One Authority, One Gun?
By John Longenecker (08/12/06)
Commenting on the latest resolution to the Israel - Lebanon Conflict, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan addressed the Security Council late Friday, and here is one excerpt which caught my attention.
From UN News, August 11th, 2006, Kofi Annan said:
"Secondly, the resolution rightly has at its core Lebanon's sovereignty and territorial integrity, consistent with your resolutions 425, 1559 and 1680. The international community must give the Lebanese Government all possible support, so that it can make that sovereignty effective. The Government, acting through its regular armed forces and police, must be able to assert its authority throughout the country and on all its borders, particularly to prevent illegal and destabilizing flows of arms. Only when there is one authority, and one gun, will there be a chance of lasting stability. The Lebanese State, like any other sovereign State, must have a monopoly of the use of force on its own territory."
This frightening for a few reasons: The Secretary General had earlier this season made comments on confiscating so-called illegal small arms, the U.N. has been opposed to private ownership of firearms for decades, and brazenly seeks to interfere with the Constitution of the United States by urging treaties which have the power to redefine what is illegal.
Most of all, these proposals hardly ever stop at the borders of the country in question, but serve as precedent for takeovers which can springboard into the United States. It’s already got momentum in the U.N.’s recent gun-grab-gabfest in New York in July, 2006.
The United Nations says that it’s not interested in taking the weapons of Americans, but they ucceed in taking everyone else’s guns, now suggesting boldly that only the government should have a monopoly on force. So much for self-rule in Lebanon, or don’t they suspect a thing? This is, of course a disarmament of a people without disarming the bad guys. It’s a trap as usual.
Ambassador John Bolton has referred to genocidal governments around the world who first disarm their citizens, then murder them by the tens of thousands. Those worldwide deaths Mr. Secretary General was referring to are actually peoples dying at the hands of their governments. Ambassador Bolton makes the point that he is not fooled by the rhetoric or that omission, and has enunciated that such policies are "..not compatible with democratic philosophies."
In America, there are three legitimate areas of armed force; the citizen, law enforcement and the military. The citizen grants powers to the other two, and without surrendering any authority of our own.
In America, we say, One Authority, the Citizen.
Until now.
This is further evidence of our fears coming true. Confiscation of weapons for the purpose of neutralizing lawful authority and resistance. Indolence of officials.
In America, our sovereignty is backed by lawful force. That authority is aboslute, but being a nation of laws means selective enforcement, and, of course, when those laws are backed by force, we have a problem. The idea of making our own lawful force illegal is now looming as a distinct possibility.
The solution is, of course, to tell the U.N. to go to Hell. Diplomatically, it can be done in such a way they could look forward to the trip. That we ought to leave to Ambassador Bolton, with our very best wishes for a successful mission.
Of course, the rest of us shouldn’t be so diplomatic.
And that would be good for the country.
John Longenecker Site: http://www.transferofwealth.net/
(Printer friendly version) Email: John Longenecker
