Read an Excerpt
The Global War on Your GunsInside the U.N. Plan to Destroy the Bill of Rights
By Wayne LaPierre
NELSON CURRENTCopyright © 2007 Wayne LaPierre
All right reserved.
Chapter OneGlobal Repression: The International Gun Control Movement
Stymied by the outcome of elections in the United States-solidifying pro-Second Amendment majorities in the U.S. House and Senate-the gun-prohibition lobby turned to the courts, filing meritless suits against gun manufacturers with the hope of imposing prohibition through industry bankruptcy. As the lawsuit strategy fell apart, gun-prohibition groups sought victory through international law. Under their new strategy, the further the locus of decision-making moved from democratic, American control, the better the chances for success in achieving universal disarmament through an international, U.N.-backed treaty.
Billionaire George Soros's protégé, Rebecca Peters, runs the International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA), which coordinates the gun prohibition efforts of groups around the world, including the Brady Campaign in America. IASNA claims at least 500 accomplices worldwide and is funded with countless millions from governments, international foundations, and billionaires like Soros. In spreading its dangerous doctrine of civil disarmament, IANSA receives the patronage of the same governments that push gun prohibition at the U.N. In effect, IANSA is the cutting-edge public relations arm of the U.N.'s gun prohibition campaign.
When I debated Peters at King's College in London on October 12, 2004, she was very forthright in saying that the gun prohibition movement was aimed squarely at Americans: "Americans are people like everyone else on Earth. They should abide by the same rules as everyone else."
Peters would deny firearms, the proven means of self-defense to resist tyrants and genocide, to good citizens worldwide: "It's not going to be up to each individual person to be like a hero in a movie defending against this threat to freedom."
At the debate, I reminded the audience of NRA's public awareness campaign, which asked: "Would you shoot a rapist before he slit your throat?" She responded by denying even rape victims the right to defend themselves against violent attack:
Women need to be protected by police forces, by judiciaries, by criminal justice systems. People who have guns for self-defense are not safer than people who don't ... having a gun in that situation escalates the problem.
When Peters claimed that all she wanted was "moderate" gun control, I repeated her mantra, in which she advocates banning every hunting rifle and works toward eliminating firearms of any kind:
Your definition of "moderate" is the most extreme definition imaginable. From your own words, here you are in a CNN interview in October 2003. You want to ban every rifle that can shoot over 100 meters. That's basically a football field for people back in the U.S. That's every hunting rifle in the United States. The founding document of IANSA, your very own organization says, and I quote, "Reduce the availability of weapons to civilians in all societies." Duck hunters ... in Australia. Taking away their pump shotguns. Here's your ad, and I can give you all these NGOs you work with. Pamphlet after pamphlet after pamphlet, I can stack them to the ceiling, where you call for no [right] to individual armament. So let's be honest. You want to take guns away from all people, a global bureaucracy to do it. We're not going to let it happen.
The moderator asked her, "So is that true?" She answered honestly:
We want to see a drastic reduction in gun ownership across the world. Yes. We want to see much lower proliferation of guns among the civilian population, and also among governments.... Yeah, we want to reduce the number of guns in circulation around the world.
Her "moderate" gun-ban plan includes more than just banning every hunting rifle. She wants to ban every semiautomatic shotgun, every semiautomatic rifle, and every single handgun:
Moderator: Do you believe, as you said in the past, that semiautomatic rifles and shotguns have no legitimate role in civilian hands? Rebecca Peters: Yes, I do. Semiautomatic weapons are designed to kill large numbers of people. They were designed for military use. Many people have bought them for other purposes, for example, for hunting because they've been available. But there's no justification for semiautomatic weapons to be owned by members of the civilian population. Yes, I believe that semiautomatic rifles and shotguns have no legitimate role in civilian hands. And not only that, handguns have no legitimate role in civilian hands....
Her long-term objective is a worldwide gun ban, which would be enforced against the U.S. In her generosity, she would allow selected Americans to prove that they need a single-shot rifle-with a range of less than 100 meters-for hunting:
I think American citizens should not be exempt from the rules that apply to the rest of the world. At the moment there are no rules applying to the rest of the world. That's what we're working for. American citizens should have guns that are suitable for the legitimate purposes that they can prove. I think that eventually Americans will realize that their obsession with arming themselves in fear, in a paranoid belief that they're going to be able to stave off the ills of the world through owning guns, through turning every house into an arsenal, eventually Americans will go away from that. I think Americans who hunt-and who prove that they can hunt-should have single-shot rifles suitable for hunting whatever they're hunting. I mean American citizens should be like any other citizens of the world.
Peters extolled a decree she would impose on the U.S., already in effect in the Australia and Great Britain: prohibition of defensive gun ownership. In those countries, she proclaims, "You were not allowed to have guns for self-defense. If you had a gun for self-defense you were breaking the law."
Peters shares that worldview with Neil Arya, who heads Physicians for Global Survival in Canada. He told the U.N. in 2001 that physicians do not care whether firearms are involved in incidents where the shooter was a gangster, a soldier, or a law-abiding gun owner. In this perverse view, no distinction exists between an armed criminal murdering a robbery victim, an innocent victim saving her life by shooting the violent felon, a Nazi soldier shooting a Jew, or an American soldier shooting a Nazi soldier.
Yet it's a view espoused by the U.N., run by dictatorships that facilitate genocide, rape, kidnapping, and slavery around the world. And this is the bankrupt organization that Peters believes should impose its "culture" on the U.S. During our debate, when the question was posed: "Why do you place such unquestioning trust in governments and the United Nations, when you clearly do not trust individuals for the best way to protect themselves and their families?" she replied:
It's called civilization. Individuals come together. They form societies. They form governments. That's part of the contract that we make. It's a long time gone now since Thomas Hobbes described society as being characterised by a continual fear and danger of violent death and the life of man is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short. I have confidence that people coming together into countries are going to operate better than a whole lot of individuals making up their own rules, taking the law into their own hands.
In other words, the dictatorial governments of Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Syria, and China should be empowered to mandate whether peaceful citizens may defend themselves against violence. Exercising the God-given right to protect oneself would no longer exist.
To fully understand the danger the global enemies of freedom pose to our Second Amendment, Americans must understand the ever-shifting vocabulary and bizarre legal theories masking the endgame of the international gun-ban movement.
For the true, sinister meaning of benign-sounding phrases such as "gun control," or "gun law reform," or "sensible firearms regulation," or "violence prevention"-the phony, deceptive vocabulary of the international gunban crowd-look no further than the mind of Rebecca Peters and her allies. Their ideology-wherever it is applied-is deadly to freedom.
With Peters, there are no words or phrases that mean what average world citizens might naturally construe. She lives in the murky sea of newspeak of her own invention-Peters-speak, if you will.
Peters's doctrine is based on a concept of collective punishment, or a kind of neo-Marxist redistribution-where guilt is transferred from evil-doers, criminals, or mass killers, to be assigned to the innocent masses-law-abiding gun owners. In applying this twisted view on a global scale, her goal is to implement total civil disarmament through the U.N., either by an overriding binding treaty or piecemeal, one country at a time, outlawing and confiscating whole classes of firearms.
To understand what Peters is pushing for on the world scale-what she would do to firearms owners in every nation-those working to protect freedom must study her past to define her words and actions today. The nightmare for peaceable gun owners in Australia is a glimpse into the future for those who are not vigilant and strong.
As the proclaimed architect of the 1996-97 long-gun confiscation in Australia, Peters saw law-abiding firearms owners forfeit more than 700,000 rifles and shotguns for destruction under the guise of what she and the government called a "buyback." The forfeiture scheme, which Peters says "is the world's biggest," is the seminal example of gun control. And gun control shouldn't be about punishing criminals-"there is in America," she sniffs, "a very entrenched idea that the purpose of gun laws is to punish bad guys."
Australia, Peters has often said, is the standard for the rest of what she Calls "civil society"-meaning, a society without gun ownership. She always refers to the 700,000 confiscated and destroyed rifles and shotguns banned in Australia as "inherently dangerous," "weapons of war," as "battlefield weapons," or "military style-weapons," and the media always obliges by adopting her Peters-speak.
But the semiauto and pump shotguns and the self-loading rifles she marks as being "inherently dangerous" were almost all ordinary sporting arms. The official government forfeiture list included all semiauto .22s, including the Ruger 10/22, Winchester Model 1905, and Remington Nylon 66. As for shotguns and center-fire rifles, the list included the Winchester Model 12, Remington 870, Mossberg 500, Browning Auto 5, Remington 1100 and 11-87, Remington 740 and 7400, and the Winchester Model 100. Think of any semiauto sporting long gun and any pump shotgun-whatever the make-those firearms became contraband under Peters's "weapons of war" big lie.
The collected words of Rebecca Peters resemble a Shakespearean aside, she says one thing to the other actors on the stage, then something else past the back of her hand to be heard by her agreeable global partners. For example, at our King's College debate, Peters mocked the use of the term "gun confiscation." She claimed "the gun lobby has very much overstated ... confiscation, which seems to be the preoccupation of the gun lobby. There has [sic] not been mass confiscation programs."
