Share This Article with a Friend!

Democrats And U.N. Uniting To Disarm Americans

Our friends at Gun Owners of America and One News Now have alerted us to the latest globalist plan to disarm Americans.

A speech by the UN Disarmament Affairs chief made it clear that the UN wants to influence America's gun policies, Townhall reported, and that “curbing gun violence” is part of the United Nations' larger goal of Swallwell gun buybacktransforming the world through Agenda 2030.

"The United Nations has, for years, sought to disarm the people of the United States," warns Larry Pratt, executive director emeritus of Gun Owners of America.

Pratt says the UN hides behind nice-sounding phrases such as "illicit trade" in firearms and ammunition.

"But when you get into the weeds and see what they're talking about," he warns, "it means the only way to accomplish what they want to accomplish is to impose draconian gun control in the United States."

Fortunately, however, Congress has already shown it's not willing to go along with UN gun control mandates by refusing to take up the UN Small Arms Treaty.

"And that," says Pratt, "was what kept us out of the trouble that otherwise we would have been in."

Unfortunately, the congressional refusal to take up the UN Small Arms Treaty is only as good as the number of conservatives in Congress who are willing to stand and fight for the God-given right of self-defense protected by the Second Amendment, because if Democrats, such as Rep. Eric Salwell of California have their way firearms they don’t like will be forcibly confiscated.

Salwell wrote in an op-ed for USAToday:

Reinstating the federal assault weapons ban that was in effect from 1994 to 2004 would prohibit manufacture and sales, but it would not affect weapons already possessed. This would leave millions of assault weapons in our communities for decades to come.

Instead, we should ban possession of military-style semiautomatic assault weapons, we should buy back such weapons from all who choose to abide by the law, and we should criminally prosecute any who choose to defy it by keeping their weapons.

Salwell’s plan is similar to the “Australian plan” praised by Hillary Clinton during her campaign for President.

Matthew Larosiere, a contributor to the Washington Examiner's Beltway Confidential blog, says one interesting thing about Swalwell’s piece is “a sincere call for the mass confiscation of lawfully held American small arms.”

Larosiere observes that mass gun confiscation claims are usually exaggerated responses from the pro-gun side, warning of slippery slopes that would lead to confiscation. Now, though, there is an actual elected representative calling for bona fide measures leading to confiscation.

Could this mean the gun control crowd, emboldened by what Larosiere calls “Swalwell’s immutable courage and integrity,” will rally around him and echo his calls for mass confiscation?

Mr. Larosiere thinks not:

The passion Americans feel for their gun rights is the final, and most important, reason confiscation will never be a viable option here. Confiscation of any weapons would require the most intrusive, objectionable, and unconstitutional enforcement mechanisms to be effective. In most states, the government has no idea who owns these weapons, so where would the efforts start? Voluntary disclosure would be laughably low, especially where Australia’s buybacks only collected about a third of targeted guns, a measly 3.2 percent of which were the high-powered center-fire weapons the government was after. On top of this, many guns turned in during buybacks are inoperable, greatly exaggerating numbers.

The simple fact is that gun buyback programs are ineffective. In a country with hundreds of millions of guns, confiscating them would be nothing short of a civil liberties nightmare. Getting rid of items so common and widely circulated would require extreme measures like door-to-door searches, neighbors reporting one another, and other assorted nightmarish products of well-intentioned lawmakers.

We’re not so sure that isn’t exactly what Democrats like Rep. Eric Salwell and U.N. bureaucrats have in mind; not just confiscation of guns, but a complete overthrow of the American constitutional order.

Share this


Leftists have hammered the issue with such hysteria and for so long, it no longer matters to peaceable, lawful citizens what the legislatures do about it. The U.S. Congress has become irrelevant. Most people know the government does not have the wherewithal to confiscate private property from large numbers of private citizens. Following New York, Connecticut and Washington, most people will simply ignore attempts to confiscate firearms. Reliable estimates of compliance in those states have been reported to be about 20 percent, the same as in Australia. And nobody knows the level of compliance with other less visible or radical state laws. Everyone is watching Cuomo to see if he has the guts to start a revolution. Hoo boy, that would be some legacy!


I hope he plans to do this himself. He will find many gun owners willing to hand over their guns one bullet at a time.


ARTICLE VI, clearly states that the Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, which shall be made, under the authority of the United States shall be the Supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
It would be interesting to see how the courts up to and including the Supreme Court would rule on Treaties that would negate rights of the American citizens that we have under our Constitution.
Seems to me that any treaty that was ratified by the Senate that alters the rights of the American citizens under our Constitution would be or should be, better yet MUST BE null and void by the Supreme Court.