View Full Version : U.N. holding World wide gun treaty
The U.N. is holding a conference right now to circumvent the 2nd amendment, World wide gun treaty.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lril8eqqN00&feature=related
utube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=985zptp3-q0&feature=share
fox link
Saw this over on the 68forums and thought would share, everyone needs to be aware of.
p.s. I posted this here because unable to post in general discussion
No offense, but don't you think the reason they have specific forums and a limit for General Discussion... is because they want specific stuff where it's supposed to go?
Well, the preppers might find useful as well seeings how we like to stock up on guns....
Do they let UN Soldiers load their weapons yet? :jester:
Given that the US Army makes up the bulk of the NATO and UN Peace Keepers.....I'm not too worried about this.
Belmont31R
07-06-12, 21:42
Any treaties have to be signed by 2/3rds of the Senate, and they can not violate the Constitution. Even though Roberts gave us unlimited taxes he has been on board for the gun cases.
If Obama does sign the treaty, treaties to become law, cannot violate the Constitution, and require 2/3rds majority of the Senate.
As much as a scumbag as Reed is he has a pro gun streak in him, and even if he was a rabid anti gunner theres not 67 votes in the Senate to sign onto this.
The_War_Wagon
07-06-12, 21:49
U.N.... U.N.... Nope - no mention of THEM in the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, OR the Federalist Papers.
Sorry - they can decide the moon is made of bleu cheese, for all I care. U.N. Treaties do not affect me. EVER. :mad:
Belmont31R
07-06-12, 21:52
U.N.... U.N.... Nope - no mention of THEM in the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, OR the Federalist Papers.
Sorry - they can decide the moon is made of bleu cheese, for all I care. U.N. Treaties do not affect me. EVER. :mad:
Treaties are specifically mentioned in the Constitution....;)
I have already sent this to my Senators click the Button at the Bottom of the article and send to your senators
http://gunowners.org/a07062012.htm
Treaties are specifically mentioned in the Constitution....;)
But...treaties mustn't violate other constitutional precedent.
I see it like this:
(interpretation by the Supreme Court of) the Constitution>treaties
My rights>however the above is applied :jester:
And, if they disregard that, well...why did the founders have guns again?
Belmont31R
07-07-12, 00:32
But...treaties mustn't violate other constitutional precedent.
I see it like this:
(interpretation by the Supreme Court of) the Constitution>treaties
My rights>however the above is applied :jester:
And, if they disregard that, well...why did the founders have guns again?
The People are the ultimate check and balance...;)
Gutshot John
07-07-12, 00:57
Why do people who persist on ranting about the Constitution never actually take the time to read, let alone understand it?
1. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land. Treaties can supersede a law, they do not supersede the Constitution itself. You cannot have a treaty that eliminates the rkba anymore than you could have a treaty that eliminates a branch of government, taxation, the Army, habeas corpus, freedom of speech or a Republican form of government.
2. Even if it could, any treaty must be ratified by 2/3rds vote...ain't gonna happen.
U.N.... U.N.... Nope - no mention of THEM in the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, OR the Federalist Papers.
Sorry - they can decide the moon is made of bleu cheese, for all I care. U.N. Treaties do not affect me. EVER. :mad:
Amen.
I seem to remember some rhetoric about avoiding foreign entanglements too
Why do people who persist on ranting about the Constitution never actually take the time to read, let alone understand it?
1. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land. Treaties can supersede a law, they do not supersede the Constitution itself. You cannot have a treaty that eliminates the rkba anymore than you could have a treaty that eliminates a branch of government, taxation, the Army, habeas corpus, freedom of speech or a Republican form of government.
2. Even if it could, any treaty must be ratified by 2/3rds vote...ain't gonna happen.
Couldn't have been better said.
Belmont31R
07-07-12, 01:24
Why do people who persist on ranting about the Constitution never actually take the time to read, let alone understand it?
1. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land. Treaties can supersede a law, they do not supersede the Constitution itself. You cannot have a treaty that eliminates the rkba anymore than you could have a treaty that eliminates a branch of government, taxation, the Army, habeas corpus, freedom of speech or a Republican form of government.
2. Even if it could, any treaty must be ratified by 2/3rds vote...ain't gonna happen.
Already mentioned...:cool:
Gutshot John
07-07-12, 01:27
Already mentioned...:cool:
It bears repeating.
Treaties . . . do not supersede the Constitution itself. You cannot have a treaty . . . that eliminates a branch of government
But according to Sec Def Leon Panetta, the North Atlantic TREATY Organization/ UN has unlimited authority to order the US armed forces to war. Congress will be told about it later.
BTT: Even if the US doesn't participate in this abomination, couldn't the flow of guns and ammo from Europe be completely obliterated? Goodbye Glock, HK, FN, Steyr, CZ, Beretta, PPU, WPA, Barnaul, IMI, etc.
!!!!!!!!!!!
That could be good in the long run though. More business and opportunity for entrepreneurs here to produce ammo and weapons.
Gutshot John
07-07-12, 07:25
Please show me a precedent of any Constitutional provision being superseded by the Constitution.
I can think of at least one, and can find more, precedent of a treaty provision being ruled unconstitutional for being in conflict with the Constitution.
I'd like to see what Panetta actually said, rather than what you're saying he said. My guess is that you missed something. If you didn't he doesn't know what he's talking about.
Yes if other nations pass and enforce this treaty their local arms industries would no longer be exportable. News flash, foreign made assault weapons haven't been importable into the US for over two decades. That's why most of the manufacturers you mentioned have US production facilities.
I'd like to see what Panetta actually said
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zNwOeyuG84
Thank you. :suicide2:
Any treaties have to be signed by 2/3rds of the Senate, and they can not violate the Constitution. Even though Roberts gave us unlimited taxes he has been on board for the gun cases.
If Obama does sign the treaty, treaties to become law, cannot violate the Constitution, and require 2/3rds majority of the Senate.
As much as a scumbag as Reed is he has a pro gun streak in him, and even if he was a rabid anti gunner theres not 67 votes in the Senate to sign onto this.
Glock is made in the USA and Austria- Austria is not part of NATO.
PPU is made in Serbia. Not part of NATO
IMI is made in Israel. Also not part of NATO
Barnaul is made in Russia.
Stop panicking, take the time to actually READ stuff.
But according to Sec Def Leon Panetta, the North Atlantic TREATY Organization/ UN has unlimited authority to order the US armed forces to war. Congress will be told about it later.
BTT: Even if the US doesn't participate in this abomination, couldn't the flow of guns and ammo from Europe be completely obliterated? Goodbye Glock, HK, FN, Steyr, CZ, Beretta, PPU, WPA, Barnaul, IMI, etc.
!!!!!!!!!!!
That could be good in the long run though. More business and opportunity for entrepreneurs here to produce ammo and weapons.
Doc Safari
07-07-12, 17:10
I'm more worried about a second term from Barry Hussein Obama than anything the U.N. does.
Anyone who has ever deployed and seen U.N. forces up close and personal would know that there is absolutely nothing to fear from the U.N. They can't decide on the order of the program once a year during the general assembly, let alone get all the members together for a singular purpose, like disarming gun owners. They can't deploy a fifth string peacekeeping force without major independent funding from the big three of the Security Council (read U.S.), let alone deploy 1,000 divisions, with their logistics train to the U.S. to snatch guns away from the citizenry.
Gutshot John
07-07-12, 20:28
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zNwOeyuG84
How about the actual quote skippy rather than making me sort through the video and interpret what was actually said because in listening the video there isn't a single thing that gets close to the claim that "international permission" equals the claim that...
the North Atlantic TREATY Organization/ UN has unlimited authority to order the US armed forces to war.
Glock is made in the USA and Austria- Austria is not part of NATO.
PPU is made in Serbia. Not part of NATO
IMI is made in Israel. Also not part of NATO
Barnaul is made in Russia.
Stop panicking, take the time to actually READ stuff.
That's great.
All those countries are part of the UN.
This treaty is being considered in the UN
I only mentioned NATO to make a point.
NATO has nothing to do with the small arms treaty at the UN
How about the actual quote skippy rather than making me sort through the video and interpret what was actually said because in listening the video there isn't a single thing that gets close to the claim that "international permission" equals the claim that...
I didn't make you do anything chief. Someone does your research for you, and links to 7 minutes worth of Cspan footage, and thats too much for you?
Pathetic. He said exactly what I referenced. Sorry if your attention span is so short that you closed the vid after 2 minutes and didn't hear it. What unbridled laziness
The UN violates our Constitutional provisions as does NAFTA, GATT and the WTO.
There is a difference between "legal" and "lawful"...
"LEGAL" is whatever THEY claim it to be.
Gutshot John
07-08-12, 09:57
I didn't make you do anything chief. Someone does your research for you, and links to 7 minutes worth of Cspan footage, and thats too much for you?
What planet are you from?
I watched your video and as expected NOT A SINGLE PHRASE GETS CLOSE TO YOUR CLAIM...
the North Atlantic TREATY Organization/ UN has unlimited (or any for that matter) authority to order the US armed forces to war.
That means you either don't speak basic english or you just made it up. Neither gives your argument much credibility... Words matter and you made a claim which means the burden of proof is ON YOU...so either provide me with the exact quote that you're talking about so I can at least make an attempt to understand how you got to such a fantastical (not to mention delusional) interpretation. Or withdraw the claim.
Talk about pathetic.:rolleyes:
Just a warning don't get personal or you going to get hammered. This thread is very close to being shut down.
Just a warning don't get personal or you going to get hammered. This thread is very close to being shut down.
Is it the heat :confused:everybody has been acting a little On edge Lately Lets keep this Civil
I suspect that the tight tinfoil and heat are having a steamed vegetable type of effect.
Is it the heat :confused:everybody has been acting a little On edge Lately Lets keep this Civil
Smetna,
Apparently one of us has reading comprehension issues- This is what you stated- But according to Sec Def Leon Panetta, the North Atlantic TREATY Organization/ UN has unlimited authority to order the US armed forces to war. Congress will be told about it later.
BTT: Even if the US doesn't participate in this abomination, couldn't the flow of guns and ammo from Europe be completely obliterated? Goodbye Glock, HK, FN, Steyr, CZ, Beretta, PPU, WPA, Barnaul, IMI, etc.
!!!!!!!!!!!
You specifically mentioned NATO in your response. My response to you was that you named non- NATO entities which was pointless. In addition all of those countries you mentioned would also have to sign and agree to the provisions and there is indication that would happen.
At the end of the day, I could care less what the U.N says, what Leon Panetta says (he is appointed and can be replaced) or whether or not the U.S signs it or not. It is directly in contravention to the Bill of Rights and therefore carries NO WEIGHT whatsoever. If they want to come over and experience American marksmanship first hand then they are more than welcomed to do so.
That's great.
All those countries are part of the UN.
This treaty is being considered in the UN
I only mentioned NATO to make a point.
NATO has nothing to do with the small arms treaty at the UN
Heavy Metal
07-08-12, 13:36
List of Senators who oppose the UN Small Arms Treaty. Those labeled as Class 1 are up for re-election in 2012.
Republican Senators
Lamar Alexander (R-TN)
Kelly Ayotte (R-NH)
John Barrasso (R-WY) Class 1
Roy Blunt (R-MO)
John Boozman (R-AR)
Scott Brown (R-MA) Class 1
Richard Burr (R-NC)
Dan Coats (R-IN)
Tom Coburn (R-OK)
Thad Cochran (R-MS)
Susan Collins (R-ME)
Bob Corker (R-TN) Class 1
John Cornyn (R-TX)
Saxby Chambliss (R-GA)
Mike Crapo (R-ID)
Jim DeMint (R-SC)
Mike Enzi (R-WY)
Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
Orrin Hatch (R-UT) Class 1
Dean Heller (R-NV)
John Hoeven (R-ND)
Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) Class 1
James Inhofe (R-OK)
Johnny Isakson (R-GA)
Mike Johanns (R-NE)
Ron Johnson (R-WI)
Jon Kyl (R-AZ) Class 1 but states he will not seek another term.
Mike Lee (R-UT)
John McCain (R-AZ) Originally supported the Treaty.
Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
Jerry Moran (R-KS)
Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)
Rand Paul (R-KY)
Rob Portman (R-OH)
Jim Risch (R-ID)
Pat Roberts (R-KS)
Marco Rubio (R-FL)
Jeff Sessions (R-AL)
Richard Shelby (R-AL)
Olympia Snowe (R-ME) Class 1
John Thune (R-SD)
Pat Toomey (R-PA)
David Vitter (R-LA)
Roger Wicker (R-MS) Class 1
Democratic Senators
Jon Testor (D-MT) Class 1
Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH)
Mark Begich (D-AK)
Claire McCaskill (D-MO) Class 1
Max Baucas (D-MT)
Joe Manchin (D-WV) Class 1
Mark Pryor (D-AR)
Robert Casey (D-PA) Class 1
Mark Udall (D-CO)
Tom Udall (D-NM)
Jim Webb (D-VA) Class 1
Mark Warner (D-VA)
That’s a grand total of 57 who oppose this Treaty. As we all know, 67 are needed to “Consent” to this Treaty.
There is ZERO chance this is ratified.
Reagans Rascals
07-08-12, 13:43
IIRC... the UN does not control the world..... how can they impose a worldwide anything....
or did I miss the start of the New World Order....
not to say we shouldn't be keeping an eye on things, but isn't this the scare tactic crap that comes in every couple of years?
There will NOT be a door to door gun confiscating campaign in this country everyone knows that would be suicide.
Let's keep an eye on the people trying to push more subtle measures...
It is nice that gun control is a hot button that even the left is a bit afraid to touch though... Probably can thank the internet for that... when a reporter spews some bullshit stat and you can google it and retort in 3 seconds... that's good stuff.
VooDoo6Actual
07-08-12, 14:24
redacted.
It is nice that gun control is a hot button that even the left is a bit afraid to touch though... Probably can thank the internet for that...
I have to agree On this, I still remember In 1994 when Clinton Started the AWB people had to rely on Gunshows to spread the News and Shotgun news .
The NRA seem to have been looking the other way during this :rolleyes: all I got from them at the time was letters begging for more money.
A gun group here Set up a Booth to help Gun owners that haven't registered to Vote do so and got the word out with pamphlets and then we Took back Congress and the House .But it was a little to late then .
the Internet Has Brought the gun communities together such as this site and the old saying "safety in Numbers " seems to be the Only way we can defend our rights as gun owners .
If they want to come over and experience American marksmanship first hand then they are more than welcomed to do so.
I do have a new Remmy 700 270 Win that I need some practice with before deer season.
While I agree w/ what your saying, I think It's FAR worst than what your minimalizing or marginalizing in your comments. It is going to be an ongoing problem for the US citizens to keep it's Republic's constitution. We are not out of the woods by any stretch of the imagination. Consider the perfidy, collusion, EVIL intent et al etc. behind F & F. There will be more Bank on it.
Minimalizing or Marginalizing it doesn't make it go away.
you make a good point... It's all serious. That said, filling forums and inboxes can be a bit like crying wolf. Rocky Mountain gun owners had some really great emails when i first subscribed to their newsletter. It gradually went the way of fearmongering and begging for cash. I've since unsubscribed.
We really need people and organizations with the priorities of this community to work to filter out the BS stuff and keep us abreast of the bigger threats. just my humble opinion.
I have to agree On this, I still remember In 1994 when Clinton Started the AWB people had to rely on Gunshows to spread the News and Shotgun news .
[...]
the Internet Has Brought the gun communities together such as this site and the old saying "safety in Numbers " seems to be the Only way we can defend our rights as gun owners .
Yep, why do you think some push for government regulation of the Internet and empowering the gov't to dictate what can be communicated on it. How quickly we'd lose the ability to speak or communicate about certain issues when they could outlaw categories of content as "terroristic" or "bigoted" or whatever coy term they create to support their censorship and redaction.
VooDoo6Actual
07-08-12, 17:17
redacted.
After seeing how NY is handling people with knives or guns and who they are aresting its what can happen ! Its a start in the lefties minds
Any talk by the gov to control guns I take serious ! Just as the current admin is serious about taking away our gun rights !
The fact they are on the UN side should make everyone take this very serious and not just sit back and say ahhhh wont happen !
You can be sure they are serious about taking guns from us !
Well said :)
My thoughts on most all politicians choosing republican or democrat is like being asked do you want me to hit you on the left side or right side of your face !
And we say we dont want to be hit at all !
Their response is sorry thats not a option !
Yes I agree 100% W/ your comments.
However, the simple fact & reality remain that:
1) Both parties have colluded.
2) Ron Paul would/is/was the best chance for restoring traditional values of like minded Americans & the general populus of M4C type people/members. That's not going to happen unless a miracle gets activated imo. That being said even if there's a codification of sorts & Romney pulls it off to defeat the treasonus betrayer no guarantees there either.
We still have to get many EO's deleted, omitted, rescinded etc. Have to get due process (habeus corpus) back, repeal glass/stegall act, term limits, secure border soverignty, states rights, Obummercare et al etc. How much if any of those will happen ?
The facts are that Executive Branch & Judicial Branch power has been seized period by people who don't act as if they are pro-Republic to put it kindly. Thats how far off of azimuth it is. Minimalizing & marginalizing those facts is analogous to giving a heroin addict methadone.
VooDoo6Actual
07-08-12, 19:28
redacted.
repeal glass/stegall act,
Don't you mean reinstitute? I thought GS was repealed in 1999. That's partly why our banking sector took a shit, because GS prevented Savings and Loan banks from also being Investment banks. They had to be separate entities
Yes I agree 100% W/ your comments.
However, the simple fact & reality remain that:
1) Both parties have colluded.
2) Ron Paul would/is/was the best chance for restoring traditional values of like minded Americans & the general populus of M4C type people/members. That's not going to happen unless a miracle gets activated imo. That being said even if there's a codification of sorts & Romney pulls it off to defeat the treasonus betrayer no guarantees there either.
We still have to get many EO's deleted, omitted, rescinded etc. Have to get due process (habeus corpus) back, repeal glass/stegall act, term limits, secure border soverignty, states rights, Obummercare et al etc. How much if any of those will happen ?
The facts are that Executive Branch & Judicial Branch power has been seized period by people who don't act as if they are pro-Republic to put it kindly. Another way of saying their is a sickness, you want to treat the symptoms or find a cure ? Thats how far off of azimuth it is. Minimalizing & marginalizing those facts is analogous to giving a heroin addict methadone.
Hoploethos..
Just a minor correction..The Glass-Stegall Act WAS repealed in 1999.. By Clinton and the Senate..(With only 3 dissenting votes) I'm thinking you want it reinstated?
VooDoo6Actual
07-08-12, 23:58
Don't you mean reinstitute? I thought GS was repealed in 1999. That's partly why our banking sector took a shit, because GS prevented Savings and Loan banks from also being Investment banks. They had to be separate entities
Hoploethos..
Just a minor correction..The Glass-Stegall Act WAS repealed in 1999.. By Clinton and the Senate..(With only 3 dissenting votes) I'm thinking you want it reinstated?
Yes It was my error got a little bit too busy to proof them today & I stand corrected. Substitute repeal w/ reinstate.
Proof of "Hick's Law" & working in action no doubt.
Thank you gents.
Smetna,
Apparently one of us has reading comprehension issues- This is what you stated- But according to Sec Def Leon Panetta, the North Atlantic TREATY Organization/ UN has unlimited authority to order the US armed forces to war. Congress will be told about it later.
BTT: Even if the US doesn't participate in this abomination, couldn't the flow of guns and ammo from Europe be completely obliterated? Goodbye Glock, HK, FN, Steyr, CZ, Beretta, PPU, WPA, Barnaul, IMI, etc.
!!!!!!!!!!!
You specifically mentioned NATO in your response. My response to you was that you named non- NATO entities which was pointless. In addition all of those countries you mentioned would also have to sign and agree to the provisions and there is indication that would happen.
At the end of the day, I could care less what the U.N says, what Leon Panetta says (he is appointed and can be replaced) or whether or not the U.S signs it or not. It is directly in contravention to the Bill of Rights and therefore carries NO WEIGHT whatsoever. If they want to come over and experience American marksmanship first hand then they are more than welcomed to do so.
I don't want to derail this thread any longer, but, I think I figured out what happened here:
My first paragraph was supposed to be separate from the second. Back To Topic was supposed to separate them. Two different discussions. I was responding to Gutshots' claim that a treaty has never superseded the constitution, which is why I brought NATO and the SecDef into it.
Anyway, no harm no foul. Back to the UN small arms ban
The_War_Wagon
07-09-12, 06:33
Treaties are specifically mentioned in the Constitution....;)
United Nations... United Nations...
Nope. STILL can't find them in the Constitution - or any OTHER external organization to America, that supercedes it.
Too bad - so sad - Obama's fad. ;)
The_War_Wagon
07-09-12, 06:49
Damn Gateway 504 timeout double post! :mad:
kaiservontexas
07-09-12, 12:01
HOPLOETHOS, are you saying they are waging 4GW against us right this second?
VooDoo6Actual
07-09-12, 13:45
redacted.
Good analogy & true.
The truth is we are in a 4GW paradigm.
Most people are so far behind the power curve they will not have the (can be combos as well) :
1) Desire or motivation to figure it out
2) Could careless even though their liberties / rights are at stake
3) Think they know it all & are too lazy to make the effort
4) Have either head in the sand & think/pray it will go away
5) Are full of Bravo Sierra themselves & pretend to care but in reality couldn't gives 2 shits about society, the future, their children's, only their immediate gratification or happiness.
6) Can't think autonomous or outside the box & are stuck in traditional paradigms (can be religious paradigms as well) & can't cross the Rubicon.
7) Their Zombie's on psychotropic meds (my favorite)
Here's an OK link that will help some (I doubt most will even take the time to educate themselves) understand what the issues are, how it's being executed etc. The parallels are extraordinary BTW.
http://www.projectwhitehorse.com/pdfs/2a.%204GW_in_Irag.pdf
Here's a pretty good one :
http://proceedings.ndia.org/7030/Riggle.pdf
Maybe I'm just not understanding the connection, but how does the 4GW tie into the UN Treaty, government enforced gun grabs, or the power curve you posted about (which I'm assuming was referring to American citizens)?
The links were an interesting read though.
Hey Chicago, how're those crazy gun laws working out for you? Oh... http://news.yahoo.com/homicides-spike-chicago-mayor-defends-tactics-004217621.html
Gutshot John
07-10-12, 15:20
NATO is a treaty alliance. There is nothing in the Constitution that says we can't have alliances. Treaties are explicitly permitted pending proper ratification. Your claim that NATO has unlimited authority to order the US into war was spectacularly wrong.
One more time... NO PROVISION OF THE CONSTITUTION OR THE BOR HAS EVER BEEN SUPERSEDED BY A TREATY.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zNwOeyuG84
Gutshot John
07-10-12, 19:10
Ive already watched one of your videos that didn't amount to the claim. Not a single person said NATO had authority, unlimited or otherwise, to order the US into war. Im tired of digging through your nonsense to find a quote that demonstrably doesn't mean what you said it means.
You're a big boy, use your quote marks to DIRECTLY quote what the individual ACTUALLY said (paraphrasing not allowed) and the time marker where they said it.
Im betting you missed something important.
I posted the same exact video as last time, to emphasize how old this convo is getting, and also just to be an ass. :D
Sen. Sessions:
"Do you think you can act without Congress to initiate a no-fly zone in Syria – without congressional approval?”
SecDef:
“You know, our goal would be to seek international permission. And we would come to the Congress and inform you and determine how best to approach this, whether or not we would want to get permission from the Congress.”
Sen. Sessions:
“I’m really baffled by the idea that somehow an international assembly provides a legal basis for the United States military to be deployed in combat,” Sessions said. “I don’t believe it’s close to being correct. They provide no legal authority. The only legal authority that’s required to deploy the United States military is of the Congress and the president and the law and the Constitution.”
For all you people that think this can't happen....
Everything in the UN treaty has been ruled constitutional by the US supreme court in the Heller decision.
Gun registration and banning of certain categories of firearms was ruled constitutional.
Pull your head out of the sand.
my thoughts again are the health care as example
did not think it was going to happen ? it did !
thought the courts were going to strike it down ? did not !
fact is this makes me nervous ! maybe instead they just decided to tax the heck out of ammo and guns and anything related since that is more acceptable way of doing things now with health care taking that route !
VooDoo6Actual
07-11-12, 18:47
redacted.
Gutshot John
07-11-12, 19:11
I posted the same exact video as last time, to emphasize how old this convo is getting, and also just to be an ass. :D
Sen. Sessions:
"Do you think you can act without Congress to initiate a no-fly zone in Syria – without congressional approval?”
SecDef:
“You know, our goal would be to seek international permission. And we would come to the Congress and inform you and determine how best to approach this, whether or not we would want to get permission from the Congress.”
Sen. Sessions:
“I’m really baffled by the idea that somehow an international assembly provides a legal basis for the United States military to be deployed in combat,” Sessions said. “I don’t believe it’s close to being correct. They provide no legal authority. The only legal authority that’s required to deploy the United States military is of the Congress and the president and the law and the Constitution.”
Is English your first language? As I suspected you missed something important.
You said NATO had unlimited authority to ORDER the US into war. NATO cannot compel US military action.
Except nowhere does it say or even come close to saying that NATO can order the US to war. He's talking about a legal basis which is a WHOLLY different statement. You didnt say "legal basis" you said "unlimited authority" to "order" the US into war. Words matter.
Virtually all international authority/law is granted through consensus, primarily through treaty. Yes international consensus can provide a basis (in international law) for going to war, this is different than compelling the US to act. In fact this would be a violation of all norms of international law, not to mention being completely goofball.
You do understand the concept of sovereignty right?
You do understand the concept of sovereignty right?
He probably does to a reasonable extent, just that he made a rather misinformed post on the first page and has had difficulty admitting such. But then again maybe not.
The first time some "fed" agency tries to take someones' legal weapons and they suffer big time casulaties there will be a serious wake up call.
All this "what if" and hypothetical is just nonsense and not worthy of the wasted brain cells.
These are a few (there are more but not likely) but relevant hypothetical scenarios BUT given what has already transpired that many people thought was not possible. I'll put this out there.
Even if Obama signs ATT (which we already acknowledge & agree is unconstitutional) & senate does not ratify it any bets if he issues an "EO" making it "soft law" on the record ?
Then waits it out IF he continues to seize power winning election until either ML or SCOTUS decision (given the recent decision I'm not comfortable). Possibility does exist of National Gun registration w/ fine/prison time for not registering, Federalized Police Force. Then what, bury them w/ Drones in surveillance mode ?
If he loses election can you imagine possible problems from the slackers/entitlement zombies disappointment when they are not going to get "their heroin" /sugar / entitlements from Uncle anymore ?
I agree Scottryan precarious times & lots to be concerned with indeed. I would not be all smug about this Gents. Lots percolating sub rosa.
http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e225/teehee321/ooda_img9.jpg
Belmont31R
07-11-12, 22:26
United Nations... United Nations...
Nope. STILL can't find them in the Constitution - or any OTHER external organization to America, that supercedes it.
Too bad - so sad - Obama's fad. ;)
Already mentioned.
Gutshot John:
****ing drop it already. We interpret the statement differently. My interpretation comes from a place of severe distrust of progressives, and government in general. Done.
Hoploethos:
If it's time to bury them, it's time to dig them back up. The peculiar thing about the Second Amendment is that it's needed most of all on that dark day they try to do away with it.
On second thought, most if our inherent rights are that way. Would there be any more urgent time to use free speech than when govt moves against it?
VooDoo6Actual
07-12-12, 07:24
redacted.
.
I'm not getting that warm fuzzy feeling about things. With a current administration's trend to Socialism/Crony Capitalism or ? hybrid you want to call it, rampant perfidy, integrated with a push towards UN countries' policies that are vastly communist I wonder why. If we survive this next election we are not out of the woods by any stretch of the imagination. People had better get use to these issues because there are bigger forces at play than some are welling to acknowledge or accept. They are behind the power curve. I got the memo.
This is what bothers me. The current Pres just seems WAY too comfortable/confident about the coming elections...in words and actions. Things that make you go hmmm...
HOP, you mentioned something earlier about if the libs lose this next election, then the welfare zombies will riot because they aren't getting their heroin from Uncle...what makes you think that the heroin would stop flowing if we get a "conservative" in there??
VooDoo6Actual
07-12-12, 08:21
redacted.
Gutshot John
07-12-12, 08:50
Distrust progressives all you want. Disagree with them all you want. You can even find ample legitimate points in the speech you cited where i would agree with you. Oppose them for what they actually say, openly and honestly.
The danger is when you put words in their mouths and "interpret" their words to mean something clearly different than what they did say. You not only discredit your argument but yourself as either a tinfoil hat type or as a "pyromaniac in a field of straw men."
Hop,
That's an interesting read. I'm confused as to why you suggested I read it personally, and suggested it in a public thread about the UN ATT.
Are you suggesting that I'm using cointelpro troll tactics on m4c? I'm afraid I don't understand. If I'm way off base, then could you explain your line of thought? I'm trying to figure out what cointelpro has to do with my comment right before that: Burying guns . . . :confused:
VooDoo6Actual
07-12-12, 09:55
redacted.
Copy that. I did enjoy it/found it informative and interesting.
Mauser KAR98K
07-12-12, 15:41
Anyone notice that the press isn't covering this one bit. Fox and Drudgereport finally posted something about this yesterday.
It seems the Blaze has been somewhat on top of this.
Back to reloading for my neighbors guns. God knows I don't have those evil things.
number1olddog
07-12-12, 19:48
I noticed this as well. WTF?????
I listened to Hannity on the way to work tonight. He was covering it. He had Wayne Lapiere from the NRA on as well.
As a rule though, MSM sucks. This isn't a recent phenomenon.
TheHill.com is covering it. One of the top stories today is how the Obama admin. wants the treaty to cover civilian arms. Oh, and Graham and McCain are wavering in their opposition to the treaty. Two of the 58 down, 17 to go.
platoonDaddy
07-13-12, 08:34
First there will be gun registration requirement, then they will confiscate. Part of the planned UN takeover.
Greta interview with John Bolton on US gun owners in foreign crosshairs!
http://video.foxnews.com/v/1732522742001/
First there will be gun registration requirement, then they will confiscate. Part of the planned UN takeover.
Greta interview with John Bolton on US gun owners in foreign crosshairs!
http://video.foxnews.com/v/1732522742001/
Well, provided it gets that far, What are we going to do about it?
Well, provided it gets that far, What are we going to do about it?
There are ~93 million gun owners in the US, may of those include MIL and LE who will refuse to give up that right.
I ahve SEVERAL friends in both MIL and LE who say they swore to uphold the constitution and will refuse to follow those orders.
There are ~93 million gun owners in the US, may of those include MIL and LE who will refuse to give up that right.
I ahve SEVERAL friends in both MIL and LE who say they swore to uphold the constitution and will refuse to follow those orders.
I'm with you, Have ran into several LE's I know who have said the same thing..It is my sincere hope it dosen't go that far...
I share you gents enthusiasm for the difficulty due to size and scope, my fear is of those 93 million half will not need to be "confiscated" they will gladly turn them in in return for some monetary gain due some form of debt. The means to disarm can be far more creative than a brute door to door. Death and taxes.
platoonDaddy
07-13-12, 13:39
I share you gents enthusiasm for the difficulty due to size and scope, my fear is of those 93 million half will not need to be "confiscated" they will gladly turn them in in return for some monetary gain due some form of debt. The means to disarm can be far more creative than a brute door to door. Death and taxes.
Have asked people what they would do and very SAD to report, the majority will turn them in. We have become a nation of sheep and that is what the gun grabbers are banking on.
I share you gents enthusiasm for the difficulty due to size and scope, my fear is of those 93 million half will not need to be "confiscated" they will gladly turn them in in return for some monetary gain due some form of debt. The means to disarm can be far more creative than a brute door to door. Death and taxes.
half of that is 46 million, still a massive number.
Making something illegal also, without fail, results in a black market. Gun value will go up and there will be a massive illegal firearms trade.
Have asked people what they would do and very SAD to report, the majority will turn them in. We have become a nation of sheep and that is what the gun grabbers are banking on.
First of all, who and how many peopla have you asked?
Second, how could the people you have asked possibily reflect the opinion of the entire popualtion of gun owners in the US?
There are ~93 million gun owners in the US, may of those include MIL and LE who will refuse to give up that right.
I ahve SEVERAL friends in both MIL and LE who say they swore to uphold the constitution and will refuse to follow those orders.
I have spoken to many of my LEO and MIL friends who say they will follow orders and not risk their jobs and will confiscate everyone's weapons as their job is to enforce the law and not interpret it. I then ask what about their oath to the constitution and enforcing orders they know are unconstitutional, etc....they laugh and say what LEO has read the constitution, we only need to know about the 4th and 14th Amendments, blah, blah, blah...
The Gov't and the Media and Hollywood will villainize all gun owners as extremist gunnuts and most gun owners will as usual not stand up for themselves and give in to the fear of "social stigma" and eventually hand over the guns. (It worked with the Tea Party)
If we as gun owners do not make it popular and fashionable and shame free... and gun ownership to be a social norm... then we will lose our guns and our freedoms.
Preserving the Constitution and the 2nd Am will not be won by some silent majority armed uprising and idealists standing their ground, but by using the same social media weapons of facebook, movies, radio, print media, to show the socialists at be not to bother trying to impose their extremist crap on the rest of us.
If I were a betting man I'd say we should start learning to rap in espanol:mad:
UN since you want to control and take away guns from people cause they cause crimes in your eyes ?
Why not show us how you can protect the people of the world like you ar in Syria !
Gutshot John
07-13-12, 15:34
Sigh it would really help if people who talked about protecting the Constitution had actually taken the time to read and understand it.
Even if the treaty actually could supersede the 2a (a dubious proposition at best) it will never actually pass ratification.
I don't know where you get 17/58 to go. Ratification requires 67 votes, not 60. Currently you have 58 (including Dems) who have signed on to oppose it. You would need 25 senators to switch their vote. Not gonna happen.
Can anyone name the last time a bill got 67 votes?
Belmont31R
07-13-12, 15:41
Sigh it would really help if people who talked about protecting the Constitution had actually taken the time to read and understand it.
Even if the treaty actually could supersede the 2a (a dubious proposition at best) it will never actually pass ratification.
I don't know where you get 17/58 to go. Ratification requires 67 votes, not 60. Currently you have 58 (including Dems) who have signed on to oppose it. You would need 25 senators to switch their vote. Not gonna happen.
Can anyone name the last time a bill got 67 votes?
Not true. Requires 2/3rds of Senators present concur...
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur
Kinda reminds me of tricks presidents do like nominations during Congress' off time....call the Senate in session, and they can ratify a treaty as long as 2/3rds of them that present agree to it.
The point about the 25 is accurate and the result of my doing two things at once, neither successfully. However the refrain that "it wouldn't be Constitutional" assumes facts not in evidence. Judges will be the final arbiters of that point and many of them, including Justice Ginsburg, believe that we should look to international law (including customary international law) to guide decisions rather than being limited to US jurisprudence or the Constitution itself. Right now we have 4 SC justices who would overturn Heller and McDonald and a Chief Justice who will change his vote if you bully him hard enough. A treaty that only puts "common sense" burdens on US citizens might just be held Constitutional.
Whether a law is Constitutional is much like whether a shooting is justified. You will have to hope that the trier of fact will see things your way.
As for the last time something got 67 votes, didn't the 2010 lameduck Senate ratify an arms control treaty?
platoonDaddy
07-13-12, 16:31
First of all, who and how many peopla have you asked?
Second, how could the people you have asked possibly reflect the opinion of the entire population of gun owners in the US?
Of course it is an unscientific poll, just reporting my findings. Asked two groups of people: fellow gun club members and hunters whom I meet at hunting lodges. They are law abiding citizens, who will NEVER buck the system.
My original statement still stand: "we are a nation of sheep."
Gutshot John
07-13-12, 17:06
Not true. Requires 2/3rds of Senators present concur...
A distinction without a difference.
Kinda reminds me of tricks presidents do like nominations during Congress' off time....call the Senate in session, and they can ratify a treaty as long as 2/3rds of them that present agree to it.
Um, no.
Gutshot John
07-13-12, 17:12
However the refrain that "it wouldn't be Constitutional" assumes facts not in evidence. Judges will be the final arbiters of that point and many of them, including Justice Ginsburg, believe that we should look to international law (including customary international law) to guide decisions rather than being limited to US jurisprudence or the Constitution itself.
Besides the explicit language of the Constitution in the Supremacy clause. There is ample SCOTUS precedent that a treaty cannot supersede the Constitution including Reid v. Covert but there are others.
As for the last time something got 67 votes, didn't the 2010 lameduck Senate ratify an arms control treaty?
Indeed you are correct.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp
Sigh it would really help if people who talked about protecting the Constitution had actually taken the time to read and understand it.
Even if the treaty actually could supersede the 2a (a dubious proposition at best) it will never actually pass ratification.
I don't know where you get 17/58 to go. Ratification requires 67 votes, not 60. Currently you have 58 (including Dems) who have signed on to oppose it. You would need 25 senators to switch their vote. Not gonna happen.
Can anyone name the last time a bill got 67 votes?
the way the tax is on the health care situation they figured out a way around that and getting it passed ? technically its not legal so if goes back to the House or is it the senate forgot :) ? to get voted on would it pass ! I doubt it
that is more my concern legal or not constitutional or not if they want something they will figure out a way around it maybe ! wont be the first time
Heavy Metal
07-13-12, 23:27
I have spoken to many of my LEO and MIL friends who say they will follow orders and not risk their jobs and will confiscate everyone's weapons as their job is to enforce the law and not interpret it.
A Job isn't worth much if you have to confront tens of millions of armed people who will do their righteous damnest to put you in a pine box for attempting it.....or as Jose Wales said: "Dyin' aint much of a livin' boy."
Belmont31R
07-13-12, 23:35
A distinction without a difference.
Um, no.
Interested to know what case law supports "present" with 2/3rds of ALL duly elected senators have to vote.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp
Yeah, a lot of scare-mongering going on over this issue, and the terms haven't even been written yet. Everybody's getting pretty worked up over something that isn't even likely to see the light of day anytime soon. The NRA has donations pouring in though...I think they're tactics are working.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp
Thank you! That link provided a little clarity that was much needed..
Trust us, everything will be just fine. Please wait until it's too late. Thank you.
VooDoo6Actual
07-14-12, 14:02
redacted.
Trust us, everything will be just fine. Please wait until it's too late. Thank you.
Believe me I'm not just standing around waiting.. As a matter of fact I just finished reloading some .45acp..How about you? However, I do think there's been more than enough fear mongering..Sure Obama probably going to try, But the way I see it, first he's got to get reelected,(that's still up in the air) The economy still is'nt good, in fact it's slowing down, There's a good chance we'll be sliding into another recession by the elections. This just works in our favor. They still haven't settled up with Iran, and that could erupt at any time. Plus the fact we still have that little matter of a fiscal cliff that has'nt been resloved yet either, and all of us will pay for that...I'd say he's got a pretty full plate. This may be on the "to do" list,But it's not on top..Something to watch very carefully though..And last but not least, we all know what to do if it happens don't we? How's the old saying go? Make sure you give them the bullets first...:D I certainly hope all of you are stocking up on ammo, and doing some training..I have..
So...what are the terms of this UN arms treaty that ya'll are so worked up over?
So...what are the terms of this UN arms treaty that ya'll are so worked up over?
Well, Following the Snopes link left above, There aren't any..it hasn't been written yet.. it's still a concept, still in the disscussion stage, Nothing has been signed..At least that what I got from it...It's worth keeping an eye on...Considering who we have as a Pres.
Well, Following the Snopes link left above, There aren't any..it hasn't been written yet.. it's still a concept, still in the disscussion stage, Nothing has been signed..
Uh huh.
Lexington Green 1775
Use 'em or lose 'em
God I hope it doesn't come to that. But I'm not registering them or turning them over to the "authorities". So let the chips fall where they may.
I hope a year or two from now we can dig this thread up and have a good chuckle about our silliness.
Gutshot John
07-15-12, 12:30
Interested to know what case law supports "present" with 2/3rds of ALL duly elected senators have to vote.
Straw man...
I never said all duly elected senators have to be present. I said it was a distinction without a difference.
Read the senate rules.
1. You do have to have a quorum in order to conduct normal business. So at least 51 senators have to be present to even begin normal business. This would be debate etc. Any attempt at voting on a treaty would spark a quorum call.
2. In order to invoke cloture you would need at least 60 senators to even bring the vote to the floor. All those who oppose the treaty have to do to kill it is refuse to vote for cloture. Given that 58 have signed on to oppose the treaty...well you do the math.
3. For those the support the treaty not only would 100% of their caucus have to be present and vote for cloture, they would have to convince ~18 opposition senators to likewise invoke cloture...and that's not even the final vote.
4. In short even if all the supporting senators were present, you'd still need at least 18 opposition senators to even invoke cloture and that assumes the remaining 40 were conspicuously absent (something that has never freaking happened...ever). But once cloture was invoked 30 hours of debate would begin, allowing remaining Senators to get from wherever they were to the senate floor.
5. By all means tell me of a precedent where more than 10 senators were absent from a treaty or Extraordinary Majority vote.
Gutshot John
07-15-12, 12:34
the way the tax is on the health care situation they figured out a way around that and getting it passed ? technically its not legal so if goes back to the House or is it the senate forgot :) ? to get voted on would it pass ! I doubt it
The health care legislation had different rules requirements than treaties, precisely because it was a tax.
They used a process called reconciliation, this is only permitted for tax/spending measures which require only a simple majority.
Treaties require what is termed an "Extraordinary Majority."
The health care legislation had different rules requirements than treaties, precisely because it was a tax.
They used a process called reconciliation, this is only permitted for tax/spending measures which require only a simple majority.
Treaties require what is termed an "Extraordinary Majority."
When you are done schooling on how the federal legislature operates, please, for the love of God, explain to them what it takes to amend the Constitution!
montanadave
07-15-12, 12:50
When you are done schooling on how the federal legislature operates, please, for the love of God, explain to them what it takes to amend the Constitution!
Alas, the cool waters of rational argumentation can never quench the fevered fires of paranoia. :haha:
Alas, the cool waters of rational argumentation can never quench the fevered fires of paranoia. :haha:
Bravo Gentleman,Bravo!
I think the last few posts clearly show no matter how bad Mr.O would want this, nor how hard the NRA is churning the rumor mill, It's not likely to happen anytime soon...
I think the last few posts clearly show no matter how bad Mr.O would want this, nor how hard the NRA is churning the rumor mill, It's not likely to happen anytime soon...
Agreed, but the fact that these types of arrangements are even being entertained at such high levels within our own government is still in itself extremely troubling. It leaves the door open for further encroachment and propaganda, whereas I'd much rather see our national officials firmly rebuke the idea outright. Kill it before it has time to grow and fester.
But of course that's not the liberal way, doesn't fit their ideological scenario of a weapon free and violence free world.
Heavy Metal
07-15-12, 13:39
Agreed, but the fact that these types of arrangements are even being entertained at such high levels within our own government is still in itself extremely troubling. It leaves the door open for further encroachment and propaganda, whereas I'd much rather see our national officials firmly rebuke the idea outright. Kill it before it has time to grow and fester.
But of course that's not the liberal way, doesn't fit their ideological scenario of a weapon free and violence free world.
Let them entertain it. They are only helping raise money for their opponents.
platoonDaddy
07-15-12, 14:46
Thank you! That link provided a little clarity that was much needed..
Don't trust 'snopes' when it comes to anything 2A related! The husband and wife team that run snopes are to the left of Pelosi.
VooDoo6Actual
07-15-12, 14:53
redacted.
Let them entertain it. They are only helping raise money for their opponents.
No good, sorry. The idea shouldn't even be tossed around, in fact it should be considered treasonous within our government if discussed on any substantial level. But not only isn't this the case, we have a minority/liberal base that has grown so large that Obama was elected despite all that was disclosed about his past. And then despite all of his failures since and his uncovered anti-American agendas, he still holds a lead in the polls. To me this seems as though it should be utterly impossible, yet it is regardless.
Point is stop taking things for granted.
Gutshot John
07-15-12, 14:58
This is actually correct. They have been nailed before. That's why we have all the bickering about legit sources.[/B]
I know nothing about the husband/wife team. But their facts are objectively correct by any standard and facts, as they say, are stubborn things.
Gutshot John
07-15-12, 15:04
No good, sorry. The idea shouldn't even be tossed around, in fact it should be considered treasonous within our government if discussed on any substantial level.
Speech by definition isn't treasonous. Only actions can be considered treason.
The word you're looking for is sedition, and the Supreme Court have long held that sedition laws are unconstitutional. See also the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions.
You are aware of a little thing called the First Amendment?
VooDoo6Actual
07-15-12, 15:05
redacted.
Gutshot John
07-15-12, 17:33
Sorry my phone screwed up.
Gutshot John
07-15-12, 17:40
Fair enough
I'm picking up a few things on my radar. So much dis/mis-information out there. Scrubbers have been busy !
I'm going to reserve my opinion until more research in all fairness.
I am interested to know if they are completely objective as well. So much to filter through. For instance I was reading something about them arguing on the meaning of the word "legit" WTF ?
I cant really speak to their true objectivity in terms of a perspective. I can only point out that what they're saying is objectively correct i.e not subject to opinion or interpretation.
A treaty can't be used as an end-run around the Constitution. The supremacy clause expressly makes this point.
VooDoo6Actual
07-15-12, 18:07
redacted.
Heavy Metal
07-15-12, 18:40
I'm not concerned with the ATT treaty as it relates to the Constitution. I have stated that in my posts as such.
John for the 2,000+ time, I'm ONLY concerned with an EO by Obozo (since I have stated that I doubt he can get ratification) & the SCOTUS decision/ruling in the future if Obozo stays in power or a Marshall Law scenario. I choose to be concerned. That's my nature & core of what I do. Threat mitigation.
I know your as Partiotic as they come as I'm as well.
Hop,
If he is that powerful, he don't need a Treaty to EO in the first place, he is already a total Dictator.
Speech by definition isn't treasonous. Only actions can be considered treason.
You are aware of a little thing called the First Amendment?
What I am referring to isn't simple dialog, it is an organized movement to comply with the program. Would you attempt to state that no one in our current administration has discussed this on a serious level and implicated that cooperation would follow if at all possible?
VooDoo6Actual
07-15-12, 18:53
redacted.
Heavy Metal
07-15-12, 18:55
Negative, I don't buy that. He's trying to project that. He needs ROL & he knows that.
Then there is simply no way the United Stated Federal Court system and th SCOTUS is going to let him EO a Treaty into existance. There is no legal authority to do that, not even remotely. This isn't a grey area, there is nothihing to twist. This isn't Obamacare, he can't call a Treaty a Tax. It is black and white.
Gutshot John
07-15-12, 18:58
An EO only specifies how an existing law is enforced or directs the actions of the Executive branch. An EO does not create law out of thin air.
Gutshot John
07-15-12, 19:00
What I am referring to isn't simple dialog, it is an organized movement to comply with the program. Would you attempt to state that no one in our current administration has discussed this on a serious level and implicated that cooperation would follow if at all possible?
Since there is no treaty to speak of, let alone vote on, what the current administration has discussed or not discussed is worth precisely ****all.
This isn't a grey area, there is nothihing to twist. This isn't Obamacare, he can't call a Treaty a Tax. It is black and white.
I know what you mean, but that's a bad example. Claiming a mandate to have insurance is not a tax and then when it suits him, oh okay it is a tax. Whatever means necessary to get the end result. Worked for Obamacare, which means it's possible such BS will work for other things as well. The test case worked, so perhaps now it's open season to do whatever they want.
Heck, if Fast & Furious had worked, Obamacare would actually be the second instance of ridiculous federal action that succeeded in working around the Constitution to get the desired end result.
Heavy Metal
07-15-12, 19:07
An EO only specifies how an existing law is enforced or directs the actions of the Executive branch. An EO does not create law out of thin air.
Exactly, an EO must have it's foundation in existing law. The whole 89 AW Import Ban Bush Sr. did was authorized by explicit language in the 1968 GCA. Language that was being loosely enforced prior to his EO. While I didn't like his EO, I did understand it's legal foundations. A cursory reading of the 68 GCA explained it.
VooDoo6Actual
07-15-12, 20:08
redacted.
What do you think the response would be if BHO declared through EO a national firearm registration database? Who could or would put a stop to it? Congress? State legislatures? How many would refuse to comply?
Then there is simply no way the United Stated Federal Court system and th SCOTUS is going to let him EO a Treaty into existance. There is no legal authority to do that, not even remotely. This isn't a grey area, there is nothihing to twist. This isn't Obamacare, he can't call a Treaty a Tax. It is black and white.
Wouldn't be so sure about that, check out the lawsuit filed by Alaska vs the EPA and Department of HS- he did exactly that. The 2010 MARPOL treaty was amended, signed by Clinton AND IS SCHEDULDED TO BE ENFORCED AS LAW as of August 1st.
The lawsuit faults the EPA, the Department of Homeland Security and others for using a marine treaty amendment as the basis for the new federal regulations WITHOUT WAITING for ratification of that amendment by the U.S. Senate.
Still think he "can't do that"?
VooDoo6Actual
07-16-12, 08:28
redacted.
Doc Safari
07-16-12, 15:11
I would be surprised if Obozo does NOT enact that through EO. He would use DOJ as the mechanism of enforcement as he continues to incrementally seize power.
All he has to do is seize all those 4473's from gun dealers and enter your name, address, and whatnot into a database with the serial numbers of firearms you have purchased. Then the DOJ issues a public statement that you have thirty days to "correct any errors" because they are looking into people who have bought over a certain number of guns as being potential gun runners to Mexico or some nonsense. If you are like most gun collectors, you have bought/sold/traded firearms over time as your collection develops. You will be too afraid of them knocking on your door not to comply.
Registration done.
The other scenario I see is that even they are smart enough to realize that guns purchased five years ago may or may not even belong to you anymore, so Barry will issue an executive order that all guns purchased as of Month, Day, 2012 will be registered to you at the time of purchase (an expansion of NICS) for example.
The second scenario I see as more likely. Hell, if they can require multiple long gun purchases in border states be reported, they can surely require that the serial number of the gun be reported.
Heavy Metal
07-16-12, 15:24
What do you think the response would be if BHO declared through EO a national firearm registration database? Who could or would put a stop to it? Congress? State legislatures? How many would refuse to comply?
How would he fund it without an appropriation from Congress? To try something like that without a Congressional Apropriation would be an automatic Impeachment.
Heavy Metal
07-16-12, 15:27
so Barry will issue an executive order that all guns purchased as of Month, Day, 2012 will be registered to you at the time of purchase (an expansion of NICS) for example.
So what non-existant part of the US Code would one be charged with for violating that EO?
See, that is the problem if an EO has no basis in the US Code, there is no crime in violating it.
Heavy Metal
07-16-12, 15:28
Wouldn't be so sure about that, check out the lawsuit filed by Alaska vs the EPA and Department of HS- he did exactly that. The 2010 MARPOL treaty was amended, signed by Clinton AND IS SCHEDULDED TO BE ENFORCED AS LAW as of August 1st.
The lawsuit faults the EPA, the Department of Homeland Security and others for using a marine treaty amendment as the basis for the new federal regulations WITHOUT WAITING for ratification of that amendment by the U.S. Senate.
Still think he "can't do that"?
Yeah I do. I think the courts will dispose of this.
Doc Safari
07-16-12, 15:40
So what non-existant part of the US Code would one be charged with for violating that EO?
See, that is the problem if an EO has no basis in the US Code, there is no crime in violating it.
You won't even know it's happening. The DOJ will force the dealer to report the serial numbers. They will comply because they want to keep their FFL's.
No penalty is needed for your lack of compliance.
In my first scenario they might have to cook up some kind of penalty, and that's the main reason I say the second scenario is the most likely one.
sinlessorrow
07-16-12, 17:21
I have a question.
while I am not very political I am wondering how exactly they would be able to go against the second amendment with this treaty?
couldnt we impeach Obama?
kaiservontexas
07-16-12, 17:41
I have a question.
while I am not very political I am wondering how exactly they would be able to go against the second amendment with this treaty?
couldnt we impeach Obama?
I think the main worry is another AWB and the loss of all import/exports, which would slowly lead to even that old bolt-action deer rifle being banned generations down the road. It is about the possible erosion of liberties more than conspiracies. My take anyway, and I do not like these stupid treaties.
sinlessorrow
07-16-12, 17:49
I think the main worry is another AWB and the loss of all import/exports, which would slowly lead to even that old bolt-action deer rifle being banned generations down the road. It is about the possible erosion of liberties more than conspiracies. My take anyway, and I do not like these stupid treaties.
gotcha, but I read somewhere that Senate is not in support of this and even wrote obama and told him that he had no chance of this happening and they set a few rules as well.
kaiservontexas
07-16-12, 22:08
Sinlessorrow, it is gun politics. That concerns all of us on the forum. It will be talked about and talked about just like sports in an old school barbershop with an old braun coffee pot.
It could possibly have an effect on us. America does not have to be a member to be impacted. Germany could sign it. Then what? So it effects us even if our government is not a part of it.
sinlessorrow
07-16-12, 22:11
Sinlessorrow, it is gun politics. That concerns all of us on the forum. It will be talked about and talked about just like sports in an old school barbershop with an old braun coffee pot.
It could possibly have an effect on us. America does not have to be a member to be impacted. Germany could sign it. Then what? So it effects us even if our government is not a part of it.
in what way would it affect us if germany signed? I am honestly curious since I have no idea.
kaiservontexas
07-16-12, 22:17
Stop import/export of products.
How would he fund it without an appropriation from Congress? To try something like that without a Congressional Apropriation would be an automatic Impeachment.
I dont know if a registration requirement would need much funding. The multitude of offices design to eat out our substance are already in place. They waste so much money in these alphabet agencies, I'm sure they could divert some funds to a new project without requesting more.
And He's already committed a plethora of impeachable offenses, as did Bush before him, and Clinton before him (lying about his sex life under oath notwithstanding)
Face it, most of congress is bought off or blackmailed to the point that they'll do what they're told, which is why they've had around a 9% approval rating for several years running.
platoonDaddy
07-17-12, 18:35
Don't know the validity of the video, therefore just presenting:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyfkQkchlu4&feature=player_embedded
sinlessorrow
07-17-12, 21:45
Don't know the validity of the video, therefore just presenting:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyfkQkchlu4&feature=player_embedded
That same website has info about zombies on their front page to.0
Makes sense about import/export issues, i dont think it would affect me much but i know alot of weapon sustems that would see issues, makes me wonder what theyre thinking especially with the IC going and having foreign rifles in the running.
Dick Morris is spreading misinformation. Just to be clear, I'm against this, I just don't believe in spreading misinformation to help our cause.
http://www.dickmorris.com/the-global-gun-control-threat/
The ATT, under the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution, would have the power of a constitutional amendment and would, effectively, repeal the Second Amendment guaranteeing us the right to bear arms. We must fight to stop the US from signing the treaty and, if we fail, block Senate ratification.
"The ATT...would have the power of a Constitutional Amendment"
What is he smoking?
Dick Morris is spreading misinformation. Just to be clear, I'm against this, I just don't believe in spreading misinformation to help our cause.
http://www.dickmorris.com/the-global-gun-control-threat/
"The ATT...would have the power of a Constitutional Amendment"
What is he smoking?
nothing I read it makes perfect sense :)
key word you missed was effectively :)so it would come in after the 2nd but the idea of effectively getting the job done not actually over riding the second :)
again as long as they get the end goal so yes you would be allowed to have guns but they could make it so insane with no outside guns no outside ammo registrations taxes etc.. no carry all guns locked gov aproved and checked safes inside the home when you own guns you have to agree to this etc.. again opens up a whole can of worms
and they will say you can own guns you just have to follow the common sense great laws we passed which will save the world :rolleyes:
again funny how they put so much effort to take guns away from legal folks but do nothing about illegals and criminals with guns !
nothing I read it makes perfect sense :)
key word you missed was effectively :)so it would come in after the 2nd but the idea of effectively getting the job done not actually over riding the second :)
again as long as they get the end goal so yes you would be allowed to have guns but they could make it so insane with no outside guns no outside ammo registrations taxes etc.. no carry all guns locked gov aproved and checked safes inside the home when you own guns you have to agree to this etc.. again opens up a whole can of worms
and they will say you can own guns you just have to follow the common sense great laws we passed which will save the world :rolleyes:
again funny how they put so much effort to take guns away from legal folks but do nothing about illegals and criminals with guns !
