Home > Guns > Democrats Planning to Disarm Americans for Over 50 Years

Democrats Planning to Disarm Americans for Over 50 Years

January 6th, 2016 Leave a comment Go to comments
President Barack Obama signs executive orders to counter gun violence during an event at the White House in Washington, January 16, 2013.

President Barack Obama signs executive orders to counter gun violence during an event at the White House in Washington, January 16, 2013.

Democrats Planning to Disarm Americans for Over 50 Years

original article written by Net Advisor

Excerpt: This article was part of a much more in-depth article on An Analysis of Firearms and Violent Crime that we previously published in 2012. We extracted this section since this topic has continued to be proven by specifically the Democrat party’s anti-gun political agenda as it was in 1961. For those who want to reference this important section documenting this history, we represent this in its own article. We added a quote from a historical perspective of who else advocated the same public disarmament in the name of ‘protecting children.’ The title was also changed to reflect the party initiating the action and continuing to push for disarmament of law-abiding citizens.

WASHINGTON DC. In September 1961, radical liberal progressives came up with a plan to ban all weapons from citizens in the U.S. and the world. We call this Fantasyland:

Objectives: (Partial list)

1. “The disbanding of all national armed forces and the prohibition of their reestablishment in any form…”

2. “The elimination from national arsenals of all armaments, including all weapons of mass destruction and the means for their delivery…”

3. “The establishment and effective operation of an International Disarmament Organization within the framework of the United Nations to insure compliance at all times with all disarmament obligations” (all on page 2).

— Source: U.S. Department of State Publication #7277 (September 1961) (PDF)

More Fantasyland:

4. “As states relinquish their arms, the United Nations must be progressively strengthened…” (page 3).

[So, all of us should give up our arms, while a 99% foreign 3rd-party quasi-government (UN) builds up their arms?]

5. “States would be committed to refrain from the threat or use of any type of armed force contrary to the principles of the U.N. Charter and to refrain from indirect aggression and subversion against any country” (page 4).

[In other words, war is illegal. If we just passed a law and made war illegal, we would have no more wars?].

6. “The manufacture of armaments would be prohibited except for those of agreed types and quantities to be used by the U.N. Peace Force and those required to maintain internal order” (page 5).

— Source: U.S. Department of State Publication #7277 (September 1961) (PDF)

In other words, the U.N. will provide for the entire world’s security. No one country needs their own military or weapons of any sort, and the manufacture or sales of weapons are just not necessary for anyone except for the UN?

Can you imagine Russia, China, Iran, Libya, etc., members of UN security forces coming to your home to take away your guns?

 “The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation.”

Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

guncontrol-plannedparenthood

Anyone who thinks that sending in the UN to say: Now, now terrorists, please don’t fight those westerners any more. Like the terrorists will say: OK, sorry, our bad?

Under this 1961 State Department fantasy, terrorism, war, murder, cannot exist per U.N. treaty. Any and all power and arms would be under the control and use of the U.N. to enforce “peace” as the U.N. – NOT the U.S. or another sovereign nation sees fit. This would violate at least the U.S.’s 2nd Amendment (right to bear arms).

We are told (per the 1961 State Dept. in the U.N. plan) that we are allowed to keep a basic force for domestic enforcement (police). It would be so gracious that a foreign group of unelected bureaucrats would permit the U.S. to have a domestic police force.

The drive here is to live in some ideological world that never has existed, and in all likelihood, won’t exist.

If anyone is unsure about this, just ask all the terrorist groups, and countries such as China, North Korea, and Russia to give up all their weapons to U.N. control. Then we can all meet in Israel with Iran and Hamas for our annual hand-holding candle-light ceremony.

This plan was developed by (Democrat) Progressives in the U.S. government. For those who are thinking, we’ll that was back in 1961, that’s not true today?

The U.S. has implemented some of the steps outlined in the 1961 plan. The U.S. and to some extent, Russia, but not China have decreased their nuclear weapons and delivery systems. The only problem here is that since 2007, Russia began planning to develop new nuclear weapons (Source: Reuters).

President Obama also ended the Space Shuttle Program in 2011 (Source: CS Monitor). There’s no need for space exploration and allow the risk of humanoids to pollute other planets, so Obama scraped the space shuttle program.

The U.N. Arms Trade Treaty (actual document) mirrors the 1961 State Department goal of further regulating, controlling the production and sale of small arms (from citizens) (Source: infowars.com). This treaty was set up to be addressed again, after the November 2012 election come March 18-28, 2013, which we noted Sec of State Kerry (appointed by Obama), signed on behalf of the United States.

After the 2012 re-election of President Obama, gun sales soared again (Sources: News Tribune, Star Telegram, Times247). Record gun sales has made good profits for gun makers – the very same people the gun control crowed wants to put out of business.

_____________________________________________________________________

If you liked this article, please “like us” on Facebook or share on Twitter or through your favorite social network. We are a non-profit education media org.

Read More of our articles on relating to U.S. Gun Policies, laws, and history here.

Images may be copyright by their respective owners as noted on graphic.

Original content copyright © 2012 NetAdvisor.org® Revised copyright © 2016 NetAdvisor.org® All Rights Reserved.

NetAdvisor.org® is a non-profit organization providing public education and analysis primarily on the U.S. financial markets, personal finance and analysis with a transparent look into U.S. public policy. We also perform and report on financial investigations to help protect the public interest. Read More.

_____________________________________________________________________

Related posts:

Categories: Guns
  1. Eric Scott
    April 8th, 2016 at 19:17 | #1

    I’m always amazed at this argument. It’s really simple. When a lion attacks a gazelle, the gazelle has the right to defend itself with its horns. If you remove the horns, there’ll be more lions.

    When a perpetrator attacks a law abiding citizen, they have the right to defend themselves with a gun. If guns are banned, there’ll be more perpetrators.

  1. No trackbacks yet.