Quantcast
  1. Sign up now and join over 35,000 northwest gun owners. It's quick, easy, and 100% free!

Gun confiscation, NOT control

Discussion in 'Legal & Political Archive' started by MKenn, Mar 26, 2010.

  1. MKenn

    MKenn Portland, OR New Member

    Messages:
    13
    Likes Received:
    0
    I suspect you are all unaware of this, but just in case you’ve been sleeping, or paying all of your attention to “that other issue”, here it is, the one of our next challenges.

    In the USSO (Union of Socialistic States of Obamanation) the best investments today are:

    Canned Goods; and,

    (2) Ammunition -- lots and lots of ammunition.

    The Full Article Here: http://www.reuters. com/article/ politicsNews/ idUSTRE59E0Q9200 91015




    U.S. reverses stance on treaty to regulate arms trade

    WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States reversed policy on Wednesday and said it would back launching talks on a treaty to regulate arms sales as long as the talks operated by consensus, a stance critics said gave every nation a veto.

    The decision, announced in a statement released by the U.S. State Department, overturns the position of former President George W. Bush's administration, which had opposed such a treaty on the grounds that national controls were better.

    On Wednesday Obama Took the First Major Step in a Plan to Ban All Firearms in the United States . The Obama administration intends to force gun control and a complete ban on all weapons for US citizens through the signing of international treaties with foreign nations. By signing international treaties on gun control, the Obama administration can use the US State Department to bypass the normal legislative process in Congress. Once the US Government signs these international treaties, all US citizens will be subject to those gun laws created by foreign governments. These are laws that have been developed and promoted by organizations such as the United Nations and individuals such as George Soros and Michael Bloomberg. The laws are designed and intended to lead to the complete ban and confiscation of all firearms.

    The Obama administration is attempting to use tactics and methods of gun control that will inflict major damage to our 2nd Amendment before US citizens even understand what has happened. Obama can appear before the public and tell them that he does not intend to pursue any legislation (in the United States) that will lead to new gun control laws, while cloaked in secrecy, his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton is committing the US to international treaties and foreign gun control laws. Does that mean Obama is telling the truth? What it means is that there will be no publicized gun control debates in the media or votes in Congress. We will wake up one morning and find that the United States has signed a treaty that prohibits firearm and ammunition manufacturers from selling to the public. We will wake up another morning and find that the US has signed a treaty that prohibits any transfer of firearm ownership. And then, we will wake up yet another morning and find that the US has signed a treaty that requires US citizens to deliver any firearm they own to the local government collection and destruction center or face imprisonment.

    This is not a joke nor a false warning. As sure as government health care will be forced on us by the Obama administration through whatever means necessary, so will gun control.

    Please forward this message to others who may be concerned about the direction in which our country is headed.

    We are being led like a lamb to the slaughter (Socialism/Dictator ship). Maybe like the Jews in 1939 thru WW2.


    TIME FOR A CIVIL WAR?????
     
  2. tionico

    tionico Thurston County Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,219
    Likes Received:
    128
    No treaty can bind the United States until and unless ratified by a vote in the Senate.... and I think it requires a two-thirds majority to bind us as a nation to any international treaty. So, it can't happen without some debate, and time for response by We the People.

    On the other hand, I've smelled this one coming since about July of 2008...... I've been aware of this stinking treaty lurking, and GW Bush's opposition to it, for a long time. When it was looking like the kenyan would actually be elected, and having heard some of his spoken stance on gun owner and second ammendment rights, and seen his abominable voting record, I am almost surprised it has taken him this long to come round to it. His enthronement of the Hill made it a done deal, in my view.... that woman hates ALL guns in the hands of private citizens.
    Inn both cases, their oaths of office are not worth the manure it would take to bury those oaths. Neither are guarding United States sovereignty..... OR our rights under the Second Ammendment, or the Fourth either.

    as if his healthcare assault isn't enough to start some sort of uprising.......
     
  3. receo

    receo Sandy, Oregon Active Member

    Messages:
    202
    Likes Received:
    116
    Hmmm, sounds like a good book. No but seriously you may want to switch to a decaffinated coffee. :huh:
     
  4. tionico

    tionico Thurston County Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,219
    Likes Received:
    128
    or green tea.........
     
  5. Ben Beckerich

    Ben Beckerich NW Oregon Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    3,918
    Likes Received:
    2,344
    i sure wish people would quit copy/pasting that email. it's a total load of inflammatory crap.

    here's what the article ACTUALLY says, for those interested in the facts available:

    NOTHING supersedes the US Constitution. if any international treaty violates American civil liberties, it will go to SCOTUS, who WILL, if they're doing their job, not even hesitate to shut it down.

    pretty much the only way any kind of international law can effect American citizens is if the USA officially forfeits her sovereignty and surrenders to another governing body. i think some people would object to that first.
     
  6. Redcap

    Redcap Lewis County, WA Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,990
    Likes Received:
    2,731
    Best o' luck on that one, Dimocrats.
     
