NRA Veep Wayne LaPierre: The Blue Helmets Are Coming! The Blue Helmets Are Coming!

UN soldiers in Eritrea (courtesy wikimedia.org)

NRA Veep Wayne LaPierre is all wound up by the recent signing of the U.N. Small Arms Trade Treaty. Click here to read the text of the treaty. Make the jump for Wayne’s presser (coming to a fund-raising letter to you soon). Click here for the Gun Owners of America’s treaty takedown. Click here for Senator Jerry Moran’s six-part kvetch. Or click here to learn more about camel-cavalry.

FAIRFAX, Va. –-(Ammoland.com)- The tyrants and dictators at the United Nations will stop at nothing to register, ban and, eventually, confiscate firearms owned by law-abiding Americans like you and me. The U.N. has been working for nearly 15 years to force its gun banning Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) on the United States. Now, thanks to President Barack Obama, they are closer than ever . . .

This past June, Obama helped the U.N. pass the ATT, thereby openly inviting the world’s worst human rights abusers to dictate gun policy here in the United States. Obama’s Secretary of State, John Kerry, excitedly announced that he and President Obama “look forward to signing it,” which has now been done.

By signing the U.N. gun-ban treaty our government will be placing a ticking time bomb at every American gun owners’ front door.

That’s because once a treaty like the ATT is signed, it never dies. Even if we prevent a two-thirds majority of the U.S. Senate from ratifying the ATT this year, next year or even the year after that, there is nothing to stop a future Senate from dusting off the treaty and ratifying it 10, 20 or even 50 years from now. The text of the treaty specifically states that it “shall be of unlimited duration.”

Despite the half-truths and outright lies coming from the Obama administration, the U.N. and its gun-ban allies in the media, the ATT would potentially create an international gun registration system that could eventually pave the way for the full-blown confiscation of firearms owned by American gun owners.

Specifically, Articles 8, 12 and 15 of the treaty would create international pressure (and the perfect excuse) for signatory nations to compile “records” of all gun owners who purchase firearms imported into their country—and then supply this sensitive private information to governments of exporting countries.

In other words, if you bought a shotgun made by an Italian gun maker, the U.S. government would have an obligation to the international community to keep a record of your purchase. Worse, it could be forced as a condition of continuing to receive exports of Italian firearms to provide this information to the Italian government. This would result in nothing less than international gun registration.

If the U.S. refused to take part in the U.N.’s international gun registry, other nations could potentially ban their domestic firearm manufacturers from exporting firearms to the United States. Considering imported firearms make up more than one-third of the new firearm market in the U.S., this could drive many foreign gun manufacturers out of business, significantly increase the cost of commonly used rifles, shotguns and handguns, and have an immediate and devastating impact on American gun owners.

Those who still believe the United Nations is a human rights organization with the best of intentions are kidding themselves. The U.N. doesn’t stop violence, murder and genocide. It catalogs it, documents it, forms commissions about it, and when the fire rages out of control, it calls the United States for help.

The U.N.’s driving mission is to accumulate power at the expense of the sovereignity of individual nations and fundamental individual rights, and its gun-ban treaty proves it.

After all, no human right known to mankind is more essential to a free and just society than the individual right of law-abiding citizens to protect themselves and their loved ones in the face of criminal violence. That’s why our Founding Fathers enshrined this freedom in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry and Samuel Adams knew that “liberty and the pursuit of happiness” are not possible without “life”—and that all too often life is not possible without the fundamental right to use a firearm in self-defense.

As NRA members, you and I are the brick wall standing between the United Nations and our Second Amendment freedoms. If the U.N. gun-ban treaty is ever signed and ratified into law, we may never get a second chance to save the Second Amendment.

So please, call your U.S. Senators and urge them to stand strong—publicly and defiantly—against the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty. Recruit your fellow gun owners and patriotic friends and neighbors to join NRA and take an active role in this fight to protect our freedom and our sovereignty from this treacherous assault.

