there is no way in hades of collecting 67 votes to convict. Any attempt would would be a colossal waste of public money, and I know how you feel about wasting the taxpayers money.

    -- Posted by the old progressive on Tue, Jan 6, 2015, at 4:28 PM
  • Mike, I think you missed my points completely.

    People who have an order of protection issued against them for domestic violence are prohibited from owning firearms. Right or wrong?

    People with major mental health issues who have had to be removed from society for being a threat to themselves or others are prohibited from owning firearms. Right or wrong?

    Felons are prohibited from owning firearms regardless of their crime. Embezzler or attempted murder, doesn't make a difference. Right or wrong.

    Why no background checks at gun shows? That's the first place people who allowed to own firearms go for a firearm.

    I thought I made myself perfectly clear the first time, but maybe I didn't.

    -- Posted by the old progressive on Tue, Jan 6, 2015, at 6:19 PM
  • OK, here's what I think I know. Fast and Furious was a program that was a continuation of a program run by the ATF during Bush2 years. This didn't come to light until F&F was found out. F&F was setup and run by a renegade office of the ATF without prior approval from Holder. At least that's what congress seems to have concluded.

    Now let me ask you this. If you ran a company of thousands of employees and a small group of employees in a branch office setup and executed an illegal program without your knowledge or consent, should you end up in jail? There has never been anymore than conjecture that Holder was directly involved in setting up or running this program. I know you're upset and so am I. It was poorly conceived and executed with disastrous results. Face it Mike, it is what it is. No one will go to jail over this. Is that wrong, you bet. Is there even a snowballs chance in hades that there will be a different outcome? NOPE!

    Holder has resigned and the sooner the Senate confirms a replacement, the sooner he is gone. Right now I put him right up there with Ashcroft.

    I hope this enough of an answer so you will talk about the gun show loop holes that are big enough to drive a Mack truck through, and result in too many guns ending up in the wrong hands.

    -- Posted by the old progressive on Wed, Jan 7, 2015, at 3:13 PM
  • Article 3 section 3 of the Constitution.

    Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

    The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

    Now explain to me exactly what Holder did that fits this definition.

    You throw around words like treason without any facts that fit the definition as set forth in the Constitution.

    In fact, a small minority of the population forming an armed resurrection against the legally elected government is treason.

    I'm done trying to reason with you Mike.

    -- Posted by the old progressive on Thu, Jan 8, 2015, at 6:20 AM
  • Have it your way Mike. Let the criminals, crazies and terrorist continue to buy weapons anonymously and murder innocent men, women, children, police officers and members of the military at will. Their blood is on your hands and others like you!

    -- Posted by the old progressive on Thu, Jan 8, 2015, at 9:18 AM
  • -- Posted by the old progressive on Fri, Jan 9, 2015, at 7:02 AM
  • When did I ever mention the Boise Gun Show? Requirements vary from show to show depending on promoter and venue as to whether private sellers must run background checks. Not all shows are the same, but then you would know that if you spent a few minutes researching the subject.

    -- Posted by the old progressive on Fri, Jan 9, 2015, at 11:30 AM
  • *

    I heard the UN treaty will prohibit people from calling "shotgun"

    -- Posted by Dave Thompson on Thu, Jan 15, 2015, at 4:36 PM
  • -- Posted by Dave Thompson on Thu, Jan 15, 2015, at 4:46 PM
  • U2

    -- Posted by MrMister on Mon, Jan 19, 2015, at 11:07 PM
  • 'Course I was joking, though. Rough day?

    -- Posted by MrMister on Tue, Jan 20, 2015, at 2:10 PM
Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration: