---------------------
"Big Offense Corporations, who make up the military/industrial/media/banking/governments predatory alliance, are encouraged to produce and sell weapons of mass destruction for profit.
Fascist dictatorship governments (NATOUNUS) utilize the weapons they purchased from the offense corporations for killing, and enslaving humanity.
Predatory traitors of humanity in the Corporate Media, then try to convince the world that it is "the people causing the problem" - when the people of the world are only trying to defend themselves against genocidal activities of the predators in the Offensive Corporations of the military/industrial/banking/media/governments predatory alliance."
It is insane that the psychopathic predators who operate within the military/industrial/banking/media/governments predatory alliance are allowed to call the shots for the rest of humanity.
I understand there is plenty of room on the planet Jupiter for them to practice their insanity.
----------------------
Geneva Conference 1932-1934
The campaign for disarmament that took place between the two World Wars was one of the most substantial international non-governmental campaigns ever to have been undertaken.
It mobilized organizations that claimed a combined membership as high as half of the population of the world at the time.
The Women's International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF) grew out of the Congress of Women, a 1915 gathering of 1,300 women to protest World War I.
The women, who had come from all parts of Europe to work for peace, crafted twenty resolutions in an attempt to bring warring nations to the peace table and end the war.
They worked avidly for disarmament, with the active, public support of Eleanor Roosevelt, who often spoke at WILPF conferences and at other organizations in support of peace.
In 1932, working with its Nobel Peace Prize- winning president, Jane Addams, WILPF members collected six million signatures for the World Disarmament Petition and delivered them to the World Disarmament Conference in Geneva.
Peace groups insisted that the US Congress observe the limits on naval armaments established by agreements negotiated at various international conferences.
Such demands began before World War I, and naval treaties were concluded at Washington, DC and London, England, in 1922, and 1930 respectively, and the Geneva Conference of 1932.
The World Disarmament Conference [formally known as the Conference for the Reduction and Limitation of Armaments] convened in Geneva on 01 February 1932.
Disarmament had been a lively topic in diplomacy since the World War, and while statesmen tended to view it cynically, the Depression had made armaments more of a burden for all nations (ironically, the race to rearm in the late thirties would be credited by some observers with breaking the Depression).
There was hope, if not conviction, that an acceptable disarmament formula might be found.
Hoover was a strong supporter of disarmament, principally for economic reasons.
He hoped that even the nervous French could be coaxed into an agreement that would allow reduction of armaments by one-third.
One of the often suggested substitutes for arms limitation (the word disarmament was a misnomer; hardly anyone, even among the most ardent pacifists, saw much of a chance for total disarmament) was an agreement to abolish "aggressive" or "offensive" weapons, which included submarines and bombers.
Submarines and bombers were not only burdens on the taxpayers of the great powers that maintained them, but there were unsettled moral questions regarding their use.
Submarines had been used against ocean liners carrying noncombatants. Likely targets for bombers were cities...
Rmainder Here:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/naval-arms-control-1932.htm
----------------
THIS IS HOW GUN CONTROL WORKS AS OUR DULY ELECTED PLAY THE ROLE OF THE "STALKING HORSE" MAKING LAWS TO DISARM THE PEOPLE WHO ARE TRYING TO PROTECT THEMSELVES, THEIR FAMILY'S, AND THEIR PROPERTY..
[....A stalking horse is a figure that tests a concept with someone or mounts a challenge against someone on behalf of an anonymous third party. If the idea proves viable or popular, the anonymous figure can then declare its interest and advance the concept with little risk of failure. If the concept fails, the anonymous party will not be tainted by association with the failed concept and can either drop the idea completely or bide its time and wait until a better moment for launching an attack.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalking_horse ]
You're sound asleep when you hear a thump outside your bedroom door.
Half-awake, and nearly paralyzed with fear, you hear muffled whispers.
At least two people have broken into your house and are moving your way.
With your heart pumping, you reach down beside your bed and pick up your shotgun.
You rack a shell into the chamber, then inch toward the door and open it...
In the darkness, you make out two shadows.
One holds something that looks like a crowbar.
When the intruder brandishes it as if to strike, you raise the shotgun and fire.
The blast knocks both thugs to the floor.
One writhes and screams while the second man crawls to the front door and lurches outside.
As you pick up the telephone to call police, you know you're in trouble.
In your country, most guns were outlawed years before, and the few that are privately owned are so stringently regulated as to make them useless..
Yours was never registered.
Police arrive and inform you that the second burglar has died.
They arrest you for First Degree Murder and Illegal Possession of a Firearm.
When you talk to your attorney, he tells you not to worry: authorities will probably plea the case down to manslaughter.