About:Established in 1871, the National Rifle Association is America’s oldest civil rights and sportsmen’s group. Nearly five million members strong, NRA continues to uphold the Second Amendment and remains the nation’s leader in firearm education and training for law-abiding gun owners, law enforcement and the armed services.Visit: www.nra.org

comments

  1. avatar Jeh says:

    U.N.
    Un-Needed.

    1. avatar Hal says:

      Blue helmets are susceptible to green tips.

      Make sure someone has the Benny Hill music playing when they come ashore.

  2. avatar Jay1987 says:

    Wayne you forget the UN ain’t got the stones to try to set foot on American soil to take the guns and the US army will flat out refuse to confiscate guns only things to worry bout are the alphabet idiots and the cops.

    1. avatar Jus Bill says:

      When we team up with the US Armed Forces what’s left of the UN will immediately turn tail and head for home.

      1. avatar Totenglocke says:

        When we team up with the US Armed Forces what’s left of the UN will immediately turn tail and head for home.

        The only people the US military will be joining with are those who want to take away our rights. Trusting the obedient lapdogs of corrupt politicians is incredibly foolish.

        1. avatar Lucas D. says:

          Tell me, does that stylish tinfoil hat of yours also deflect regular lasers, or does it only block mind rays from the invisible black helicopters?

        2. avatar Totenglocke says:

          Tell me Lucas, while your religion demands you worship the military, does it also forbid you from reading history books? US troops have shown on many occasions that they are not only willing, but eager to fire upon unarmed Americans. The loyalty of the troops is to the government, not the Constitution and sure as hell not the American people.

        3. avatar Kyle says:

          Soldiers swear to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

        4. avatar Totenglocke says:

          Yes, Kyle, and politicians swear to uphold the Constitution before wiping their butt with it. A soldiers loyalty is to the politicians in the government, not to the Constitution.

        5. avatar Pat says:

          The Eww…N is a worthless organization that should stick to humanitarian causes only. These dorks should be the one entity on Earth forbidden to possess firearms.

    2. avatar Craig says:

      This isn’t about making holes in blue helmets. This is about money, the gun industry, and people not going to be able to afford or find guns.

      This is about no more $100 to $150 Mosins, no more foreign AKs, no more anything that’s exported into the US if the UN decides to sanction the US.

      This affects everyone, from C&R guys to 18 year old kids who can’t afford a nice American gun to trap and skeet shooters who want that beautiful European shotgun.

      1. avatar ropingdown says:

        Here go the prices and sales of quality AKs and Benellis. Shortages will persist, most likely. I suppose I should thank the UN for joining the “we threaten to restrict them so they can sell them faster” industry. If it encourages domestic arms manufacturers, all the better.

      2. avatar Not So 1337 says:

        The UN? Sanction the US? HA!

        The HEADQUARTERS of the UN is in NYC. We are on the damn security council. They’d be insane to try something like that. I mean, can you imagine the headlines? “UN Sanctions the US” “Why We Are Being Treated Like North Korea?”

  3. avatar 505markf says:

    I’m just not buying it. I’ve read various detailed reviews of the treaty, including the one cited. I get it. It’s stupid. But it is also toothless. I don’t support the treaty and I’ve written to both my senators to express that, but we are a looooong way from the treaty meaning the Blue Helmets are coming.

    Yeah, maybe there will be an attempt outside the US to limit importation of certain arms and ammo, but is that really the end of the world? I would rather say, let’s do what we can to become completely independent in this regard. I’m thinking the places we get cheap arms and ammo (ex-eastern bloc nations, plus Turkey, plus the Czech Republic, etc.) aren’t really all that compliant to start with when it comes to anything from the UN. The phrase “rank stubbornness” comes to mind with those peoples / countries.

    I get the point, NRA, I really do, but aren’t there greater, more immediate threats to our freedoms? As far as the Blue Helmets coming for our guns? Most of us would just sigh, tool up, and think, “Finally! We get to shoot at moving targets!”

    1. avatar Denny says:

      Agreed… Aim for the fleshy stuff just below the brim of Blue Helmet. Extra points if ya split helmet down the middle in one shot.