The Supremacy Clause mandates that State law shall not supercede Federal law. It does not state that treaties can supercede the Constitution and there is numerous case law to back this up. The ATT would NOT have the power of a Constitutional Amendment so he is wrong for even mentioning the Supremacy Clause.
The Supremacy Clause mandates that State law shall not supercede Federal law. It does not state that treaties can supercede the Constitution and there is numerous case law to back this up. The ATT would NOT have the power of a Constitutional Amendment so he is wrong for even mentioning the Supremacy Clause.
why are you stuck on thinking D M or I think the treaty will supersede it ? he did not say it I did not say it only you are :)
it will FOLLOW !!!!
yes exactly what I said !
state laws will be required to follow federal !
so now all states will have to follow one fed law !! think about that !
and yes it will come after the second the second wont be touched
he never said anything other than EFFECTIVELY !!! which means like they have said they wont go after the second but they will go after gun control and this is a way to get it without touching the second !
that and the flood gate of taxes they just got opened might even come into things ?
OK I have a lake and want to stop you from swimming but I cant cause of laws so I say OK you can swim in the lake
but I put up a huge fence with razor wire and fill the shore with broken glass !
so you can swim but have fun getting in and if you get in you wont be on the beach !
so YES you can have your guns but the new federal laws will over ride the states laws and it is going to impact import/export etc..
why are you stuck on thinking D M or I think the treaty will supersede it ? he did not say it I did not say it only you are :)
it will FOLLOW !!!!
yes exactly what I said !
state laws will be required to follow federal !
so now all states will have to follow one fed law !! think about that !
and yes it will come after the second the second wont be touched
he never said anything other than EFFECTIVELY !!! which means like they have said they wont go after the second but they will go after gun control and this is a way to get it without touching the second !
that and the flood gate of taxes they just got opened might even come into things ?
OK I have a lake and want to stop you from swimming but I cant cause of laws so I say OK you can swim in the lake
but I put up a huge fence with razor wire and fill the shore with broken glass !
so you can swim but have fun getting in and if you get in you wont be on the beach !
so YES you can have your guns but the new federal laws will over ride the states laws and it is going to impact import/export etc..
For once I'm glad you aren't getting excited about this.
I never said the libs won't try to find creative ways to enforce this treaty even if it's ratified.
Dick specifically says "The ATT under the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution...
Show me where treaties fall under the Supremacy Clause. They don't. In fact if treaties violate the US Constitution they don't mean shit.
So all I'm saying is he doesn't know what he's talking about or he's fear mongering with a law he has no business mentioning. If he wants to support a cause and be taken seriously he needs to stick to the facts.
I'm glad you aren't getting excited about this.
I never said the libs won't try to find creative ways to enforce this treaty even if it's ratified.
Dick specifically says "The ATT under the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution...
Show me where treaties fall under the Supremacy Clause. They don't. In fact if treaties violate the US Constitution they don't mean shit.
So all I'm saying is he doesn't know what he's talking about or he's fear mongering with a law he has no business mentioning. If he wants to support a cause and be taken seriously he needs to stick to the facts.
yeah he is stupid doesnt know a thing about politics or how things work in DC
(sarcastic of course)
platoonDaddy
07-19-12, 09:30
Dick might enjoy a 'hoe' from time to time, BUT that guy knows politics and how DC works.
I never said Dick was stupid but being a Washington insider doesn't make you a Constitutional expert.
This treaty will in no way, shape, or form even comes close to effectively repealing the 2nd Amendment. How will this affect US Citizens' right to keep and bear arms? It's already been brought up on page 1 that guns aren't being imported into the US and manufacturers have actually come here which isn't a bad thing nationally. Globally things are already a cluster **** we can't control. I'm not justifying this treaty or lying down - just observing. I agree the threat of an EO from a globalist/socialist is quite scary shit as is the threat of judicial activism. Who's to say BHO won't sign an EO in the interest of "national security" to inventory guns? I think it's a long shot but not impossible. I think he values his life too much to do something that dumb.
Is it a slippery slope? Of course which is why I signed the petition to my Rep. and Senators on Dick's site even though I don't totally agree with him. We can all have civil disagreements and discussion without resorting to name calling, innuendo, and overuse of exclamation points. We need to band together and stop this no doubt but you can't credibly fight something without proper facts.
Dick might enjoy a 'hoe' from time to time, BUT that guy knows politics and how DC works.
big time and that is why when he brings stuff up I tend to listen and research :) also the fact he was a Clinton guy is a bonus of the inner workings of the Democrat side and now conservative
VooDoo6Actual
07-22-12, 22:39
redacted.
sinlessorrow
07-22-12, 22:46
New one today by Brother Nathaniel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrcJjDV1a58
where on earth do you find these wackjob videos at?
New one today by Brother Nathaniel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrcJjDV1a58
That guy is a f'ing moron with all his anti-Semitic neo Nazi nonsense. The comments under the video are priceless.
That guy is a f'ing moron with all his anti-Semitic neo Nazi nonsense. The comments under the video are priceless.
+1
What a douchenozzle
OK I usually love your links :) not this one sorry :)
I want my 2 minutes I watched back please ;)
montanadave
07-23-12, 08:41
New one today by Brother Nathaniel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrcJjDV1a58
Something I'd expect to see on Stormfront's website, not M4C.
VooDoo6Actual
07-23-12, 08:46
redacted.
Mauser KAR98K
07-23-12, 11:42
I enjoyed the humor as well. Nice to hear it entertained you. Nathaniel does add some interesting Points of view at times. While I don't always agree w/ his opinions, I do find him & his whole "clergy stick" amusing. Your right the comments are priceless & often more priceless than the video content.
We certainly have a full spectrum of opinions these days.
Is it me, or does he look Jewish, minus the robes.
VooDoo6Actual
07-23-12, 11:44
redacted.
Racist ? :jester:
http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e225/teehee321/Godzilla-Haters-Gonna-Hate1.gif
I don't get it
VooDoo6Actual
07-24-12, 10:45
redacted.
VooDoo6Actual
07-24-12, 10:45
redacted.
humor & sarcasm can be difficult to interpret on the net.
and some people just dont want to see it ;) hahahahah
I just have no idea why Godzilla tail-sliding has anything to do with haters or racism or jews . . . I don't get it.
ETA: nevermind. I got it
I want this to pass so bad that I can taste the tinfoil in my mouth already. Please for the love of God, pass this so everyone will see that the sky isn't falling and nothing will come of it.
On second thought, it's not worth it.
I want this to pass so bad that I can taste the tinfoil in my mouth already. Please for the love of God, pass this so everyone will see that the sky isn't falling and nothing will come of it.
I agree with you on this gunz the whole assume thing comes to mind
The draft treaty is out so you can decide for yourself.
The draft treaty is out so you can decide for yourself.
do you have a link most of what i have found is just a repeat of what has already been said including that the senate will Not let it happen :confused:
My Droid skills aren't up to linking. Alan Gottlieb's org has the draft and you can find the Chairman's report, which contains the substance of the treaty. When I get to a computer, I will see about the link.
The draft is available at thegunmag.com.
thanks Buzz_knox
number 14 in the Preamble
"Recognizing the legitimate international trade and lawful private ownership and use of conventional arms exclusively for, inter alia, recreational, cultural, historical and sporting activities for States where such ownership and use are permitted or protected by law;" that caught my eye, But i still don't think that the Senate will let this go through well i hope not unless Obama pulls another EO out of his ass
here is the Link for the Draft .
http://www.thegunmag.com/breaking-news-proposed-un-arms-trade-treaty-includes-small-arms/
Preambles have no legal effect. They are simply aspirational statements and do not restrict the treaty's provisions.
Now that the draft is out, I think the risk of ratification has gone up. Plenty will read it and think we are protected, when the treaty really lays the groundwork for havoc through both the implementing process and the amendment process.
Preambles have no legal effect.
Seems like the left believes the "to promote the general welfare" statement in our constitutions' preamble is a permission slip to plunge us into raw socialism. Try telling them it has no legally binding power
Seems like the left believes the "to promote the general welfare" statement in our constitutions' preamble is a permission slip to plunge us into raw socialism. Try telling them it has no legally binding power
They lose that argument all the time. That's why they rely heavily on the bastardized version of the Commerce Clause that has been in effect since FDR intimidated the Supreme Court.
sinlessorrow
07-26-12, 08:06
I still don see the big deal.
It doesnt sound like it will affect us in any way other than imported firearms.
VooDoo6Actual
07-26-12, 12:32
redacted.
It is important to note that the requirement to keep a control list applies to the covered items (including small arms), not just those involved in export.
It is also worth noting that creating the control list is mandatory. There is no carve out for national law prohibitions as there is on publication of the list.
after reading it I did see the part of keeping the records from import to sale to end user for 10 years which would be the law abiding citizen :mad: it is a big shit sandwich lets hope it doesn't Make it through the Senate
Moose-Knuckle
07-26-12, 17:29
http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a144/AKS-74/frog_boiling.jpg
http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a144/AKS-74/frog_boiling.jpg
Now, now. We have nothing to worry about this treaty. Our betters have told us so.
Jul 26 2012
Sen. Moran and 50 Senators: Second Amendment Rights are not Negotiable
WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator Jerry Moran (R-KS) today led 50 senators in expressing grave concern about the dangers posed to Americans’ Second Amendment rights by the United Nations’ Arms Trade Treaty. The 51 senators notified President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton of their intent to oppose ratification of an Arms Trade Treaty that in any way restricts the rights of law-abiding American gun owners. The opposition is strong enough to block the treaty from Senate passage, as treaties submitted to the U.S. Senate require approval of two-thirds of Senators present to be ratified.
In the letter, the senators wrote: “As the treaty process continues, we strongly encourage your administration not only to uphold our country’s constitutional protections of civilian firearms ownership, but to ensure – if necessary, by breaking consensus at the July conference – that the treaty will explicitly recognize the legitimacy of lawful activities associated with firearms, including but not limited to the right of self-defense. As members of the United States Senate, we will oppose the ratification of any Arms Trade Treaty that falls short of this standard.”
“Our country’s sovereignty and the rights of American citizens must not be infringed upon by the United Nations,” Sen. Moran said. “Today, the Senate sends a powerful message to the Obama Administration: an Arms Trade Treaty that does not protect ownership of civilian firearms will fail in the Senate. Our firearm freedoms are not negotiable.”
“The NRA, our four million members and the tens of millions of law-abiding Americans who own firearms will never surrender our right to keep and bear arms to the United Nations,” said Chris Cox, executive director of NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action. “That is why the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty has been met with the full opposition of the NRA. We are grateful for the efforts of these senators, led by Senator Jerry Moran, to oppose this encroachment of international tyranny.”
There were 58 Senators before. Did 7 not get the notice?
There were 58 Senators before. Did 7 not get the notice?
not sure, but that is irrelevant
Relevancy depends on why they weren't there. If the numbers are dropping already before the wheeling and dealing starts, it could mean that opposition is dropping away. Or it could mean that they had other commitments. Or that they just didn't care.
The treaty supporters will be asking these questions so we need to as well.
http://moran.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=9cd86202-9498-47ca-8b8d-534bf60b52f7
Read it, we're pretty much ****ed if this thing gets ratified. The entire treaty stresses repeatedly that it IS gun control in every way shape and form.
I'm not going to go into great detail because the entire treaty states it is gun control throughout. One area that will cause great trouble/possibly screw us more is the meaning of export is not clearly defined- As written it could mean anything from Colt to Canada, or Colt to the state of ohio, or Colt to you personally, or you to your neighbor in a private sale.
I don't see how everyone is saying the isn't a big deal.
VooDoo6Actual
07-27-12, 21:20
redacted.
sinlessorrow
07-27-12, 21:51
Arms Trade Treaty Negotiations Collapse as USA Refuses to Sign
http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/articles/2012/nra-stops-un-arms-trade-treaty.aspx
U.N. ATT Conference Comes to an Impasse
The Conference on the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty (U.N. ATT) has broken down and will not report a draft treaty to the member nations.
This is a big victory for American gun owners, and the NRA is being widely credited for killing the U.N. ATT.
For nearly 20 years, the NRA has worked tirelessly to warn American gun owners about the United Nations’ efforts to undermine the constitutional rights of law-abiding American gun owners by putting in place international controls on small arms.
NRA became a recognized Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) and has monitored all U.N. activities that could impact on our Second Amendment rights. As a result, NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre testified before the U.N. (2012 remarks, 2011 remarks) making it clear that the NRA would fight any international treaty that included civilian arms.
NRA worked with our allies in the U.S. Congress and successfully assembled strong bipartisan opposition to any treaty that adversely impacts the Second Amendment. On two occasions NRA was successful in convincing a majority of the U.S. Senate to sign letters to President Obama that made it clear that any treaty that included civilian arms was not going to be ratified by the U.S. Senate.
Yesterday (July 26), Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) gathered the signatures of 51 Senators on a letter to President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton opposing any treaty that infringes on our rights. The letter stated "As the treaty process continues, we strongly encourage your administration not only to uphold our country's constitutional protections of civilian firearms ownership, but to ensure--if necessary, by breaking consensus at the July conference--that the treaty will explicitly recognize the legitimacy of lawful activities associated with firearms, including but not limited to the right of self-defense. As members of the United States Senate, we will oppose the ratification of any Arms Trade Treaty that falls short of this standard."
NRA members made their voices heard on this issue as well, calling their elected representatives and urging their opposition to the treaty. As a result, 130 members of the U.S. House of Representatives have voiced strong opposition to the treaty.
During the past week, it became increasingly possible that the Conference would fail to come to an agreement on draft language. On Thursday, the Conference President produced yet another draft of the ATT in an effort to salvage the process. The new draft, like previous ones, was wholly incompatible with the Second Amendment rights protected by our Constitution.
The proponents of the treaty have goals that are clearly at odds with the American Constitution. Their refusal to remove civilian arms from the treaty was one major issue that led to the breakdown in negotiations. The U.S. delegation made it clear that they could not move forward with the language as it had been drafted.
While this conference has failed to complete a treaty, the proponents will not give up. It is likely that a new conference will be held in the future and NRA will continue to fight to protect the rights of American gun owners.
NRA maintains its steadfast opposition to any treaty that includes civilian arms in any way. NRA will continue to work with our allies, particularly in the U.S. Senate, to insure that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is not threatened by this or any future international treaty.
additional links
http://www.ammoland.com/2012/07/27/arms-trade-treaty-negotiations-collapse-as-usa-refuses-to-sign/#axzz21sawg55U
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/seattle-wa-rainier-valley/TO9F52J7CRVEQ1PR1
AMERICA.....**** YEAH!!!
http://m.cbsnews.com/videostorysynopsis.rbml?catid=50128616&feed_id=0&videofeed=36
Some more good news.
CBS news is reporting that no sitting U.S. President has been re-elected with such a low approval rating as President Obama currently had for July 44% in the last 32 years. That coupled with the latest economic figures reported could spell political disaster for the incumbent President in the upcoming election, according to CBS.
VooDoo6Actual
07-27-12, 22:27
redacted.
Thanks for keeping us posted Hop:D
Moose-Knuckle
07-28-12, 00:33
Great news indeed (on both accounts), but if this was their plan "A". . . there will be a plan "B".
Stay frosty gents.
Great news that we are soon to be rid of the Marxist president. Bad news? That leaves us with socialist health care gunn grabbing Romney.
Great news that we are soon to be rid of the Marxist president. Bad news? That leaves us with socialist health care gunn grabbing Romney.
Yup, your choices for President this fall will be...
1. Asshole "A"
2. Asshole "B"
Romney is'nt my first choice for president, I think there are some republicans who would be better suited for the job. However, I see it as unlikely that Mitt will do any gun-grabbing..I'm pretty sure the house and senate will keep him in line..I will say this..If he (Mitt) is elected, The day after he's sworn in,...it's show time..He better start producing results..If he wants reelected..
Mitt is going to fall on his ass and then we are going to be stuck with 8 years of Hillary:suicide:
Nathan_Bell
07-28-12, 08:46
NATO is a treaty alliance. There is nothing in the Constitution that says we can't have alliances. Treaties are explicitly permitted pending proper ratification. Your claim that NATO has unlimited authority to order the US into war was spectacularly wrong.
One more time... NO PROVISION OF THE CONSTITUTION OR THE BOR HAS EVER BEEN SUPERSEDED BY A TREATY.
Really?
How about the 4th Amendment and the Migratory Bird Treaty?
http://m.cbsnews.com/videostorysynopsis.rbml?catid=50128616&feed_id=0&videofeed=36
Some more good news.
CBS news is reporting that no sitting U.S. President has been re-elected with such a low approval rating as President Obama currently had for July 44% in the last 32 years. That coupled with the latest economic figures reported could spell political disaster for the incumbent President in the upcoming election, according to CBS.
This sounds encouraging but it doesn't factor in one key variable; the African-American vote. I'm not being racists, just being honest. The African-American community will come out in force to vote for him regardless of his failed policies, ineffective leadership and Marxist/Socialist/Communist view points. He's created class warfare to rally that community, we have more people on welfare and workman’s comp than ever before and most recently he created a program for African-American students only; no whites, Hispanics or Asian allowed; only African-American kids. The majority of the African-American community wants to keep this going.
Of course there will be a large percentage of Americans that will vote against him because of his race as well but if he can get the African-American community to the polls (and we've seen how effective he is at that) he will win a second term.
Mitt is going to fall on his ass and then we are going to be stuck with 8 years of Hillary:suicide:
Honestly, I don't think so..I think she's had just about enough..I think all the pressure from her current position is wearing on her pretty bad,Getting out of politics is starting to look pretty good, Besides, she could make waaay more money on the lecture circuit..If you'll notice, Bill hasn't made any moves to get back in...
This sounds encouraging but it doesn't factor in one key variable; the African-American vote. I'm not being racists, just being honest. The African-American community will come out in force to vote for him regardless of his failed policies, ineffective leadership and Marxist/Socialist/Communist view points. He's created class warfare to rally that community, we have more people on welfare and workman’s comp than ever before and most recently he created a program for African-American students only; no whites, Hispanics or Asian allowed; only African-American kids. The majority of the African-American community wants to keep this going.
Of course there will be a large percentage of Americans that will vote against him because of his race as well but if he can get the African-American community to the polls (and we've seen how effective he is at that) he will win a second term.
The more important vote and generally regarded deciding factor will be two segments of the voting population: 1) Independent voters and 2) Women voters
The most important population of likely minority voters will be the Hispanic voting block.
Blacks are not considered a vital part of the voting segment because many simply choose not to vote or even register.
No one has a crystal ball, but between the current economy and the millions of Americans out of work. I think the Obama Administration is in a precarious political position especially now that the President is polling almost at a statistical heat with Gov. Romney in some key states, according to the experts in the news media.
This sounds encouraging but it doesn't factor in one key variable; the African-American vote. I'm not being racists, just being honest. The African-American community will come out in force to vote for him regardless of his failed policies, ineffective leadership and Marxist/Socialist/Communist view points. He's created class warfare to rally that community, we have more people on welfare and workman’s comp than ever before and most recently he created a program for African-American students only; no whites, Hispanics or Asian allowed; only African-American kids. The majority of the African-American community wants to keep this going.
Of course there will be a large percentage of Americans that will vote against him because of his race as well but if he can get the African-American community to the polls (and we've seen how effective he is at that) he will win a second term.
And let's not forget another key factor as well, The economy...4yrs into this "recession" we still have 8%+ unemployment..and like it or not the world economy is slowing down... The more people lose their jobs, income, the less his chances of reelection become..Those on welfare depend heavily on those who work.. Right now his approval rating is the lowest it's ever been, At this point, (to me anyway)It's starting to look like Romney may just win, When you look at the last 4 yrs of Obama' presidency, he rammed a health care bill we can't afford down our throats, supported cap and trade, turned his back on the keystone pipeline, which would've been a big help in getting a domestic oil supply, instead he supports windmills, solar cells...$500million of which we the taxayers are on the hook for, for a bankrupt solar cell company, ran the deficit up something like 5.8 trillion and counting, and despite all these failures, he STILL blames Bush....I think this time around, alot more people are going to be motivated to vote against him, people have had enough of this arrgoant asshole telling them, he knows what's best for them...
I hope you guys are right but I don't see it.
sinlessorrow
07-28-12, 10:47
This sounds encouraging but it doesn't factor in one key variable; the African-American vote. I'm not being racists, just being honest. The African-American community will come out in force to vote for him regardless of his failed policies, ineffective leadership and Marxist/Socialist/Communist view points. He's created class warfare to rally that community, we have more people on welfare and workman’s comp than ever before and most recently he created a program for African-American students only; no whites, Hispanics or Asian allowed; only African-American kids. The majority of the African-American community wants to keep this going.
Of course there will be a large percentage of Americans that will vote against him because of his race as well but if he can get the African-American community to the polls (and we've seen how effective he is at that) he will win a second term.
it wont be as big of a deal this year, the African Americans can no longer vote 3-4 times each like they did last time, no more votes from mickey mouse and minnie mouse.
you now have to have your ID and in my area alot of those african americans who play the government for money dont have an ID.
it wont be as big of a deal this year, the African Americans can no longer vote 3-4 times each like they did last time, no more votes from mickey mouse and minnie mouse.
you now have to have your ID and in my area alot of those african americans who play the government for money dont have an ID.
Like I said I hope I'm wrong but his old ACORN friends are still receiving tax payers money, he appointed a black panther member a CZAR position so who in the hell knows how deep this corruption runs? I don't believe the voter fraud issues of '08 have been fixed. I believe they're covered up better.
VooDoo6Actual
07-28-12, 12:33
redacted.
BrigandTwoFour
07-28-12, 15:43
This sounds encouraging but it doesn't factor in one key variable; the African-American vote. I'm not being racists, just being honest. The African-American community will come out in force to vote for him regardless of his failed policies, ineffective leadership and Marxist/Socialist/Communist view points. He's created class warfare to rally that community, we have more people on welfare and workman’s comp than ever before and most recently he created a program for African-American students only; no whites, Hispanics or Asian allowed; only African-American kids. The majority of the African-American community wants to keep this going.
Of course there will be a large percentage of Americans that will vote against him because of his race as well but if he can get the African-American community to the polls (and we've seen how effective he is at that) he will win a second term.
I disagree about the Black vote being as big a player this time around. A lot of them voted for him last time because of it, and they thought they were going to get "a hookup from another brotha'"
That didn't happen, and now they feel burned. Those in the inner cities that voted for him now feel like he's too white and doesn't look out "for the community." (that is pure speculation on my part though). The rest probably won't vote.
He may still get some Black votes from those in the more academic realms, but the average urban vote- not so much.
Moose-Knuckle
07-28-12, 17:32
This sounds encouraging but it doesn't factor in one key variable; the African-American vote. I'm not being racists, just being honest. The African-American community will come out in force to vote for him regardless of his failed policies, ineffective leadership and Marxist/Socialist/Communist view points. He's created class warfare to rally that community, we have more people on welfare and workman’s comp than ever before and most recently he created a program for African-American students only; no whites, Hispanics or Asian allowed; only African-American kids. The majority of the African-American community wants to keep this going.
Of course there will be a large percentage of Americans that will vote against him because of his race as well but if he can get the African-American community to the polls (and we've seen how effective he is at that) he will win a second term.
It's not so much the black vote as it is voter fraud. The numbers just aren't there.
I disagree about the Black vote being as big a player this time around. A lot of them voted for him last time because of it, and they thought they were going to get "a hookup from another brotha'"
That didn't happen, and now they feel burned. Those in the inner cities that voted for him now feel like he's too white and doesn't look out "for the community." (that is pure speculation on my part though). The rest probably won't vote.
He may still get some Black votes from those in the more academic realms, but the average urban vote- not so much.
Most of my black coworkers are just as disgruntled with him now as they were with Bush because they aren't any better off than they were 4 years ago. Pretty much anybody that isn't drinking any given number of one of the special interests' or msm koolaid doesn't like him. He's pretty much left with his koolaid drinkers. It's too bad we're stuck with Romney. Whatever happened to Ron Paul and the GOP convention?
Not sure if it was posted yet but seems promising if true. http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/07/28/It-s-Official-The-Arms-Trade-Treaty-is-Dead
Not sure if it was posted yet but seems promising if true. http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/07/28/It-s-Official-The-Arms-Trade-Treaty-is-Dead
Yup. Been reading it all over the net. Arms Trade Treaty is dead. At least for now. Dead for the second time too. Classic UN cluster****.
Belmont31R
07-29-12, 00:20
I disagree about the Black vote being as big a player this time around. A lot of them voted for him last time because of it, and they thought they were going to get "a hookup from another brotha'"
That didn't happen, and now they feel burned. Those in the inner cities that voted for him now feel like he's too white and doesn't look out "for the community." (that is pure speculation on my part though). The rest probably won't vote.
He may still get some Black votes from those in the more academic realms, but the average urban vote- not so much.
The black vote is insignificant, and I doubt black voter turn out will be nearly as high this time around (you're still talking about less than 2% of the vote).
montanadave
07-29-12, 07:44
The black vote is insignificant, and I doubt black voter turn out will be nearly as high this time around (you're still talking about less than 2% of the vote).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qw9oX-kZ_9k
The black vote is insignificant, and I doubt black voter turn out will be nearly as high this time around (you're still talking about less than 2% of the vote).
Agreed
The black national unemployment rate is over two times higher than what the everybody number is. That, plus a lot of folks didn't sign up for Marxism. They voted for him for three reasons:
1) the first black president would be awesome (I'd agree if he was a constitutionalist)
2) he wasn't Bush (oops, he's nearly identical to Bush)
3) his speeches were uplifting (and had absolutely no substance behind the words)
There are plenty of black veterans who believe in their oath, and will not reelect an out of the closet Marxist. It was exciting the first go around when nobody knew how bad he was. But now we know.
Mauser KAR98K
03-28-13, 21:55
Boys and Girls...It's Back!
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/03/28/buyers-beware-un-arms-trade-treaty-will-regulate-individual-gun-ownership/
Hope you all are up for your third round. Chairman Obama is going after this hard.
Side note: Even if it does not pass the Senate, Obama can still do an Executive Agreement to "sign the treaty."
I don't foresee ammo and parts coming back on line for the foreseeable future.
VooDoo6Actual
03-28-13, 22:33
Yawn,
Wrote about it here more than 2 years ago.
Ignored the ad hominems & we are still having the same dialogue.
Apparently the fact that he is the first US Dictator, oops President to sit @ the helm of the UN Security Council (which itself is a conflict of interest per Constitution) eludes other's as to the Agenda.
Heavy Metal
03-28-13, 23:22
Side note: Even if it does not pass the Senate, Obama can still do an Executive Agreement to "sign the treaty."
Fiction.
Side note: Even if it does not pass the Senate, Obama can still do an Executive Agreement to "sign the treaty."
"He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur"
sinlessorrow
03-29-13, 01:45
"He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur"
Let's also not forget the UN ATT has no effect on American made weapons....
John Lott and Fox News fueling the panic.
This is part of why why we have shortages steep prices. The panic buyer is the first to see these scary headlines and run to Walmart to hoard more shit. I hate Fox almost as bad as the liberal media.
Buyers, beware: UN Arms Trade Treaty will regulate individual gun ownership
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/03/28/buyers-beware-un-arms-trade-treaty-will-regulate-individual-gun-ownership/?intcmp=HPBucket
Mauser KAR98K
03-29-13, 02:30
Boys and Girls...It's Back!
Side note: Even if it does not pass the Senate, Obama can still do an Executive Agreement to "sign the treaty."
Fiction.
Well, how can I tell my International Law Proff. that he is full of shit? From what he praises, some of the last treaties we have done were signed by executive agreement.
Mauser KAR98K
03-29-13, 02:32
John Lott and Fox News fueling the panic.
Buyers, beware: UN Arms Trade Treaty will regulate individual gun ownership
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/03/28/buyers-beware-un-arms-trade-treaty-will-regulate-individual-gun-ownership/?intcmp=HPBucket
Dude, I just posted that same article above.
I'm not taking this as adding fuel to the fire. This is Obama on his agenda. Remember Obamacare and how they got through. The good news is 2010 scared the crap out of the Dems. But I do worry what the KOTUS will do (King).
Moose-Knuckle
03-29-13, 03:06
John Lott and Fox News fueling the panic.
This is part of why why we have shortages steep prices. The panic buyer is the first to see these scary headlines and run to Walmart to hoard more shit. I hate Fox almost as bad as the liberal media.
I for one am glad you cannot walk into a store and find carbines, handguns, magazines, and ammo as it tells me people are starting to pull their heads out of the sand.
I for one am glad you cannot walk into a store and find carbines, handguns, magazines, and ammo as it tells me people are starting to pull their heads out of the sand.
Don't get me wrong I'm glad more people are armed than ever. I was just speaking mainly to the point of Lotts headline being very misleading and even he dials it down in the article. I get the feeling a lot of the same people that get excited by just a headline are easily manipulated and aren't making informed decisions. Many of the same people that vote Neocon because Fox tells them to.
While scare tactics may be good in a broad sense to get peoples' heads out of the sand, I don't see it as being much better than liberals' knee jerk reactions to shootings. I don't think fighting the enemy based on slanted propaganda is a good thing but I can accept that a more armed society is a welcome tradeoff or side effect.
Any agreement that conflicts with the Constitution is essentially null and void because the Constitution is the law of the land.
If the U.N or any other dipshit wants to prove otherwise please hurry while I still have enough ammo and mags.
Now back to your regularly scheduled panic buying spree.
I've never meant to imply that the international power grab by our dictator in chief doesn't worry me but I see the domestic power grab as a lot bigger immediate threat.
Does anybody not think this is a pretty convenient time for a smokescreen to distract us from domestic gun legislation and to take the spotlight off the Paul/Cruz/Rubio filibuster talk?
Heavy Metal
03-29-13, 20:44
Well, how can I tell my International Law Proff. that he is full of shit? From what he praises, some of the last treaties we have done were signed by executive agreement.
Name them. Let me save you some time, you can't, they don't exist.
You are talking about an international executive agreement. Let me clue you in about an EA, it is NOT at Treaty and does NOT carry the weight of law.
I guess they simply don't make International Law Professors like they used to.
PA PATRIOT
03-29-13, 23:44
John Lott and Fox News fueling the panic.
This is part of why why we have shortages steep prices. The panic buyer is the first to see these scary headlines and run to Walmart to hoard more shit. I hate Fox almost as bad as the liberal media.
I for one am glad you cannot walk into a store and find carbines, handguns, magazines, and ammo as it tells me people are starting to pull their heads out of the sand.
Most likely it was because Moose pallet dived the store before anyone else did. :D
Don't get me wrong I'm glad more people are armed than ever. I was just speaking mainly to the point of Lotts headline being very misleading and even he dials it down in the article. I get the feeling a lot of the same people that get excited by just a headline are easily manipulated and aren't making informed decisions. Many of the same people that vote Neocon because Fox tells them to.
While scare tactics may be good in a broad sense to get peoples' heads out of the sand, I don't see it as being much better than liberals' knee jerk reactions to shootings. I don't think fighting the enemy based on slanted propaganda is a good thing but I can accept that a more armed society is a welcome tradeoff or side effect.
Is it more people armed or the same people with a lot more arms? Its definitely a mix, but it's more towards existing gun owners simply buying more guns and ammo.
Moose-Knuckle
03-30-13, 02:01
Most likely it was because Moose pallet dived the store before anyone else did. :D
Hey don't hate the playa hate the game. :p
Is it more people armed or the same people with a lot more arms? Its definitely a mix, but it's more towards existing gun owners simply buying more guns and ammo.
I personally have a friend and a cousin who never had an interest in firearms much before the latest round of attacks on the 2A. Now they both own AR-15s and are scrounging for ammo and mags. I have other friends who have come to me asking about what to get, where, how much, etc. This has awoken a lot of the fence sitters. So the panic is two folds IMHO, on one hand you have guys like me who are stacking ammo and mags deep as I find good prices for future training/plinking and on the other hand you have a lot of newbs. Then their are the guys buying stuff at retail just to flip it online or at gun shows for three or four times the value.
VooDoo6Actual
03-30-13, 09:24
Hey don't hate the playa hate the game. :p
Kinda reminds me of this as well.
An American recovery in full bloom....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=XxroieGk704
Moose-Knuckle
03-30-13, 15:15
Kinda reminds me of this as well.
An American recovery in full bloom....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=XxroieGk704
Fortunately none of my ammunition acquisitions have been like that. ;)
VooDoo6Actual
03-30-13, 19:43
Fortunately none of my ammunition acquisitions have been like that. ;)
Just missed by 4 votes passing Senate.
NOTE: how much press coverage it got.
http://offgridsurvival.com/senatorsvoted-giveunpower/
I'm paying attention to whose do what voting etc.
Then there's this:
http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/03/us-senate-votes-to-not-join-un-arms-trade-treaty/
Copy of the redacted March 20th version here:
http://www.un.org/disarmament/ATT/docs/Presidents_Non_Paper_of_20%20March_2013_(ATT_Final_Conference).pdf
Remember Obama sits at head of UN Security Council as well. Unprecedented in American history.
Just missed by 4 votes passing Senate.
NOTE: how much press coverage it got.
http://offgridsurvival.com/senatorsvoted-giveunpower/
Wow. That's incredible. Never even knew they were voting on it. I'm gonna spread that like wildfire.
Moose-Knuckle
03-30-13, 20:00
Just missed by 4 votes passing Senate.
NOTE: how much press coverage it got.
http://offgridsurvival.com/senatorsvoted-giveunpower/
I'm paying attention to whose do what voting etc.
Then there's this:
http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/03/us-senate-votes-to-not-join-un-arms-trade-treaty/
:help:
This is my shocked face . . . I mean with gay marriage before SCOTUS and new proposed EPA regulations that will save an estimated nine Americans a year from expiring due to fossil fuel related asthma attacks all the while making the price at the pump go up. . . I just don't see how they have the time to cover anything so mundane.
:suicide:
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.