"What kind of sentence will I get?" you ask.
"Only ten-to-twelve years," he replies, as if that's nothing.
"Behave yourself, and you'll be out in seven."
The next day,the shooting is the lead story in the local newspaper.
Somehow, you're portrayed as an eccentric vigilante while the two men you shot are represented as choirboys.
Their friends and relatives can't find an unkind word to say about them..
Buried deep down in the article, authorities acknowledge that both "victims" have been arrested numerous times.
But the next day's headline says it all:
"Lovable Rogue Son Didn't Deserve to Die."
The thieves have been transformed from career criminals into Robin Hood-type pranksters..
As the days wear on, the story takes wings.
The national media picks it up, then the international media.
The surviving burglar has become a folk hero.
Your attorney says the thief is preparing to sue you, and he'll probably win.
The media publishes reports that your home has been burglarized several times in the past and that you've been critical of local police for their lack of effort in apprehending the suspects.
After the last break-in, you told your neighbor that you would be prepared next time.
The District Attorney uses this to allege that you were lying in wait for the burglars.
A few months later, you go to trial.
The charges haven't been reduced, as your lawyer had so confidently predicted.
When you take the stand, your anger at the injustice of it all works against you..
Prosecutors paint a picture of you as a mean, vengeful man.
It doesn't take long for the jury to convict you of all charges.
The judge sentences you to life in prison.
------------------
The above scenario described actually happened.
On August 22,1999, Tony Martin of Emneth, Norfolk , England, killed one burglar and wounded a second.
In April, 2000, he was convicted and is now serving a life term..
How did it become a crime to defend one's own life in the once great British Empire?
It started with the Pistols Act of 1903.
This seemingly reasonable law forbade selling pistols to minors or felons and established that handgun sales were to be made only to those who had a license.
The Firearms Act of 1920 expanded licensing to include not only handguns but all firearms except shotguns..
Later laws passed in 1953 and 1967 outlawed the carrying of any weapon by private citizens and mandated the registration of all shotguns.
Momentum for total handgun confiscation began in earnest after the Hungerford mass shooting in 1987.
(Another false flag?)
Michael Ryan, a mentally disturbed man (of course - most likely a victim of MK Ultra) with a Kalashnikov rifle, walked down the street shooting everyone he saw. When the smoke cleared, 17 people were dead.
The British public, already de-sensitized by eighty years of "gun control", demanded even tougher restrictions.
(The seizure of all privately owned handguns was the objective even though Ryan used a rifle.)
Nine years later, at Dunblane, Scotland,
Thomas Hamilton used a semi-automatic weapon to murder 16 children and a teacher at a public school.
(Are we beginning to see a pattern here? Sandy Hook ring any bells?)
For many years, the media had portrayed all gun owners as mentally unstable, or worse, criminals.
Now the press had a (lone nutter portrayal again) real kook with which to beat up law-abiding gun owners.
Day after day, week after week, the media gave up all pretense of objectivity and demanded a total ban on all handguns.
The Dunblane Inquiry, a few months later, sealed the fate of the few sidearm's still owned by private citizens.
During the years in which the British government incrementally took away most gun rights, the notion that a citizen had the right to armed self-defense came to be seen as vigilantism.
Authorities refused to grant gun licenses to people who were threatened, claiming that self-defense was no longer considered a reason to own a gun.
Citizens who shot burglars or robbers or rapists were charged while the real criminals were released.
Indeed, after the Martin shooting, a police spokesman was quoted as saying,
"We cannot have people take the law into their own hands."
All of Tony Martin's neighbors had been robbed numerous times, and several elderly people were severely injured in beatings by young thugs who had no fear of the consequences.
Martin himself, a collector of antiques, had seen most of his collection trashed or stolen by burglars.
When the (false flag) Dunblane Inquiry ended, citizens who owned handguns were given three months to turn them over to local authorities.
Being good British subjects, most people obeyed the law.
The few who didn't were visited by police and threatened with ten-year prison sentences if they didn't comply.
Police later bragged that they'd taken nearly 200,000 handguns from private citizens.
How did the authorities know who had handguns?
The guns had been registered and licensed.
Kind of like cars. Sound familiar?
-------------------
If you think this is important, please forward to everyone you know.
You had better wake up, because Obama and the other control freaks in congress are doing this very same thing, over here, if they can get away with it.
Will you let them?
WAKE UP AMERICA;
THIS IS WHY OUR FOUNDING FATHERS PUT THE SECOND AMENDMENT IN OUR CONSTITUTION.
"...It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.."
--Samuel Adams
|
1 comment:
OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!
Post a Comment