U.N. Agreement Should Have All Gun Owners Up In Arms
It may not come as surprising news to many of you that the United Nations doesn’t approve of our Second Amendment. Not one bit. And they very much hope to do something about it with help from some powerful American friends. Under the guise of a proposed global “Small Arms Treaty” premised to fight “terrorism”, “insurgency” and “international crime syndicates” you can be quite certain that an even more insidious threat is being targeted – our Constitutional right for law-abiding citizens to own and bear arms.
What, exactly, does the intended agreement entail?
While the terms have yet to be made public, if passed by the U.N. and ratified by our Senate, it will almost certainly force the U.S. to:
1.Enact tougher licensing requirements, creating additional bureaucratic red tape for legal firearms ownership.
2.Confiscate and destroy all “unauthorized” civilian firearms (exempting those owned by our government of course).
3.Ban the trade, sale and private ownership of all semi-automatic weapons (any that have magazines even though they still operate in the same one trigger pull – one single “bang” manner as revolvers, a simple fact the ant-gun media never seem to grasp).
4.Create an international gun registry, clearly setting the stage for full-scale gun confiscation.
5.In short, overriding our national sovereignty, and in the process, providing license for the federal government to assert preemptive powers over state regulatory powers guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment in addition to our Second Amendment rights.
Have no doubt that this plan is very real, with strong Obama administration support. In January 2010 the U.S. joined 152 other countries in endorsing a U.N. Arms Treaty Resolution that will establish a 2012 conference to draft a blueprint for enactment. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has pledged to push for Senate ratification.
Former U.N. ambassador John Bolton has cautioned gun owners to take this initiative seriously, stating that the U.N. “is trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about international arms trade between nation states, but there is no doubt that the real agenda here is domestic firearms control.”
Although professing to support the Second Amendment during her presidential election bid, Hillary Clinton is not generally known as a gun rights enthusiast. She has been a long-time activist for federal firearms licensing and registration, and a vigorous opponent of state Right-to-Carry laws. As a New York senator she ranked among the National Rifle Association’s worst “F”-rated gun banners who voted to support the sort of gunpoint disarmament that marked New Orleans’ rogue police actions against law-abiding gun owners in the anarchistic aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
President Obama’s record on citizen gun rights doesn’t reflect much advocacy either. Consider for example his appointment of anti-gun rights former Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels as an alternate U.S. representative to the U.N., and his choice of Andrew Traver who has worked to terminate civilian ownership of so-called “assault rifles” (another prejudicially meaningless gun term) to head the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
Then, in a move unprecedented in American history, the Obama administration quietly banned the re-importation and sale of 850,000 collectable antique U.S.-manufactured M1 Garand and Carbine rifles that were left in South Korea following the Korean War. Developed in the 1930s, the venerable M1 Garand carried the U.S. through World War II, seeing action in every major battle.
As an Illinois state senator, Barack Obama was an aggressive advocate for expanding gun control laws, and even voted against legislation giving gun owners an affirmative defense when they use firearms to defend themselves and their families against home invaders and burglars. He also served on a 10-member board of directors of the radically activist anti-gun Joyce Foundation in Chicago during a period between 1998-2001when it contributed $18,326,183 in grants to anti-Second Amendment organizations.
If someone breaks into your home when you are there, which would you prefer to have close at hand: 1) a telephone to call 911, or 2) a loaded gun of respectable caliber? That’s a pretty easy question for me to answer. I am a long-time NRA member, concealed firearms license holder and a regular weekly recreational pistol shooter. And while I don’t ordinarily care to target anything that has a mother, will reluctantly make an exception should an urgent provocation arise. I also happen to enjoy the company of friends who hunt, as well as those, like myself, who share an abiding interest in American history and the firearms that influenced it.
There are many like me, and fewer of them would be alive today were it not for exercise of their gun rights. In fact law-abiding citizens in America used guns in self-defense 2.5 million times during 1993 (about 6,850 times per day), and actually shot and killed 2 1/2 times as many criminals as police did (1,527 to 606). Those civilian self-defense shootings resulted in less than 1/5th as many incidents as police where an innocent person was mistakenly identified as a criminal (2% versus 11%).
