UN and False Flags, Tools of Gun Control

The history of the UN-ATT is intertwined with false flags.

The history of the UN-ATT is intertwined with Fast and Furious and other false flags

David Knight
September 25, 2013

It was just a few days ago that Henry Porter of the London Observer said:

This has reached the point where it has ceased to be a domestic issue. The world cannot stand idly by.

The UN has been working for a long time on tactics to disarm and control Americans. The purpose of the UN Arms Trade Treaty (UN-ATT) is to regulate the transfer of guns. That obviously requires that all guns be registered and tracked by governments.

To get the ATT ratified, a watered down version is offered as a Trojan Horse with just a passing reference to “small arms”. Once it’s ratified, it can easily be changed and expanded with only 75% of UN countries voting for changes. That won’t be difficult considering it passed nearly unanimously, with only 3 countries: Iran, Syria and North Korea voting against.


The history of the UN-ATT is intertwined with false flags. Fast and Furious was supposed to lay the groundwork to scare the public about arms crossing the border. Even the NY Times pointed out that the purpose of our government shipping guns to Mexico in the Gun Walker programs was to scare the public about arms moving across borders and get the public to cry out for protection. And the UN-ATT was the legislation they had already prepared to offer as a solution.

The UN-ATT was originally scheduled for a vote last July. But Fast and Furious had been exposed and was in full blown controversy because of the GOP wanted to use it for political gain — not because they wanted to end the BATF abuses or send anyone to jail for criminal behavior. The Gun Walker programs had been run under Bush prior to Obama.

Exactly one week before the UN was to vote on the UN-ATT, the Aurora, CO shooting was staged to try to energize gun control, take away attention from Fast and Furious and get American public opinion to support UN-ATT passage.

The history of the UN-ATT is intertwined with false flags.

I was at the UN that week covering it for the National Association for Gun Rights. There were a couple of groups demonstrating for passage and the corporate media was in full court press calling for gun control. But the Feds didn’t get the traction from Aurora that they needed thanks to the authentic media. So they decided to wait until after the US election and even made public statements to that effect. It Obama lost, it would be done after election but before the new President took office.

Within hours of Obama winning re-election and the Senate Democrats increasing in numbers, they announced that they wouldn’t do it in the lame duck session after all but in the spring. The Sandy Hook shooting took place Dec 15 and all you heard about for 3 months was Sandy Hook and gun control. Then the UN passed the Arms Trade Treaty on April 2.


Kerry signed the UN-ATT today. Senators have warned that the treaty has to be ratified by the Senate (probably because Obama has a history of violating the Constitution and ignoring requirements for Congressional authorization).

Constitutionally, it doesn’t matter that the Sec of State signed the treaty. Madeline Albright signed another terrible UN treaty — the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, attacking the family — back in 1995. It never got any farther.

If Obama signs the treaty it still has to be ratified by the Senate. But its’ important to note that the Constitution doesn’t require 2/3 of the Senate to approve — only 2/3 of those PRESENT have to sign it. Will Harry Reid schedule a vote during a recess to get it ratified?


Treaties don’t amend the Constitution but neither does regulatory law. However, the Feds act as if both do. Once the government passes a “law” or “regulation”, they enforce it. Citizens can fight them in court, but even when governments lose, it’s not uncommon for them to ignore the court decision. Washington, DC ignores the fact that the Supreme Court struck down their gun laws 5 years ago in DC v Heller. And court decisions striking down laws against photographing cops are being ignored across the country.


Former General McChrystal, has publicly supported banning military weapons from being possessed by the people

That’s what our soldiers ought to carry. I personally don’t think there’s any need for that kind of weaponry on the streets

and at the same time has called for re-instating the draft. Admiral Mike Mullen, the ex-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said

he feared US civilians “do not know us” while the military had become increasingly “insular.”

Clearly McChrystal & Mullen have no respect for the Constitutional prohibition of a standing army and reject the Constitutional prescription of a citizen militia like Switzerland.

The Founders used the term “shall not be infringed” in the Second Amendment because they knew that arms could never be confiscated from the people unless it was a gradual infringement, gradually encroaching on ownership.

One might ask why they said “shall not infringe” rather than “Congress shall pass no law” as they did in the First Amendment. If we look at Article 1, Sec 8, we see that Congress had already given authorization to pass laws that affected the militia. But Congress was to organize, arm and call forth the people as a militia, i.e. support and aid the militia.

There is a clear distinction in the Constitution between a standing army (which was not to be funded from more than 3 years) and the militia. The militia, not the army, was tasked with “suppressing insurrections and repelling invasions” according to Article 1, Sec 8, Clause 15. The next clause, Article 1, Sec 8, Clause 16, gave Congress authority to organize, arm and train the militia and to appoint officers. That was what the term “well regulated” referred to in the Second Amendment — not the infringement of rights by bureaucratic “regulations”.

The Congress was tasked with arming the militia, not disarming the militia. The Constitution has been turned upside down. To correct it, we need to understand that a standing army and a national bank, were correctly understood by the Founders to be the greatest threats to our liberties. The Constitution calls for a citizen militia, not a standing professional army, to defend the country.

This article was posted: Wednesday, September 25, 2013 at 3:49 pm

Tags: , ,

<!– this is where we need to show the related articles


Copyright: Infowars