Conjecture vs. Conspiracy

November 28, 2012 at 8:49 AM

There are many conspiracy theories in life that take the form of aliens getting ready to take over the earth and are currently living among us as Reptilians. Because of sound and light vibrations they emit, are able to cloak their native alien skin in something that appears to us to be far more human.

Other conspiracy theories surround the deaths of J.F.K, or the Princess of Monaco, or Princess Diane.  Certainly, unless a person has been living under a rock, everyone is all too aware of the conspiracies surrounding whether or not Mr. Obama was actually born in this country or if he is an illegal president, or if he wore an earpiece during the second and third presidential debates.

Conspiracy theories abound and every time someone discusses something that even smacks of conspiracy, those who consider themselves to be intellectuals balk, ridicule, and denigrate.  However, there is a huge difference in my mind between the person who is simply given to conspiracy theories as a matter of course, and the person who discusses a situation by conjecturing about it, based on certain facts of the situation. There is room (or should be room) for people to discuss their concerns intelligently, conjecturing about aspects of a subject that makes sense to them.

The other day on a social network, an individual made a series of statements regarding the UN Gun Ban Treaty.  He stated succinctly (and correctly) that even if the Obama administration signs off on the treaty (which they undoubtedly will), it would have absolutely no effect on Americans in the United States.  I made some comments, pointing out that while this is true today, tomorrow could be a different story.

The individual did not agree with my comments and said I was “off topic” because he wanted the thread to remain solely focused on the UN treaty related to guns.  I tried to explain – through conjecture – that the possibility exists that at some point in the future, things could change in Congress or the Obama administration would work to find a way around the 2nd Amendment to implement a full gun ban throughout American society.

The individual responded by stating that in order for that to happen, any treaty with the UN would need a two-thirds ratification by the Senate.  He then stated succinctly, “That won’t happen.”  I’m glad he is confident, but I simply do not share that confidence, based on fact-based conjecture.

Eventually, we agreed to disagree.  He was simply presenting his fact-based opinion as things stand now.  There was little to say to that and by the way, I should add that the individual seemed to be a gun enthusiast, so he wasn’t simply someone literally coming out of the Left field with their talking points.  He stated he was concerned and felt that the UN needed to be bulldozed.  For me that goes without saying but I applaud him for saying it.

I see the facts of today, as they are now, and I am secure in those facts…for now.  At the same time, I realize that things – especially under this current administration – have a tendency to change at will.  That is also a fact that I believe needs to be considered.

I have concerns that though any treaty made with the UN needs to be ratified by a two-thirds vote, I am not as convinced as our friend is that a gun ban could not happen here in the United States, or at least, an attempt at one.  This causes me to conjecture, based on what I already know.  It forces me to consider options and what might or could happen if such and such took place.  Some would say that this is purely being conspiratorial.  I would fully disagree.  To me, it is as normal as trying to determine what would happen in your life if you bought a new car now – one that you could afford – and what would happen if you lost your current job later.  It is a “what-if?” scenario that bears consideration.  Things in life rarely remain constant.

There are many gun enthusiasts (as well as many or most on the Left) who believe that any type of rhetoric that claims our government wants to ban all guns is simply conspiracy, use of scare-tactics, or sensationalism.  It is done by gun dealers for the purpose of increasing sales.  They know that people who are afraid of losing their gun rights will spend the money to stock up on guns and ammo for the eventuality that a full gun ban may come into existence in society.

These types of statements simply wind up belittling the average intelligent person and stops their ability to conjecture about the possibilities regarding gun control.  It would seem to me that those who simply claim this is the case without offering any proof at all are doing the very same thing they claim people like me are doing by purporting to believe some conspiracy theory; that the idea of a societal gun ban is something created by gun dealers and gun producers for the sole purpose of selling more guns and ammo.  That is just as conspiratorial in nature (if not more so) than me conjecturing about the possibilities that might occur from an actual treaty entered into with the UN by the United States.