  7. tionico

    tionico Thurston County Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,219
    Likes Received:
    128
    NOTHING supersedes the US Constitution. if any international treaty violates American civil liberties, it will go to SCOTUS, who WILL, if they're doing their job, not even hesitate to shut it down.

    pretty much the only way any kind of international law can effect American citizens is if the USA officially forfeits her sovereignty and surrenders to another governing body. i think some people would object to that first.



    not quite true... it is my understanding that the US Supreme Court has held in the past that a treaty, ratified by the US Senate, becomes the law of THIS land, and is indeed binding. In short, for the Senate to ratify such a treaty IS to surrender our sovereignty on the issues addressed by the treaty.

    And the version of that treaty on small arms I've read, the UN, or other member nations, WILL have the authority to dictate to us what guns we may own, how and where they will be kept, and so on... all kinds of ugly. Now, IF the final versionn of such a treaty deals ONLY with importing and exporting, and has nothng to do with arms in the hands of private citizens, not so bad. Though it may well limit what weapons come into this country for our use and enjoyment.
     
  8. NK777

    NK777 West of Portland Member

    Messages:
    781
    Likes Received:
    0
  9. Ben Beckerich

    Ben Beckerich NW Oregon Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    3,918
    Likes Received:
    2,344
    negative. the supreme court's ONLY job is to protect the Constitution. they cannot, by default, condone any legislation that violates the Constitution. any treaty they've held that applies to American law would have to be one that did not violate any part of the Constitution. they would send it back to congress with instructions that if they really wanted the treaty as written, they'd first need to amend the Constitution to allow it- just like ANY piece of legislation they throw out.

    it can be argued that we currently have tens of thousands of unconstitutional active laws, federal, state, and local. and it can be argued that many of these have already been upheld by a corrupt and/or confused SCOTUS. it can also be argued that laws can be written in such a manipulative way that they allow for small, less noticeable Constitutional violations.... see: all tax laws.

    but human malice and human error don't change the legal process- and according to our legal process, NOTHING supersedes the US Constitution.
     
  10. Just Jim

    Just Jim Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    6,828
    Likes Received:
    6,267
    I seem to recall the government trying to collect arms in a small town in Texas, Waco. I don't think that worked out well for them.

    jj
     
  11. bugeye

    bugeye Oregon Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,098
    Likes Received:
    12
    Yeah, and the Davidians weren't doing anything wrong at all, just letting their 'messiah' have open sex with children. Sheesh!
     
  12. Ben Beckerich

    Ben Beckerich NW Oregon Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    3,918
    Likes Received:
    2,344
    dont be jealous.
     
  13. Just Jim

    Just Jim Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    6,828
    Likes Received:
    6,267
    Now you know what makes his eyes bug out:bluelaugh::bluelaugh::bluelaugh:


    This is a gunsite, nothing else. They don't send in the BATFE over childeren abuse. Guess he can't figure that out.

    jj
     
  14. phathom

    phathom Vancouver, WA Member

    Messages:
    650
    Likes Received:
    20
    A couple things here.
    1: Didn't Obama just sign the bill that allows guns to be carried in national parks now, thus loosening gun control laws for citizens (obviously law enforcement could before anyway)
    2: If they try taking my guns and rights away, I'd rather die for my rights and go out shooting than have my rights stripped away by someone physically trying to take my guns and my rights away in one fell swoop.
     
  15. Ranb

    Ranb Belfair, WA Active Member

    Messages:
    898
    Likes Received:
    136
    Your link does not work as you posted it. This one does. http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE59E0Q920091015 It says in part;

    This article is about arms exporting, not domestic sales. While the finances of arms companies can be affected by limiting their international sales which can in turn affect domestic sales, there is nothing in the article about banning guns in the USA. Or did I miss something?

    So where is the text in your link that supports the accusation you made above? If you want to convince me that your link actually contains anything to support your accusation, then a quote would help. Thanks.

    Ranb
     
  16. nixuser

    nixuser nw Member

    Messages:
    174
    Likes Received:
    0
    we sill need to make demands on our rep,s to let them know we will not stand for these kind of irrisponsible actions !!
     
  17. mudnducs

    mudnducs Oregon City Member

    Messages:
    89
    Likes Received:
    0
    From the Heritage Foundation:

    The U.S. will also be pressured to adopt a treaty that will conflict with rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. In 2008, the Group of Governmental Experts correctly stated that an arms trade treaty would need to respect member states' constitutional provisions, such as the Second Amendment. But the October 2008 U.N. resolution ignored this stipulation and instead stated that signatories of the treaty would have to have the "highest possible standards" to keep weapons away from all "criminal activity." The "highest possible standards" requirement and the Second Amendment are incompatible, because there is ultimately no guarantee that any privately held gun in the U.S. will never be used in criminal activity.[6]


    http://www.heritage.org/Research/Re...s-the-Wrong-Call-on-the-UNs-Arms-Trade-Treaty
     
  18. fingolfen

    fingolfen Oregon Member

    Messages:
    749
    Likes Received:
    3

    ...but... but... it's for the CHILDREN!!!!

    Think of the CHILDREN!!!

    The UN is pretty much becoming incompatible with the U.S. Constitution...
     
  19. Blitzkrieg

    Blitzkrieg WA Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    9,674
    Likes Received:
    4,849
    Correct.. and if this thing gets through and we do not rise up, we are finished. The end game of these commies is nothing less than genocide.. which is why they must disarm us, first
     
  20. Blitzkrieg

    Blitzkrieg WA Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    9,674
    Likes Received:
    4,849
    The feds sure did a great job of saving those children :thumbup: