• BullionStar
    05/30/2016 - 21:24
    The US Gold Market is best known as the home of gold futures trading on the COMEX in New York. The COMEX has a literal monopoly on gold futures trading volumes worldwide, but very little physical...

Guest Post: CFR Globalists Say Don’t Worry - “Your Guns Are In Safe Hands”

Tyler Durden's picture




 

From Brandon Smith of Alt-Market

CFR Globalists Say Don’t Worry - “Your Guns Are In Safe Hands”

It’s funny, I was worried about my Second Amendment rights just a moment ago, but now that the Council On Foreign Relations, a global governance think tank and inbred cesspool of despotic elitism, has explained the situation to me, I suddenly feel at ease…

In preparation for the fast approaching UN summit on “international conventional arms trade” in New York, the CFR has published yet another disinformation piece skewing the facts and twisting reality to lull Americans into a state of apathy:

http://blogs.cfr.org/patrick/2012/07/20/your-guns-are-in-safe-hands/

Am I surprised that the CFR would rehash the talking points of the UN and declare uninhibited support for their worldwide gun grabbing bid?  Of course not.  The CFR and the UN are part and parcel of the same nefarious sea monster; each tentacle does its duty to rend sovereign ships asunder.  However, such propaganda articles from establishment organizations do give us an opportunity to dissect and annihilate a host of lies and misdirections in one fell swoop.  There may not be much sport in pulling apart the CFR’s poorly composed arguments, but, it has to be done…

CFR writers Stewart Patrick and Emma Welch begin with a kind of red herring distraction, immediately bringing up the internal conflicts in Syria as some kind of rationale for the UN putting its nose into the gun buying habits of sovereign countries.  I would like to point out that most of the “illegally procured” firearms being shipped into Syria are coming from the U.S. to supply an insurgency which is now looking more and more like a bought and paid for destabilizing false flag army rather than a true and honest revolution for freedom:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/syrian-rebels-get-influx-of-arms-with-gulf-neighbors-money-us-coordination/2012/05/15/gIQAds2TSU_story.html

I am highly doubtful that the UN has any intention of stopping this activity on the part of the U.S., primarily because they have never declared opposition to the covert support of Syrian rebels.  On top of this, the guidelines of the UN Small Arms Treaty are so broad that they could be interpreted any number of ways to fit any number of desired outcomes.  If the UN wanted to label the supply of U.S. arms to Syrian insurgents “legal” within the bounds of the treaty, they could.  The injection of Syria into the treaty issue by the CFR is an obvious ploy designed to make you falsely associate the UN action as being useful in combating Syrian destabilization, even though this is in no way the UN’s goal.

Ironically, after slipping the Syrian crisis into the discussion to manipulate readers, without mentioning the U.S. government’s involvement in the clandestine supply of arms to the opposition movement, the CFR then attacks Iran’s involvement in the treaty as hypocritical, because of their alleged funneling of arms to the Assad regime.  So, within the first two paragraphs of their article, the Council on Foreign Relations has dishonestly tied Syria to the gun treaty debate with cherry-picked data and criticized Iran for supposed crimes of which the U.S. is also guilty.  This kind of disinformation truly boggles the mind…

The article continues by outlining the “horrors” of the small arms trade, which it immediately associates with terrorism, rogue states (of which they apparently include Iran, but not the U.S.), and criminal syndicates.  When, in fact, most of the arms deals taking place in shadow markets around the world are consistently discovered to be facilitated by governments themselves (as the Syria crisis clearly illustrates as well as the Fast and Furious scandal).  I still have not seen any indication from the UN that this is a problem for them as long as participating governments play the globalist game.  You can read the text of the Small Arms Treaty here:

http://iapcar.org/?p=970

The only thing the UN treaty accomplishes is a double standard in favor of establishment entities to which the rules do not apply.  A destabilized Syria serves globalist interests, and so, the insurgency WILL get U.S. arms, and the United Nations WILL look the other way, treaty or no treaty.

The CFR goes on to claim that:

“…participating countries generally agree that a treaty is desperately needed and long overdue…”

This is to paint a false image of consensus in the minds of readers.  It is as if we are supposed to say “well, if everyone is for it, then I am too…”

Only a few lines later, the article contradicts itself by lamenting:

“…despite three years of preparations and nearly a decade of advocacy campaigns, there remains a lack of consensus on the scope, criteria, and implementation of the treaty. The usual suspects, Russia, China, and—to a certain extent—the United States, are among the most influential of a handful of countries raising objections, particularly over the proposed inclusion of small arms and ammunition, human rights criteria, and regulatory measures. And to compound matters, the United States continues to face domestic opposition to its participation in the treaty negotiations…”

So, we finally get to the heart of that which chaps the CFR’s behind, and the primary reason the article was written:  Domestic opposition to U.S. participation in the UN treaty.

Government opposition to the treaty is not what worries the UN.  Barack Obama will sign the accord in a heartbeat and salivate while doing it.  What does concern the globalists is the fact that so many Americans, millions of them, are largely against the proposition.  This fact, in itself, is very revealing of their true intentions.

Why is it that, though the UN has clear support from our President and our Secretary of State, they are so adamant about public support and acceptance?  Senate ratification may become a stumbling bloc, but their arguments do not address the senate; they address us as citizens.  Why is the CFR so concerned with convincing us that the treaty is “harmless”?  If the treaty is going to be signed regardless of what we feel, and if it is truly not a threat to our rights, then why not simply pass the resolution, and show us through action that our right to own firearms is not under threat?  Why are the UN and the CFR so interested in manufacturing our consent?

The reality is, laws and treaties, domestic and international, are mostly implemented to achieve psychological acceptance from the populace.  If a law or set of principles is written down and praised by the bureaucratic circus, but the people do not embrace the action, then the lawmakers have ultimately accomplished nothing.  They are not satisfied with codification.  They want cultural identification.  They want people to love the new law.

I have found in my time tracking and analyzing corrupt law, the harder the shills work to convince you that a particular regulation is innocuous, the more dangerous it ends up becoming.

The CFR continues by giving a deliberately weak sided opposing view to the treaty by quoting arguments from the NRA and Mitt Romney, of all people.  The NRA has many times in the past actually contributed to the support of laws in the U.S. which are undermining to the 2nd Amendment and has long been considered by knowledgeable gun right advocates to be controlled opposition.  Mitt Romney’s (flip-flopper extraordinaire) record on gun control is no better than Obama’s:

http://www.businessinsider.com/mitt-romney-gun-conrol-nra-assault-weapons-colorado-shooting-theater-2012-7

The CFR would of course never quote true and intelligent proponents of gun rights, like Gun Owners of America, for instance.  Otherwise, their string of logical fallacies would be completely disrupted. 

That said, the threat to American sovereignty and Constitutional protections is indeed on the minds of many in this country.  The CFR labels these concerns “inflammatory” and “unfounded”.  They list the stock responses and talking points which have no doubt been composed and passed around by the UN.  I have listed them below, along with the reasons why they are disingenuous:

1)  The treaty is limited to the international trade of conventional arms, which pertains to the buying, selling, transshipping, transferring, or loaning across borders.

Don’t worry America, the UN treaty only covers the importation and exportation of firearms, says the CFR.  I would like to remind you, though, of similar situations that have been exploited by the Federal Government here in the U.S. in the name of the Commerce Clause.  The original intent of the Commerce Clause was to allow the Federal Government some oversight over the FOREIGN and INTERSTATE trade of goods.  Sovereign states were meant to retain governance over all internal commerce.

Unfortunately over time, especially since FDR’s presidency and the New Deal, the government has used and abused the commerce clause, subjugating the rights of states and claiming authority over ALL trade, not just external trade.  Even when a state takes a stand on a particular form of commerce, as Montana has with firearms or medical marijuana, the Federal Government has ignored local law and unleashed alphabet agencies like the FBI, ATF, and FDA to crush dissenters.  I have no doubt that the UN will eventually abuse the Small Arms Treaty just as our Federal Government has abused the Commerce Clause.

2)  The draft text of the treaty explicitly recognizes “the exclusive right of States to regulate internal transfers of arms and national ownership, including through the constitutional protections on private ownership.

As stated above, there are no guarantees on this.  Also, there has been a consistent push by globalist academia to assert that treaties somehow “supersede” Constitutional protections.  This argument comes primarily from a misguided interpretation of the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution by men like Chief Justice John Marshal, who said in 1829:

“A treaty is, in its nature, a contract between two nations, not a legislative act. It does not generally effect, of itself, the object to be accomplished; especially, so far as its operation is intraterritorial; but is carried into execution by the sovereign power of the respective parties to the instrument…In the United States, a different principle is established. Our constitution declares a treaty to be the law of the land. It is, consequently, to be regarded in courts of justice as equivalent to an act of the legislature…”

Marshal was a very confused and foolish interpreter of the Constitution, at least in this instance.  In regards to treaties and the Supremacy Clause in general the Constitution clearly states:

“This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.”

Meaning, all laws and treaties are subject to the guidelines of Constitutional rights and the laws of the states first and foremost.  If a law or treaty violates those rights, it is null and void.  Period.  Sadly, this fact has not stopped the use of treaties by certain government officials and think tanks as an argument for an end run around the Constitution.

3)  In response to the charges that the treaty would co-opt U.S. national sovereignty, arms control experts argue that the treaty would have “little to no impact” on existing regulatory processes…

By signing this treaty, the U.S. would indeed lose sovereignty.  The CFR acts as if the UN is simply handing out a short list of guidelines and giving regulatory control to nation states.  It would seem they have not read the fine print.

Article 13 of the UN treaty establishes what they call the “Implementation Support Unit”.  This group collects data from member countries, oversees the enforcement of treaty provisions, asserts final authority over the interpretation of said provisions, collects financial obligations from member countries, and centralizes the entire process under one roof.  The ISU will be a UN agency that administrates over the U.S. and other countries when it comes to the trade of small arms.  For the CFR to claim that the U.S. will not lose sovereignty is a flagrant falsehood.

4)  In an attempt to diminish concerns that the UN will overstep its bounds when it comes to U.S. sovereignty, the CFR states:  “The United States already has in place a rigorous export control system, defined as the “gold standard.” Instead, the treaty is primarily aimed at countries in which rigorous controls and oversight are absent, in an attempt to harmonize and coordinate standards worldwide…”

My question is, if the United States ALREADY has a rigorous export control system, then why is it necessary for us to join the UN gun treaty at all??? 
The CFR moves forward by stating that the U.S. must use its position to “set an example”, but it would appear that we already have set that example according to the CFR’s own words.  What purpose then does a UN treaty on guns serve?  Why do we need the UN to mediate anything?  Does anyone have a logical explanation for this?  I would enjoy hearing it.

I believe that the UN Small Arms Treaty is another step, perhaps an important step, in the imposition of a subversive philosophy: that gun ownership is an affront to the “globally conscious”.  That it is a barbaric relic of a bygone era, and that it is no longer practical in our modern times.  The mass shooting in Colorado this past week has been used as a rallying point for the anti-gun fervor, but what that event really showed us is what the world would be like if law abiding citizens were totally disarmed (as they were in Aurora by anti-carry laws within the city).  Criminals will always be able to get weapons, and they will almost always choose targets that are unarmed and low risk.  If Americans lose their right to bear arms, I can promise that we will see massacres like the Aurora Theater attack on a regular basis.

As far as national sovereignty is concerned, the CFR is completely unqualified to comment.  CFR members have in the past openly admitted the true purpose of their organization, which is to eliminate national sovereignty and institute global governance:

"The sovereignty fetish is still so strong in the public mind,
that there would appear to be little chance of winning popular assent to
American membership in anything approaching a super-state organization.
Much will depend on the kind of approach which is used in further
popular education."

CFR "American Public Opinion and Postwar Security Commitments", 1944

"The Council on Foreign Relations is the American branch of a society which originated in England ... [and] ... believes national boundaries should be obliterated and one-world rule established…I know of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years in the early 1960s to examine its papers and secret records. I have no aversion to it or to most of its aims and have, for much of my life, been close to it and to many of its instruments. I have objected, both in the past and recently, to a few of its policies ... but in general my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known." Dr. Carroll Quigley, CFR Member, Mentor to Bill Clinton, from Tragedy and Hope

"In the next century, nations as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority. National sovereignty wasn't such a great idea after all." Strobe Talbott, CFR Member

In light of this information, I find the Council On Foreign Relations’ attempts to reassure us on the safety of our sovereignty rather hilarious.  Their blind stab at defending the UN’s gun treaty tells me all I need to know.  Where there is smoke, there is fire, and no quarter should be given to these people.  None.  Their intentions are not honorable, and they often seek to deceive to get what they want.  Our safest bet is to stand in the way of any action they choose to support.  If it’s good for them, it will invariably be bad for us.

0
Your rating: None
 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Wed, 07/25/2012 - 08:48 | 2648562 Ray1968
Ray1968's picture

Oops... I seem to have "lost" all my firearms while boating.... along with all my gold bars. So sorry.

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 09:00 | 2648622 Decay is Constant
Decay is Constant's picture

Yours too?  Wow, what a coincidence.

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 09:08 | 2648672 CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

Never let a tragedy go to waste:

 

"Lone-wolf terrorists are extremely intelligent and often come from very good socio-economic backgrounds," said Todd McGhee, a former Massachusetts state trooper who is now managing partner of Protecting the Homeland Innovations, a security training firm in Braintree, Mass.

"But they become despondent. They become isolated from family members. Then they grab on to an ideology. Some people find religion. Some people find anti-government," he said.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-07-20/colorado-shooting-h...

 

Sounds kind of like Obama's "they cling to God and guns" speech, doesn't it?

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 09:42 | 2648890 Ignatius
Ignatius's picture

To learn more about the CFR find and read a first edition of historian Carroll Quigley's "Tradgedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time".

Quigley had unprecedented access to the records of the CFR and wrote a stunner.  He lays out exactly what the elites have been up to.

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 12:35 | 2649775 engineertheeconomy
engineertheeconomy's picture

I think that a "Global Ban on Bankers" would make more sense

 "If the criminals ban guns, then only the criminals will have freedom and wealth"

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 21:14 | 2651606 FEDbuster
FEDbuster's picture

“Whenever the legislators endeavor to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any further obedience.” ~ John Locke

Molon Labe

III

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 09:42 | 2648895 Randall Cabot
Randall Cabot's picture

Coming For Your Guns-the latest video from the great Brother Nathaniel:

http://www.realjewnews.com/?p=740

 

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 10:20 | 2649075 bobnoxy
bobnoxy's picture

Wow, what a screeching idiot that guy is, as is anyone dumb enough to listen to him. Obama taking your guns was used in the last election, and it'll be used again, to create emotional outrage and get you to go vote for people who keep robbing you blind.

Not only didn't you lose your guns, but gun sales went nuts, like they will again before people realize that members of Congress do want to get re-elected and will never go along! The NRA and gun dealers are laughing all the way to their daily Brinks drop offs.

It's just like how they keep using abortion, gay this and gay that, and Islamofascism, whatever the hell that means, the get you into a blind rage and show up to vote for people that have nothing real to offer you once elected.

And you fall for it every time.

Maybe it's time someone did take your guns away. Aside from being too stupid to own lethal objects, there are simply too many innocent people dying at the hands of morons and unstable assholes.

In Japan, guns are outlawed, and about 10 people a year get shot. Here, the hysteria is causing more to buy guns, and before too long, we'll settle our petty disagreements with them. Here, about 500 dumb ass gun owners shoot themsleves accidentally!

Road rage? No problem. get out, pace it off, and start shooting. I think evloution works in reverse sometimes, like here, with you!

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 10:53 | 2649271 j8h9
j8h9's picture

Yes, agreed. And when the nato treaty thing is over and no one loses their guns, the entire discussion will disappear and they'll never consider that the hype and frenzy was all propaganda to get them worked up and emotional so they vote for that party in November...  Whether you like him or not, Obama is not an idiot, he knows he would lose enormous support from rural Democrats if he proposed gun control and/or restrictions.

I do not support gun control.  Since 2007-2008 debacle and the real possibility of financial collapse, however, the US military could easily disarm 90% of the country with the remaining 10% resisting and dying as a result. The US Marines just graduated their first Civilian Police battalian. Good luck fighting them. 

Insofar as some of the other posts, it tragic to see people call Police 'welfare queens'. Clearly the result of weak minds absorbing rightwing propaganda. Do you all believe Police and Fireman are welfare queens? Agree with one poster to keep ZeroHedge focused on markets and not on rightwing taling points that bring in trolls and dittoheads with high school educations... 

