Soros' definition of a "terrorist" rarely strays beyond considering the word semantically equivalent to "American citizen who owns a firearm". His abject hatred and rejection of Americans' freedom to keep and bear arms has been the bedrock of his political "philosophy" since he first came on the scene some twenty years ago.
Now, I myself didn't know until then that Soros is in fact strongly anti 2nd amendment. In fact, he is and it fits right in with the rest of his ideology. If you have read any of my previous work on the manyou will find many of the usual suspects
Soros has worked to combine with other wealthy activists and foundations to provide funding for numerous anti-gun projects. Soros and the Irene Diamond Foundation made equal $5 million contributions to form the Funders` Collaborative for Gun Violence Prevention. This organization has provided funding to the anti-gun Harvard Injury Control Center and has helped bankroll reckless lawsuits designed to cripple the firearms industry. OSI and the Funders` Collaborative (using money largely supplied by Soros) was the primary funding source for the plaintiffs in Hamilton v. Accu-tek and in NAACP v. ACUSPORT Inc. OSI provided $300,000 to the plaintiffs` lawyers in the Hamilton case and provided a grant identified as between $100,000 and $499,000 in the NAACP case.So, what is Soros problem with the 2nd Amendment? Well, a clue can be found in another policy that Soros thinks the U.S. should follow, one world government.
When Soros and OSI decided to start spending great sums of money on anti-gun research and advocacy, they went in search of an experienced activist to guide the effort. Soros came up with Rebecca Peters, a central figure in disarming the people of Australia, and a leader in the effort to ban all handguns and most long guns. Under Peters` direction, OSI soon released "Gun Control in The United States." This strikingly simplistic evaluation of gun laws in the 50 states purposefully ignored federal firearms laws and arbitrarily awarded various point values to each state that has imposed gun control restrictions favored by the group.
Soros additionally finances groups supporting the interests of one-world government. While he has criticized the United Nations occasionally, he favors U.N. dominance in world affairs, sees the European Union as a model for "open society" and has called for a global central bank.
Anyone who doesn't agree with this vision, or who doesn't fit cozily into his multilateral model, gets a visit from Soros-backed groups.
MoveOn.org, for example, led the charge to keep John Bolton out of a permanent seat in the U.N., and Bankwatch piled on to topple Paul Wolfowitz at the World Bank.
In fact, pick any cause that seeks to weaken the U.S. and it's hard not to find Soros' name on its list of financial backers. Most of these causes are financed by relatively small amounts, but that's all that's needed to make trouble.
So, what is the connection between the 2nd Amendment and one world government? Just as the man himself, the connection is murky and mysterious and ultimately dangerous to our way of life. Well, when I say Soros wants one world government, I mean one dictated by the likes of the United Nations. One of the UN's pet projects has been an international gun ban.
The U.N. is after Americans' Second Amendment gun rights – it wants gun ownership banned in the U.S., and it's not going to stop until it gets its way.
That’s the warning from the National Rifle Association’s Wayne LaPierre, who reveals that "for the first time in the history of the world, a United Nations conference has set its sights on global disarmament – disarming citizens worldwide – including you and me."
At an 11-day meeting beginning July 9 at U.N. headquarters in New York, every extremist anti-gun group in the world will show up at a summit on "small arms," where the delegates will attempt to create a global standard of gun control, banning civilian fire arms ownership worldwide.
Their aim, LaPierre warns, is "to bring the nightmare of England, Australia and Canada into our country and our homes."
In fact, Soros has worked through the UN in order to impose gun bans.
As our Independence Day celebration approaches, the United Nations is holding a global conference in New York, starting on June 26th and lasting through July 7th, whose real agenda is to begin a backdoor process of interference with our constitutionally protected right to individually bear arms. The UN denies this, of course. It says that the only purpose of the conference is to review progress made in the implementation of the Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects that was adopted in 2001. Faced with over 100,000 letters of protest about the review conference from American citizens concerned about holding on to their freedoms, the conference chairman - Prasad Kariyawasam, Sri Lanka's U.N. ambassador – said that this year’s review conference will deal only with illegal arms and "does not in any way address legal possession." The review conference’s website says that “it is not the wish of nations attending the Conference to discuss outlawing the legal manufacture or trade of these weapons, nor their legal ownership.”
Predictably, the anti-gun possession fanatic Rebecca Peters, who is Director of the International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA) - a network of more than 700 non-governmental organizations working in 100 countries against the individual’s right to bear arms – has seized on this opening. IANSA is the official coordinator of non-governmental organizations’ involvement in the UN small arms process. Its sources of funding include the Ford Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, and George Soros’ Open Society Institute. IANSA is already guaranteed to have a seat at the table, but it is pressing for a fuller partnership with the member state delegations in the review conference’s deliberations.
As with everything that he does, his own presence in the movement is extremely low key. So, what is the link between banning guns and one world government? It can be found in the purpose of the 2nd Amendment itself. The best explanation of the 2nd amendment was made by Judge Andrew Napolitano in his book Constitutional Chaos. The original intent of the 2nd amendment was not only to protect the citizenry from intruders and other criminals but more importantly from the government itself. As Napolitano explained in Constitutional Chaos, each government take over happened when the citizens were unarmed. Here is another way to look at it.
Another source of power in government is a military force. But this, to be efficient, must be superior to any force that axists among the people, or which they can command; for otherwise this force would be annihilated, on the first exercise of acts of oppression. Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."
- Noah Webster An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal
Constitution, Philadelphia, 1787
In other words, before the U.S. can bend to the will of the United Nations, our citizens must lose their arms.