Just how effectively have gun bans worked to make citizens safer in other countries? Take the number of home break-ins while residents are present as an indication. In Canada and Britain, both with tough gun-control laws, nearly half of all burglaries occur when residents are present. But in the U.S. where many households are armed, only about 13% happen when someone is home.
Recognizing clear statistical benefit evidence, 41 states now allow competent, law-abiding adults to carry permitted or permit-exempt concealed handguns. As a result, crime rates in those states have typically fallen at least 10% in the year following enactment.
So the majority in our Senate is smart enough to realize that the U.N.’s gun-grab agenda is unconstitutional, politically suicidal for those who support it, and down-right idiotic—right? Let’s hope so, but not entirely count on it. While a few loyal Obama Democrats are truly “pro-gun”, many are loathe to vote against treaties that carry the president’s international prestige, causing him embarrassment.
Also, don’t forget that Senate confirmation of anti-gun Obama nominee Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Many within the few who voted against her did so only because of massive grassroots pressure from constituents who take their Constitutional protections very seriously.
Now, more than ever, it’s imperative to stick by our guns in demanding that all Constitutional rights be preserved. If not, we will surely lose both.
http://blogs.forbes.com/larrybell/2011/06/07/u-n-agreement-should-have-all-gun-owners-up-in-arms/
RADIO WAVES CURE FOR THE MISERY OF ASTHMA
MILLIONS of asthma sufferers are being offered new hope after a breakthrough operation was performed in Britain for the first time.
Doctors said the procedure – the first non-drug treatment for the condition – can cut attacks by 75 per cent and allow patients to breathe much more easily.
NHS patients in Manchester and Glasgow became the first in Europe to undergo the 45-minute procedure using radio waves, known as bronchial thermoplasty, last week.
It involves burning away thickened lung tissue that blocks the airways and leaves many patients wheezing and gasping for breath.
Chest consultant Dr Rob Niven said: “It is the most exciting development in the treatment of asthma in this country in a quarter of a century. It can significantly improve the lives and condition of chronic sufferers.
“The potential impact of this is very big. It can improve patients’ lives by improving their breathing, reducing the number of attacks and reducing their dependency on drugs.”
In the technique, a tube is inserted in the sedated patient’s mouth and threaded through into the bronchial canals in the lungs.
Once it reaches a specific point in the airway, an electrode device at the end of the scope expands to make contact with the interior walls. It then delivers radio-frequency waves for 10 seconds at a time, with the 140F heat effectively melting thick tissue causing the blockage.
This procedure is carried out three times to complete each operation.
A trial found that the technique can cut asthma attacks by 75 per cent and also typically give a patient an extra 86 days each year when they have no symptoms at all.
n the trials at Manchester’s Wythenshawe Hospital, 19 out of 20 chronic patients reported a “significant improvement”.
Dr Niven said one of his team’s patients, a middle-aged mother-of-two who lives in the city, was now back at work following her successful procedure on Friday.
The technique was also carried out at Glasgow’s Gartnavel General Hospital on Thursday.
Other hospitals in Leicester, Newcastle, Birmingham and London are also involved in the UK pilot scheme. The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) will eventually rule on whether to make the operation widely available on the NHS.
The £10,000 treatment is already available in America for those who can afford it or have medical insurance.
But due to the high cost, trials here are aimed at chronic sufferers – estimated at 250,000 out of a total of five million people in the UK with the condition. It kills 1,200 every year.
Asthma is said to affect one in five households and two children in every classroom. Inhalers are commonly used.
Last night, Asthma UK welcomed the treatment. Professor Ian Pavord, the charity’s chief medical adviser, said: “This is a well researched procedure that has been through clinical trials which show it can be helpful.
“In some people with severe asthma, symptoms have been improved and the risk of them having an attack has been reduced, so it is encouraging.”
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/251423/Radio-waves-cure-for-the-misery-of-asthma
It may not come as surprising news to many of you that the United Nations doesn’t approve of our Second Amendment. Not one bit. And they very much hope to do something about it with help from some powerful American friends. Under the guise of a proposed global “Small Arms Treaty” premised to fight “terrorism”, “insurgency” and “international crime syndicates” you can be quite certain that an even more insidious threat is being targeted – our Constitutional right for law-abiding citizens to own and bear arms.
What, exactly, does the intended agreement entail?
While the terms have yet to be made public, if passed by the U.N. and ratified by our Senate, it will almost certainly force the U.S. to:
1.Enact tougher licensing requirements, creating additional bureaucratic red tape for legal firearms ownership.
2.Confiscate and destroy all “unauthorized” civilian firearms (exempting those owned by our government of course).
3.Ban the trade, sale and private ownership of all semi-automatic weapons (any that have magazines even though they still operate in the same one trigger pull – one single “bang” manner as revolvers, a simple fact the ant-gun media never seem to grasp).
4.Create an international gun registry, clearly setting the stage for full-scale gun confiscation.
5.In short, overriding our national sovereignty, and in the process, providing license for the federal government to assert preemptive powers over state regulatory powers guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment in addition to our Second Amendment rights.
Have no doubt that this plan is very real, with strong Obama administration support. In January 2010 the U.S. joined 152 other countries in endorsing a U.N. Arms Treaty Resolution that will establish a 2012 conference to draft a blueprint for enactment. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has pledged to push for Senate ratification.
Former U.N. ambassador John Bolton has cautioned gun owners to take this initiative seriously, stating that the U.N. “is trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about international arms trade between nation states, but there is no doubt that the real agenda here is domestic firearms control.”
Although professing to support the Second Amendment during her presidential election bid, Hillary Clinton is not generally known as a gun rights enthusiast. She has been a long-time activist for federal firearms licensing and registration, and a vigorous opponent of state Right-to-Carry laws. As a New York senator she ranked among the National Rifle Association’s worst “F”-rated gun banners who voted to support the sort of gunpoint disarmament that marked New Orleans’ rogue police actions against law-abiding gun owners in the anarchistic aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
President Obama’s record on citizen gun rights doesn’t reflect much advocacy either. Consider for example his appointment of anti-gun rights former Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels as an alternate U.S. representative to the U.N., and his choice of Andrew Traver who has worked to terminate civilian ownership of so-called “assault rifles” (another prejudicially meaningless gun term) to head the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
Then, in a move unprecedented in American history, the Obama administration quietly banned the re-importation and sale of 850,000 collectable antique U.S.-manufactured M1 Garand and Carbine rifles that were left in South Korea following the Korean War. Developed in the 1930s, the venerable M1 Garand carried the U.S. through World War II, seeing action in every major battle.
As an Illinois state senator, Barack Obama was an aggressive advocate for expanding gun control laws, and even voted against legislation giving gun owners an affirmative defense when they use firearms to defend themselves and their families against home invaders and burglars. He also served on a 10-member board of directors of the radically activist anti-gun Joyce Foundation in Chicago during a period between 1998-2001when it contributed $18,326,183 in grants to anti-Second Amendment organizations.
If someone breaks into your home when you are there, which would you prefer to have close at hand: 1) a telephone to call 911, or 2) a loaded gun of respectable caliber? That’s a pretty easy question for me to answer. I am a long-time NRA member, concealed firearms license holder and a regular weekly recreational pistol shooter. And while I don’t ordinarily care to target anything that has a mother, will reluctantly make an exception should an urgent provocation arise. I also happen to enjoy the company of friends who hunt, as well as those, like myself, who share an abiding interest in American history and the firearms that influenced it.
There are many like me, and fewer of them would be alive today were it not for exercise of their gun rights. In fact law-abiding citizens in America used guns in self-defense 2.5 million times during 1993 (about 6,850 times per day), and actually shot and killed 2 1/2 times as many criminals as police did (1,527 to 606). Those civilian self-defense shootings resulted in less than 1/5th as many incidents as police where an innocent person was mistakenly identified as a criminal (2% versus 11%).
Just how effectively have gun bans worked to make citizens safer in other countries? Take the number of home break-ins while residents are present as an indication. In Canada and Britain, both with tough gun-control laws, nearly half of all burglaries occur when residents are present. But in the U.S. where many households are armed, only about 13% happen when someone is home.
Recognizing clear statistical benefit evidence, 41 states now allow competent, law-abiding adults to carry permitted or permit-exempt concealed handguns. As a result, crime rates in those states have typically fallen at least 10% in the year following enactment.
So the majority in our Senate is smart enough to realize that the U.N.’s gun-grab agenda is unconstitutional, politically suicidal for those who support it, and down-right idiotic—right? Let’s hope so, but not entirely count on it. While a few loyal Obama Democrats are truly “pro-gun”, many are loathe to vote against treaties that carry the president’s international prestige, causing him embarrassment.
Also, don’t forget that Senate confirmation of anti-gun Obama nominee Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Many within the few who voted against her did so only because of massive grassroots pressure from constituents who take their Constitutional protections very seriously.
Now, more than ever, it’s imperative to stick by our guns in demanding that all Constitutional rights be preserved. If not, we will surely lose both.
http://blogs.forbes.com/larrybell/2011/06/07/u-n-agreement-should-have-all-gun-owners-up-in-arms/
RADIO WAVES CURE FOR THE MISERY OF ASTHMA
MILLIONS of asthma sufferers are being offered new hope after a breakthrough operation was performed in Britain for the first time.
Doctors said the procedure – the first non-drug treatment for the condition – can cut attacks by 75 per cent and allow patients to breathe much more easily.
NHS patients in Manchester and Glasgow became the first in Europe to undergo the 45-minute procedure using radio waves, known as bronchial thermoplasty, last week.
It involves burning away thickened lung tissue that blocks the airways and leaves many patients wheezing and gasping for breath.
Chest consultant Dr Rob Niven said: “It is the most exciting development in the treatment of asthma in this country in a quarter of a century. It can significantly improve the lives and condition of chronic sufferers.
“The potential impact of this is very big. It can improve patients’ lives by improving their breathing, reducing the number of attacks and reducing their dependency on drugs.”
In the technique, a tube is inserted in the sedated patient’s mouth and threaded through into the bronchial canals in the lungs.
Once it reaches a specific point in the airway, an electrode device at the end of the scope expands to make contact with the interior walls. It then delivers radio-frequency waves for 10 seconds at a time, with the 140F heat effectively melting thick tissue causing the blockage.
This procedure is carried out three times to complete each operation.
A trial found that the technique can cut asthma attacks by 75 per cent and also typically give a patient an extra 86 days each year when they have no symptoms at all.
n the trials at Manchester’s Wythenshawe Hospital, 19 out of 20 chronic patients reported a “significant improvement”.
Dr Niven said one of his team’s patients, a middle-aged mother-of-two who lives in the city, was now back at work following her successful procedure on Friday.
The technique was also carried out at Glasgow’s Gartnavel General Hospital on Thursday.
Other hospitals in Leicester, Newcastle, Birmingham and London are also involved in the UK pilot scheme. The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) will eventually rule on whether to make the operation widely available on the NHS.
The £10,000 treatment is already available in America for those who can afford it or have medical insurance.
But due to the high cost, trials here are aimed at chronic sufferers – estimated at 250,000 out of a total of five million people in the UK with the condition. It kills 1,200 every year.
Asthma is said to affect one in five households and two children in every classroom. Inhalers are commonly used.
Last night, Asthma UK welcomed the treatment. Professor Ian Pavord, the charity’s chief medical adviser, said: “This is a well researched procedure that has been through clinical trials which show it can be helpful.
“In some people with severe asthma, symptoms have been improved and the risk of them having an attack has been reduced, so it is encouraging.”
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/251423/Radio-waves-cure-for-the-misery-of-asthma
No comments:
Post a Comment