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 10:58 | 2649327 Randall Cabot
Randall Cabot's picture

Bob and j8, cancel that cable and throw out the TV-the 2nd Amendment was put there to give the people a chance against a tyrannical government-all those people buying guns know this and you don't. Last week 12 people died, if they take the guns from the population it will be 12 million next week and 120 million after that. The same gang that took over Russia 90 years ago has taken over America.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_terror#Atrocities

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 11:32 | 2649491 bobnoxy
bobnoxy's picture

Now, you are a prime example of someone who shouldn't own lethal objects. Given your stupidity, it's amazing you haven't accidentally killed yourself a dozen times over, with or without a gun.

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 11:39 | 2649522 Randall Cabot
Randall Cabot's picture

Why do you think I'm stupid?

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 11:47 | 2649551 bobnoxy
bobnoxy's picture

For one, do you really think you can shoot it out with the government and win? Second, under what scenario do you envision them gunning down millions of us? Who made the government our main enemy, and your biggest mortal threat? 

That's why I think you're stupid.

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 12:12 | 2649665 piceridu
piceridu's picture

It's not the military anyone should fear it's the police: federal, state and local. The military is actually our saving grace because many have seen and smelled with their eyes and nose what misery, dispair and death feels like at the hands of governments gone wild. Many signed up because they believed they were going to "protect and serve" their country. But their senses were filled with lies, deceit, death and destruction and the flag waving propaganda from crony military recruiters wore off. They and their brothers and sisters know and have seen the truth from Fallujah to the shores of Tripoli. They know there is no honor in fighting these corporate wars but they will return home with the a newfound realization that the real war will be fought against the powererful money centers right outside their front doors.

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 12:28 | 2649741 engineertheeconomy
engineertheeconomy's picture

Imperative to know that the exact opposite of a "Global Gun Ban" is:

GLOBAL FREEDOM

GLOBAL LIBERTY

GLOBAL RIGHTS

GLOBAL WEALTH FOR THE PEOPLE

to hand over your weapon is to accept slavery and poverty

If you can put a piece of metal in a vice and drill a hole in it, you can make your own damn gun. Now might be a really good time to learn how to do that

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 13:01 | 2649862 ChacoFunFact
ChacoFunFact's picture

here is an app to discretely record the police with your cell phone when they pull you over....

http://www.springwise.com/government/aclu-app-discreetly-videotapes-interactions-police/

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 13:50 | 2650017 12ToothAssassin
12ToothAssassin's picture

Im torn over this app - on one hand it seems awesome but on the other, doesnt this allow goog and aapl to hand over a short list of freedom activists? Torn.

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 12:17 | 2649690 Raymond K Hessel
Raymond K Hessel's picture

The Second Amendment didn't make our government the enemy.

The Second Amendment laid out an insurance policy to defend ourselves in case our government goes too far.  There's a scene in Panther where the cops are attacking a couple of guys in an alley.  The Black Panthers come out with rifles and observe.  Within seconds the cops stop beating those guys.  Within minutes, the cops leave.  Not one shot was fired.  That show of force was enough to stop the government.

For me, that was the perfect example of the purpose to the Second Amendment.

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 12:26 | 2649724 V in PA
V in PA's picture

Police misconduct is as pervasive in the US as it is in England, Canada, Netherlands, Germany, Austria, France, Russia, and South Africa (Champion, 2001). Despite efforts to combat it, police misconduct is incessant and there is no systematic approach to solve the problem. Allegations of police misconduct, brutality, and harassment have popped up all over the US. The problem is not only nationwide, but it...

Good Thesis on Police Misconduct. Read the rest at: 

http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc3234/m2/1/high_res_d/thesis.pdf

 

The Government made the Government our main enemy. 

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 13:51 | 2650020 12ToothAssassin
Wed, 07/25/2012 - 12:39 | 2649745 Randall Cabot
Randall Cabot's picture

If Solzhenitsyn thought the murder of tens of millions of Russians by the Bolsheviks could have been stopped with axes and hammers then that's good enough for me.

“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.” 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gulag_Archipelago

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 14:39 | 2650209 Anusocracy
Anusocracy's picture

"What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family?"

 

Interesting point. A study done on robbers in prison indicated that if their chance of getting killed while committing a robbery reached 1 in 100, they would look for a new line of work.

 

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 10:57 | 2649325 Overfed
Overfed's picture

Well said. Spoken like a true state-worshiping, gestapo-boot-licking turd.

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 11:04 | 2649365 Au Shucks
Au Shucks's picture

Bobnoxious and Bobtarded.... that is the only way I can describe your ranting idiocy

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 11:31 | 2649484 bobnoxy
bobnoxy's picture

If you had any education, you would have a larger vocabulary and could have taken a respectable shot at it. I guess you went with all you had there, huh?

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 10:13 | 2649056 Buckaroo Banzai
Buckaroo Banzai's picture

"...Some people find anti-government."

And so the setup begins. If you are against the government, you are a "lone-wolf terrorist".

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 12:23 | 2649723 Raymond K Hessel
Raymond K Hessel's picture

It's worse than that.

Now that rebellion is classified as a mental illness, oppositional defiant disorder, authorities can diagnose anti-establishment types as mentally ill which allows them to legally confiscate a person's weapons.

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 12:15 | 2649677 aerojet
aerojet's picture

Statists--they always think their way is the only way and that everyone who opposes them is a terrorist.  Anti-government is not an ideology, it is the response to overbearing statism.

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 09:08 | 2648679 Doubleguns
Doubleguns's picture

Mine are right... here.....oh my god....someone stole them.

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 10:01 | 2648992 Abitdodgie
Abitdodgie's picture

As soon as the US Government , including the US Army, bodyguards, and all law enforcment get gid of thier guns I will get rid of mine.

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 12:15 | 2649681 aerojet
aerojet's picture

Not even then for me--cold, dead, hands. 

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 09:16 | 2648746 ATM
ATM's picture

I never had mine to begin with.

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 09:32 | 2648841 f16hoser
f16hoser's picture

I lost my guns and PM's because I have a gambling problem.....

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 13:53 | 2650027 12ToothAssassin
12ToothAssassin's picture

We should co-sponsor each other for a good 12 step program. I have the same problem!

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 09:02 | 2648632 Dr. No
Dr. No's picture

Due to the recent economic down turn, I had to sell all of mine (gold and guns) to make ends meet.  I sold at a loss I might add.

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 09:16 | 2648750 ATM
ATM's picture

Your papers, please.

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 10:05 | 2649013 Abitdodgie
Abitdodgie's picture

You could say you sold them all to Eric Holder for cash , just print a recipt for them and then its up to the LEO to get in touch with him , tell him to be sure to mention F and F.

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 09:07 | 2648673 knowless
knowless's picture

SOO SSAaWLREEE!

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 09:48 | 2648930 Hype Alert
Hype Alert's picture

You didn't own that!  Somebody else owned that.  You didn't own it by yourself.

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 14:30 | 2650159 Killer the Buzzard
Killer the Buzzard's picture

"So sorry Mr. Federal Agent, I was robbed last night... see, here is the police report.  I'm afraid someone else robbed me before you attempted to do the same."

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 08:48 | 2648564 zero19451945
zero19451945's picture

The UN-->Yet another organization with a long track record of failure.

Maybe Bernanke will go work for them next.

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 12:56 | 2649845 Grinder74
Grinder74's picture

You know The Won certainly will.  Being president is so beneath his potential greatness. 

</barf>

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 13:07 | 2649889 ChacoFunFact
ChacoFunFact's picture

The UN, 67 years, 142+ conflicts. 

The Fed, 100 years, 95% devaluation.

How'd we get so lucky to come by these two?  What is in common with their origin(s)?

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 14:50 | 2650252 Anusocracy
Anusocracy's picture

They were established by people who wish to be free to make everyone else slaves.

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 09:25 | 2648788 Urban Roman
Urban Roman's picture

 <-- Fast
 <-- Furious

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 09:30 | 2648832 GMadScientist
GMadScientist's picture

Shell.

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 08:49 | 2648566 Abiotic Oil
Abiotic Oil's picture

Seriously...

Come and get them.

The 3% is waiting.

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 08:50 | 2648569 marz929
marz929's picture

WHERE IS JON CORZINE?

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 08:51 | 2648571 midtowng
midtowng's picture

I'm a believer in the 2nd Amendment, but get over it. We have other rights that are in MUCH more danger than the 2nd Amendment.

  Where is all this paranoia for the 4th Amendment? Or the 1st?

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!