      Camel can end up on the Bar-bie Q just like bossy.

      1. avatar Denny says:

        “Camel can end up on the Bar-bie Q just like bossy.”

        Got feed the millions of UN prisoners some how, most don’t like pork.

      2. avatar 505markf says:

        Nah. Save the camels. At least out here (NM) they make a lot of sense. And my daughter, who is a spinner, knitter, etc. has convinced me camelids (camels plus the various other new world versions like llamas) are great fiber producers. And they produce milk. And you can eat them. I don’t tell her my entire, nefarious plan for any critters she raises.

        Agreed on “slightly below rim” shots. Extra style points, certainly. And helps one keep a nice souvenir intact.

        1. avatar Avid Reader says:

          Can you get the smell out of the fiber? I know I’d never willing have camel leather anywhere nearby. Unless the stuff I’ve been around wasn’t processed correctly, it never stopped reeking.

        2. avatar Lance F says:

          Does that mean we have to use “rim fires” or can we use center…

      3. avatar akira says:

        Camel is actually delicious. It’s just like beef with a little hint of sweetness.

        1. avatar Julian says:

          Never had camel, but llama is definitely the best tasting meat I’ve ever had. Very much like you describe.

      4. avatar Matt in FL says:

        Heh, I was watching an old episode of Parks & Recreation the other day and it had this exchange:

        “Scare him off! Shoot over his head!”
        “The hell with that, I’m shooting under his head!”

        Got that right.

    2. avatar int19h says:

      In fact, a bunch of claims in that NRA write-up are plain out false:

      >> In other words, if you bought a shotgun made by an Italian gun maker, the U.S. government would have an obligation to the international community to keep a record of your purchase.

      False. It’s “recommended” by the text, but not mandated.

      >> Worse, it could be forced as a condition of continuing to receive exports of Italian firearms to provide this information to the Italian government.

      False, same as above.

      This kind of bullshit is precisely why I stopped supporting NRA. Their propaganda side is so frothing-at-the-mouth lately that I do not want to be associated with those people in any way.

      1. avatar jwm says:

        The US government would have no obligation. Do you think our current admin or one helmed by hillary would not use that treaty to the fullest?

        1. avatar Keith M says:

          ^ This ^

          They may not be required to but you can bet your last dollar they will just because it’s written somewhere and some jackwad signed it. They’ll attempt to use this worthless piece of paper they’ve scribbled on to trump you Constitutional rights at every opportunity.

    3. avatar Soccerchainsaw says:

      Seems that it’s not really a question of whether UN troops will invade us but a question of whether this or a future administration will invite them in…

  4. avatar Anon in CT says:

    I didn’t know the Poles used Elcans!

    1. avatar Herb says:

      Is the dude with the M-16 about to blow the head off the camel he’s riding on?

      Accidents happen; Lawrence of Arabia capped his own camel while firing wildly with his Webley revolver & the fall knocked him out until after the battle was over.

      1. avatar Bova says:

        Pretty sure it is just the angle. I imagine the rifle is actually pointed “towards” the camera. By that, I mean the barrel is closer than the stock, not that it is aimed at the camera. Look at the scope. You can see the entire front and only the outer rim of the back. If it were aimed away from you, it would be the other way around. That means it is just a neat optical illusion. Too bad it isn’t reality.

  5. avatar William Burke says:

    Will they be riding camels? Don’t shoot the camels! We need to repopulate the country with camels.

    Shoot just below the blue helmets.

  6. avatar Ardent says:

    While it’s true that a ban on the importation of foreign arms into the US would result in higher prices for guns domestically, this effect would be mitigated by an increase in domestic production due to the increased demand and competition vacuum over the long term. I have no fear of running out of affordable guns. For that matter I already have far more guns than I ‘need’, if significantly fewer than I want.

    The Newtonian reaction however is that some if not many arms exporters to the US would virtually immediately be bankrupted. Thus US manufacturing grows while foreign competition suffers. . . not something that the other signatories likely anticipated, nor would accept. This fact alone might well nullify any enforcement of the treaty, particularly among those nations with large investments in arms exports to the US (meaning the economically important ones to our cheap supply).

    The other major flaw in these fears is that it presupposes that anyone is actually interested in enforcing the terms of the treaty (besides the current US administration). UN treaties and resolutions are so routinely ignored that they generally carry no weight whatsoever and also generally assume that the enforcer of those that are to be honored will be the US itself. Thus these fears conflagrate from the unlikely scenario that the US will enforce an unpopular and unimportant treaty to which it is not a legal signatory and which is economically harmful domestically and among several of its more favored allies and trade partners.

    In other words the Italians are never going to ask who in the US bought guns from Berretta, because they frankly don’t care and it isn’t in their best interests to even ask such questions, and so enforcement would look something like the US insisting that the Italian government create and maintain such a database, which would presumably be filled with information that would require violation of US law for the US to even gather . . . it only becomes more absurd the further you consider the possibilities. This treaty has no weight, no enforcement mechanism, no purpose for being and precious little interest worldwide aside from the current president of the US using it to appear to be ‘doing something’ for those in his party’s base who are pro civilian disarmament without actually doing anything that would put democrats in the senate at risk.

    Simply put the whole thing is a fundraising bonanza for the NRA from among its low information contributors and likewise for the same under the umbrella of the DNC, all the while actually doing and meaning absolutely nothing at all for the POTG.

    In the final analysis a quote falsely attributed to Yamamoto rings as true today as it ever did: “You cannot invade the US, there is a rifle behind every blade of grass.”

    1. avatar Accur81 says:

      The Obama administration *wants* to enforce this treaty. So does Feinstein, Bloomberg, and every other statist. They want additional control and costs to be placed into every purchase decision of ammo, guns, and such. Arms. Regulation. These things do not bode well for freedom. In the current political climate, Obama and Co. lack the political power to enforce the treaty, and they know. Therefore, it waits on the backburner for Sandy Hook 2.0 or another politically expedient time.

      Remeber, the US routinely bans itself from using JHP rounds in combat at the expense of the the safety of our American troops. Do not underestimate the stupidity and danger of such treaties.

      1. avatar Ardent says:

        I don’t in anyway dismiss the danger and stupidity of such a treaty Accur81. However I’m pragmatic about it, it frankly means absolutely nothing as is. Sure the grabbers love the possibilities but they run smack into the people and the constitution just like they always do.

        This treaty isn’t any leverage for them, it in fact has no power at all without ratification. There are bigger fish to fry right now and this treaty is more of a thorn that could prick than a knife to our throats like the noise in some statehouses these days.

    2. avatar Ralph says:

      this effect would be mitigated by an increase in domestic production

      Negative. Domestic manufacturers can’t keep up with current demand. Have you already forgotten that Ruger took no new orders for almost nine months because of capacity constraints? Smith & Wesson has a backlog. Some AR manufacturers have a backlog of one to two years.

      Domestic manufacturers are capacity constrained, and that isn’t going to change. Production won’t increase. Prices will.

      1. avatar Julian says:

        Production capacity didn’t increase because they knew it was a temporary spike in demand. If there were a permanent increase in demand, there would be a substantial increase in output, both from current manufacturers and new ones. There would be a period before that, however, where prices would probably get pretty bad.

  7. avatar gloomhound says:

    Don’t worry the UN isn’t coming for your guns…now where have I heard something like this before?

  8. avatar LC Judas says:

    Now…correct me if I’m wrong but something is fishy here. Our Constitution already has preemption over any treaty, right? Then right as this very treaty got suggested there was an additional law passed stating treaties from abroad don’t affect things here. Then the Constitution preemptively handles registration in the direct sense. Hence the backdoor attempts failing so this pretty much direct attempt seems doomed for failure.

    Or am I mistaken?

  9. avatar Jus Bill says:

    Wayne, is that what the voices told you? You do realize that the day after he signed the treaty BO violated its terms with the Syrians. Or was it the day before? Or both? No matter…

    Now go have a nice lie down.

    1. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

      You should google and/or YouTube agenda 21 before you go thinking Wayne is crazy.

      The UN wants to do away with individual rights all together and every president since bush senior has been helping them

      1. avatar Ardent says:

        You should attempt to find an information outlet that isn’t tin-hat crazy. The assertion you make has no evidence or foundation in reality to anyone not possessed with paranoia and a delusional proclivity to believe such nonsense.

        There is literally nothing in Agenda 21 to suggest a suppression of individual rights here or abroad. There is also nothing to suggest (being that it’s non-binding) that even if it had such provisions they would ever be advanced or enforced. A-21 is simply rich countries agreeing in a general way that they are in fact rich while some other countries are poor, and it sure would be nice if those poor countries didn’t have to be so poor. . . so long as it just doesn’t cost us rich countries anything.

        If that weren’t enough, many countries have passed specific laws saying that no part of their government may participate in any part of A-21, it was DOA when it was passed.

        Wayne isn’t crazy, he’s a shameless fundraiser (god help him from going too far and losing credibility, he’s dangerously close), but anyone who thinks A-21 is some sort of collective New World Order scheme needs to read it again. A-21 is a limp wristed non-binding, BS, feel good bucket of hogwash that does absolutely nothing at all. . . just like most of the UNs resolutions.

  10. avatar Paul53 says:

    Cute treaty. It doesn’t change The Constitution, and doesn’t mean squat until a lot of countries sign it, then it still doesn’t mean squat.

  11. avatar Sixpack70 says:

    Tin foil hats are cheap Wayne! Go make a few.

  12. avatar TRUTHY says:

    Same old story from the NRA, send money, send money, send money…….

    1. avatar jwm says:

      As a reply to the same old message from bloomie and company, take the guns, take the guns.

  13. avatar the ruester says:

    At some point, some president of ours needs to stand up in front of these fools and tell them that they believe gun ownership is a human right, and denying that right is a form of tyranny. When they predictably scoff and howl at the notion, the response should be to point out that whenever the UN needs someone to stand up and defend the oppressed, the first person they call is always good ole Uncle Sam with all of his big scary guns.

  14. avatar Southern Cross says:

    The UN is the most corrupt and inept organization this side of the IOC (International Olympic Committee), although the latter does put on a good (and very expensive) show every 4 years. I personally wouldn’t trust the UN to run a public toilet. And most of the blue helmet wearers are from very poor countries such as Pakistan and Bangladesh where the countries actually make a profit from hiring out their cannon fodder ^H… troops. If the UN is the harbinger of the New World Order, they can keep it for themselves.

    I remember a televised incident where a UN official from an African nation backed up by Canadian troops went to convince a Bosnian farmer to surrender his guns in return for UN protection. The farmer replied with the UN’s recent record of protection he would be better keeping the guns and protecting himself. The UN official, now getting very agitated, asked what was wrong with the protection. The farmer then listed off every incident over the last year where the UN had offered protection to unarmed civilians and then stood back while the Serbians massacred the same civilians. The UN official now looked like he was about to suffer a stroke and started shouting how he was from the UN and the farmer had to do what he was told. The farmer turned his back and walked off to finish his work. The Canadian officers were trying very hard to keep a straight face while the troops were laughing themselves silly.

  15. avatar Ralph says:

    Why should we worry about blue helmets when the country has millions of camo helmets who would love to do the job?

    The treaty establishes an international norm, and the US adheres to international norms. Cf. the portion of the Hague Convention that the US never signed (banning expanding ammunition) but that we slavishly adhere to no matter how many US soldiers die because of it.

    Wake up.

    1. avatar Accur81 says:

      Absolutely. There is wisdom in not trusting these bastards. If looking at their long track record of human rights abuses is insufficient, the statue to the twisted revolver out to wake folks up. The UN does not support civilian firearm ownership.

  16. avatar Larry says:

    Bring ’em on. I got some all American .30-06 and .45ACP just waiting for them. We’ll surprise ’em too. There are 4MM gun owners behind enemy lines here in NY.

  17. avatar AZGarandGuy says:

    In this highly unlikely scenario of men wearing blue helmets marching down our streets to collect our firearms…well…lets just say that I sure wouldn’t want to be them. A lot of UN blood will be spilled. And those men know it.

  18. avatar Out_Fang_Thief says:

    Even if they did ban foreign companies from exporting guns to America, they could always do what VW, BMW, Toyota, Honda, and other car manufacturers do, open a plant in America and produce them here. That’s how foreign car manufacturers get around Americas import limits.

  19. avatar Joel says:

    Does this mean we’re finally going to get a crack at that Russian Army division that has been hidden away all these years by the U.N. in an abandoned salt mine under Detroit? And what about those 10,000 Hong Kong Policemen they were supposed to be bringing here to enforce their one world government laws on us? I mean, that stuff’s all real, right? Hello? Helloooooooo……..

  20. avatar Doug says:

    My finger is ready for some finger to metal repetative use.

  21. avatar PPs43 says:

    Folks, before you write off the idea that UN troops might come knocking on your door in the middle of the night and forcibly remove your firearms from your domicile, just remember that not that many years ago the idea of electing a Marxist like Barack Hussein Obama to the Presidency of the United States would have been met with loud guffaws by the vast majority of voters.

    1. avatar TRUTHY says:

      It always shows intelligence when you throw that “Hussein” in there, like he named himself. Tard.

    2. avatar int19h says:

      >> The idea of electing a Marxist like Barack Hussein Obama to the Presidency of the United States would have been met with loud guffaws by the vast majority of voters.

      The idea that Barack Obama is a Marxist is still met with loud guffaws by the majority of voters, being as batshit insane as it is.

      1. avatar Accur81 says:

        Is the distinction between corrupt statist politicians perfectly willing to use illicit means to subjugate their populace really all that important?

  22. avatar jwm says:

    The UN? The same guys that couldn’t pacify Somalia which is the size of what, a car dealership in Texas? I welcome the blue helmets. Direct them to East L.A. and watch the body count rocket up.

    Kee-rist, the UN and agenda 21. What a non event for a bunch of old ladies to get in a tizzey over.

  23. avatar Taro Tsujimoto says:

    “NRA Veep Wayne LaPierre is enervated by the recent signing of the U.N. Small Arms Trade Treaty.”

    “Enervated” means “drained of strength; weakened.”

    1. avatar B says:

      You have to use an Amrita to remove Enervate as a status ailment.

    2. avatar Matt in FL says:

      So it does. Text amended.

  24. avatar PPs43 says:

    Thank you all for your guffaws. I do pray that future circumstances prove to be such that none of us ever have the need to confront brigades of troops, main battle tanks, and attack helicopters with our deer rifles.

  25. avatar aaronw says:

    Caption: “Hawmps, Part II – Camel’s Revenge” – the sequel no one needed to the movie no one wanted…

  26. avatar Wildman says:

    I wouldn’t be too complacent about the impact of this ‘treaty’. Those who think it is a non-event are the frogs in slowly boiling water. ANY potential infraction on our second amendment rights needs to be abolished.

    1. avatar Blue says:

      Anyone that isn’t concerned should read Article 12 of that treaty.

  27. avatar JWhite says:

    Laughable… All of it really.

  28. avatar jkp says:

    Trying to think of the last time UN Blue-helmets actually amounted to more than a hill of beans anywhere.

    Ah, yes, Katanga, 1962….

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_Katanga

    It turns out that earlier reports of a “UNSSU” intervening in Ameri(k)a were actually fiction. 😀

  29. avatar JAS says:

    “The U.N.’s driving mission is to accumulate power at the expense of the sovereignity of individual nations and fundamental individual rights, and its gun-ban treaty proves it.”

    Err…. No. The driving mission of the UN is “wealth redistribution”. Now where have I heard that phrase before?

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email