We know that the Obama administration is against guns, period.  If you don’t know that, you haven’t been paying attention at all.  Stop looking for his birth certificate and pay attention to reality.  We know that Eric Holder is completely opposed to civilians even owning guns and has argued in court that a person does not have a right to use a gun to protect him in his home. “Mr. Holder recently joined in an amici curiae brief in District of Columbia v. Heller arguing that the Second Amendment does not guarantee individual rights and supporting the D.C. handgun ban. It states: “Amici disagree with the current position of the United States Department of Justice that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for purposes unrelated to a State’s operation of a well-regulated militia.” [1] [2]

We also know that in 1995, Eric Holder was gave a speech where he essentially said that people need to be brainwashed against the use of guns in society. [3]  Holder has been very consistent in expressing his desires regarding gun control and it should not come as a surprise to anyone that he would very much love to see his ideas of a total gun ban come to fruition.

We also know that Mr. Obama himself has taken steps to eliminate certain guns in society and continues his anti-gun efforts by pursuing a path that will outlaw the ability to purchase ammunition online.  This past July, 2012, a bill introduced by Barney Frank and Carolyn McCarthy will (if passed) ban the ability to purchase ammo online.  I called the NRA this past Monday and their legislative action branch confirmed that the bill is in the judiciary committee of both the House and Senate.  This bill is a reaction to the massacre by James Holmes in Colorado.

So what does any of this have to do with the UN Gun Ban?  Directly?  Nothing.  But here is where I like to go through “what-if?” scenarios or conjecture regarding the possibilities.

It works like this:  if I know that the Obama administration has done things that are illegal by skirting the US Constitution as often as possible, [4] then I also know that Mr. Obama would do whatever it took to work with the UN to eventually ban all guns in the United States.  That is a “what-if?” scenario that is based in fact.

If Mr. Obama does what he has done to abrogate our First Amendment rights (resulting in lawsuits from at least seven states) and has given the Department of Homeland Security (via the TSA) more power in creating checkpoints within U.S. borders to simply stop people and ask for proof that they are here legally, then it is clear he is not above pushing his own agenda to bring greater control to guns.  In my mind, this is not conspiracy, but simply and logically following through on the actions of the Obama administration, showing where those actions may lead.  It is conjecture based on what we’ve seen so far.

But someone will come along and say that the UN Gun Ban treaty has absolutely nothing to do with banning guns from civilians.  At this point, that is true.  However, if the Obama administration does enter into a treaty with the UN, what is to stop this same administration from doing more with the UN over time that would affect citizens’ rights?  The other question needs to be asked is why the U.S. even needs to enter into this type of treaty with the UN in the first place?

The UN Gun Treaty – aka ATT – says this:  “The Arms Trade Treaty is the name of a controversial potential multilateral treaty that would regulate the international trade in conventional weapons.” [5]  On its face, there does not seem to be any direct connection between banning guns for civilians in American society and the treaty itself.  Yet, there is potential for harm and abuse.

There is apparently enough of a concern that 130 Congressmen wrote to Mr. Obama expressing their concern that any such treaty entered into by the United States would eventually result in the removal of guns from law-abiding citizens.  They also took the time to remind the president that it is the Senate that has final say on any treaty entered into with the UN.

Since the UN considers the individual right of people to own guns a failure of society, then it seems clear enough that whether this treaty has any effect on the individual’s right to bear arms or not, eventually another one would.  There is another document from the days of J.F.K that he signed, called “Freedom from War” and in it, there is specific wording that shows a progression where “states relinquish their arms, [resulting in the fact that] the United Nations must be progressively strengthened.” [6]  I believe this is likely what George H. W. Bush referred to in a speech in 1991 that also provided reference to the UN becoming the world’s peacekeeping force.  The implication is that all other national armies would be obsolete.  Could this also filter down to the individual? I believe it could.  Is it conspiracy or conjecture?

There are of course, other organizations fully in favor of arms control who vehemently disagree with what is mentioned above.  One of them, the Arms Control Organization states, “Unfortunately, the National Rifle Association (NRA) and some of its allies are engaging in a misleading lobbying effort alleging that the still-to-be-negotiated treaty will clash with legal firearms possession in the United States. It won’t.