Nailing Peters down as to her real worldview is simple. Don't believe what she might say to sound moderate-perhaps before an American audience-but bank on what she says when she's pushed into a corner.
Again in the King's College debate-broadcast to a worldwide audience-she characterized her international plan for global gun control through the U.N. as "very, very moderate." Then she defined "moderate" by describing what any American gun owner would recognize as the oppressive nature of what she foisted on her fellow Australians.
We're not talking about banning all guns ... but "moderate gun control" means people who own guns should have a license. Guns should be registered. It means ensuring that certain categories of guns are not available to private citizens ... for example, high-powered, rapid-fire ones like the ones we banned in Australia. And there should be a limit on the number of guns civilians can own.
The public outcry that Peters and her fellow gun haters managed and the media hysteria that they manipulated to create Australia's long-gun ban came as a result of a mass killing in the Tasmanian resort town of Port Arthur on April 28, 1996. A lone gunman-a violent sociopath who had repeatedly been brought to the attention of police and mental health authorities to no avail-killed thirty-five people using two semiautomatic rifles, which he had stolen from a licensed collector, after murdering the man and his wife. Port Arthur came weeks after a mass murder of children in Dunblane, Scotland, by a depraved killer wielding a handgun. Britain reacted with a ban on all registered handguns; Australia went after all semiauto rifles and shotguns and all pump shotguns in private hands.
Punishing gun owners in those two formerly free nations made no sense-except when Rebecca Peters's extremist theories were applied. She spelled them out very clearly in Australia, where her concepts for gun control remained out of sight and her goals unachieved until Port Arthur. Then she was everywhere, managing the media, spoon-feeding Australia's prime minister and gun-ban legislative politicians in the states and territories, and pressing them to embrace her model legislation.
One of her international sisters in the global gun-ban movement, Adele Kirsten, a founding member and later director of Gun Free South Africa, wrote a lengthy paper comparing various ban efforts around the world. She shed light on the Australian experience:
The Australian campaign was not just the result of public outrage to the Port Arthur massacre. A group of social activists had been working on the issue for several years prior to the events.... They were surprised when the national media outlets said: "we need uniform gun laws, we need registration of all guns, and we need to ban all semiautomatics."
She quotes Peters here, saying, "We thought we were still trying to establish this as the norm, but in fact what happened is that it had become so established that these newspapers and TV thought this was their opinion ..." Kirsten said it this way: "A defining moment doesn't just happen-it is constructed by social actors." In other words, the media were willing gun-ban allies.
Peters's notions of gun control were like a long-dormant pathenogen incubating. Her ideas-accepted blithely by the media and government as an answer to dealing with a crazed mass murderer-never had anything to do with Port Arthur, or with real crime. They had-and always will have-only one intent: disarming innocent people. For Peters, the Australian gun ban is the global model. She says it over and over. The absolute key element is registration and licensing-which she calls "moderate" and "common sense."
As a reward for her gun-ban success in Australia, Peters received a grant from George Soros's Justice Foundation to "research gun violence and gun control laws internationally, so that countries considering the reform of their gun laws can be informed by the experience elsewhere." Under that arrangement, she became a fellow at the Center for Gun Policy and Research at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.
From there, Peters was elevated by her sugar daddy to Programme Director for the Funders' Collaborative for Gun Violence Prevention at Soros' Open Society Institute in New York. With Soros' funds, Peters bankrolled the most notorious punitive lawsuits to destroy the U.S. firearms industry, and then began making demands as a self-styled citizen of the world on all free nations.
In a paper designed to give credence to her new demand for a handgun ban in Australia, Peters and Roland Browne, her former cochair at the National Coalition for Gun Control, laid out a manifesto-the basis for everything she now does on the world stage. The roadmap is titled "Australia's New Gun Control Philosophy: Public Health is Paramount."
In that seminal November 2000 declaration, Peters expanded her theory that if guns were taken from society, all the ills associated with firearms misuse would be curtailed. It is what she believes today as head of IASNA. Of Port Arthur, she said:
[T]hose killings also propelled Australia to the forefront of the global movement for rational gun laws. The regulatory scheme created by our Police Ministers in 1996 exemplified the new approach to gun policy: treating gun violence as a public health issue, rather than simply as a crime.
Excerpted from The Global War on Your Guns by Wayne LaPierre Copyright © 2007 by Wayne LaPierre. Excerpted by permission.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.