“The ATT will only apply to international export, import, and transfer of conventional weapons. Nevertheless, the NRA’s executive vice-president Wayne LaPierre spoke today before a nearly empty hall at the UN and tried to argue that the treaty will regulate or even deny domestic gun-ownership by U.S. citizens and undermine the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.” [7]

This same organization ends a report on the issue by making this statement:  “Allegations that an ATT would infringe on the right of U.S. citizens to legally possess firearms amount to irresponsible demagoguery. No one, except maybe illicit arms dealers and human rights abusers, should oppose common-sense international standards for regulating the global arms trade.” [8]

Certainly, they have a right to their opinion and the way they express it, but considering they are opposed to guns, is it possible they are doing the very same thing that they accuse the NRA of doing?  Are they spreading facts or whitewashing over them?

I contend that illicit arms dealers will not be in any way affected by any treaty the UN makes, just as no criminal in this country is affected by any new anti-gun law created by the government.  It is actually completely asinine to believe such would be the case.

As I have stated, as it stands now, any treaty entered into by the United States with the UN needs ratification by a two-thirds vote.  Some believe that vote would never happen.  I have doubts.  Still others say that even if it does receive the necessary two-thirds vote, it does not mean that it would have any effect on law-abiding citizens in America and their ability to keep their weapons.  Again, I realize that this particular treaty does not have this design, yet others might.  Anytime the U.S. is willing to grant any sovereignty to the UN, I’m concerned.

This is the effect of inviting polling monitors to enter the United States during the most recent presidential election.  What this does is say that the UN has sovereignty over the election process in the U.S.  Normally, poll monitors are sent to third world countries or countries torn apart by wars.  The fact that Mr. Obama personally invited them into this country shows his repugnance for the rule of law here.

The same thing is happening now with respect to our First Amendment rights related to the Internet.  The U.S. is working with the UN to possibly put our Internet in the hands of foreign countries that would control our access to it and eventually tax people based on their use of it. [9]  Is that conspiracy or conjecture?  The fact is that there will be meetings next week in Dubai to determine the plausibility of giving all control of the Internet to the UN.

That is concern for me right there.  Is it far-fetched (or conspiratorial) to believe that if/once the UN gains control, they would eventually attempt to levy a tax with Internet use?  Is it also far-fetched to believe that our speech could be severely regulated by the UN?  In that sense then, the UN would have greater power than our Constitution allows over us.

In the end, it appears to me that the more power the United States is willing to give to the UN, the greater power they will have over our lives, in all areas, not just guns or freedom of speech.  I believe – because it makes complete sense based on what we have seen so far – that the Agenda 21 [10] plan by the UN is coming to life in stages around the globe.

Is it conspiratorial on my part or fact-based conjecture to believe that this is what is unfolding before our eyes?  We know certain things are true about the UN Gun Ban (Arms Trade Treaty).  We also know certain things are true about the way Mr. Obama runs his administration and how many times he has illegally skirted the U.S. Constitution.  He has no qualms about doing so to ensure his agenda moves forward.  If it is illegal, let someone sue him.  All of that takes time and he knows it.



[2] Brief for Former Department of Justice Officials as Amici Curiae Supporting Petitioners, District of Columbia v. Heller, 07-290 (Jan. 2008), at 1.






[8] Ibid



Entry filed under: 9/11, alienology, Atheism and religion, Barack Hussein Obama, Barry Sotero, Communism, Demonic, dispensationalism, Eastern Mysticism, emergent church, Gun Control, Islam, Islamofascism, israel, Judaism, Life in America, Maitreya, new age movement, Posttribulational Rapture, Pretribulational Rapture, Radical Islam, rapture, Religious - Christian - End Times, Religious - Christian - Prophecy, Religious - Christian - Theology, Romney, salvation, Satanism, second coming, Sharia Law, Socialism, temple mount, Transhumanism, ufology. Tags: , , , , , .

Agenda 21 and the Loss of U.S. Sovereignty Comparing the Righteous and the Wicked

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 9,330 other followers

Our Books on Amazon

Study-Grow-Know Archives

Blog Stats

  • 1,111,928 hits

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 9,330 other followers
Follow Study – Grow – Know on

%d bloggers like this: