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

Obama Finds Legal Way Around The 2nd Amendment and Uses It

Discussion in 'Legal & Political Archive' started by MKenn, Nov 7, 2009.

  1. MKenn

    MKenn Portland, OR New Member

    Messages:
    13
    Likes Received:
    0
    Have you read this??? I don't believe it's legal, but that has not stopped him so far.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE59E0Q920091015

    Obama Finds Legal Way Around The 2nd Amendment and Uses It

    Wed Oct 14, 2009 11:56pm EDT Reuters News Service

    The Full Article Here
    http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE59E0Q920091015

    Subject: Obama Takes First Step in Banning All Firearms
    On Wednesday Obama Took the First Major Step in a Plan to Ban All Firearms in the United States

    On Wednesday the Obama administration took its 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.

    Read the Article

    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.

    The Full Article
    http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE59E0Q920091015


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

    Silence will lead us to Socialism.
     
  2. powersbj

    powersbj Seattle Area Active Member

    Messages:
    479
    Likes Received:
    149
    Dude, take off the tin hat, this in an international treaty... Not to say it wouldnt screw the firearms industry up but still.....

    The proposed legally binding treaty would tighten regulation of, and set international standards for, the import, export and transfer of conventional weapons.
     
  3. Just Jim

    Just Jim Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    6,828
    Likes Received:
    6,267
    :D:D:D If this were true I would buy a backho and rent myself out to the graveyards. They sure would be busy. :laugh::laugh:

    jj
     
  4. MKenn

    MKenn Portland, OR New Member

    Messages:
    13
    Likes Received:
    0
    Story: Los Angeles made a pitch a few years back to buy all the 'extra' fresh water in the Columbia River before dumping into the Pacific and pipe it to California. Great $$$$ for Oregon and Washington states. Right? So talk to the first user of this same water system, the ranchers and farmers in eastern WA and OR....this proposal would regulate THEIR water use, quantity and duration. It would mandate NO open irrigation ditches, restrict recreational uses and make null and void water rights that had been associated with one's piece of property for generations. If you think this 'international' treaty stops at our borders and will not effect you DUDE, then YOU are part of the problem.
     
  5. Just Jim

    Just Jim Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    6,828
    Likes Received:
    6,267
    be nice now :laugh::laugh::laugh:

    jj
     
  6. raindog

    raindog Portland, OR Active Member

    Messages:
    574
    Likes Received:
    145

    ...which means no more cool old milsurps being discovered in foreign warehouses and finding their way to the US market ;-(
     
  7. powersbj

    powersbj Seattle Area Active Member

    Messages:
    479
    Likes Received:
    149
    What does a proposal from Cali have to do with the price of tea in china? This INTERNATIONAL TREATY does end at our borders, but COULD effect the importation of all kinds of fun things that go bang (as I said in my OP "Not to say it wouldnt screw the firearms industry up") But this is not going to effect what you currently have in your closet.

    Please refer to http://www.northwestfirearms.com/forum/showthread.php?t=17148

    :)
     
  8. Just Jim

    Just Jim Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    6,828
    Likes Received:
    6,267
    :D:D Odd, now the liberals want to regulate what goes into the closet. :bluelaugh::bluelaugh:

    jj
     
  9. raindog

    raindog Portland, OR Active Member

    Messages:
    574
    Likes Received:
    145
    I agree with powersbj, but would point out that there could easily be unintended (or intended but subtle) consequences.

    For example, as I pointed out, a crimp on the milsurp market. Or the milsurp parts market. Or surplus ammo. Or non-surplus ammo - after all, Wolf is made in Russia ;-)
     
  10. Just Jim

    Just Jim Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    6,828
    Likes Received:
    6,267
    Well since this is just opinion, nothing good is going to come from this administration. Your freedoms are being voted on this weekend.

    jj
     
  11. powersbj

    powersbj Seattle Area Active Member

    Messages:
    479
    Likes Received:
    149

    Thats funny! :D
     
  12. remdog

    remdog Tacoma, washington Member

    Messages:
    70
    Likes Received:
    0
    WHY DO THEY WANT OUR WEAPON'S SO BAD? MORE CONTROL,LESS RIGHTS FOR US AND OUR CHILDERN. YEA THEY CAN'T TAKE WHAT'S IN YOUR CLOSET NOW.THEY DO IT IN OTHER WAYS. THINK ABOUT THIS YOU HAVE A FIGHT WITH YOUR WIFE, POLICE ARE CALLED. NOW HOW MANY OF YOU HAVE USED THE F-BOMB IN A DISAGREEMENT. I WOULD BET ALL OF YOU. YOUR SAFE WEAPON'S IN THE CLOSET NOW BECOME CONFISCATED AND HELD UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE. GET THIS IN YOUR HEADS. WHEN THEY SIGN THESE LAWS THEY SIGN THEM TO INFORCE. THEY DON'T WANT PEOPLE TO BE ABLE TO DEFEND THEMSELVES. THEY WANT US TO DEPEND ON THEM. WHY SO MANY FELON'S,ARE PEOPLE GETTING WORSE OR ARE THE LAWS ON THE BOOKS JUST UN HUMAN. JUST ONE MORE WAY TO CONTROL. I AGREE WITH BOTH Powersbj AND Mkenn , YOU BOTH HAVE GREAT POINT'S. THANK'S FOR THE DISCUSSION. :thumbup:
     
  13. finch6013

    finch6013 Oregon City Active Member

    Messages:
    1,155
    Likes Received:
    6
    why is this guy still president? I figured he would have been romoved before things get too bad.
     
  14. JC9995

    JC9995 Greater "Clackamas" Active Member

    Messages:
    368
    Likes Received:
    78
    Its political suicide right now to regulate what comes out of one.... SOOOOO.:thumbup:
     
  15. RevJimII

    RevJimII Lane County, Or New Member

    Messages:
    24
    Likes Received:
    0
    Power corrupts. It is the one blanket statement I believe in. When a person or government attains certain amounts of power it becomes annoyed at any roadblock that gets in the way of its agenda to 'protect' its populace. Most of the time that roadblock IS the populace. Freedom of Speech and RKBA are the two prime targets of any in power who wish to increase their position.

    George Mason, the father of the Bill of Rights, quoted, "To disarm the people…was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." I suggest you read the book "Death by ‘Gun Control’: The Human Cost of Victim Disarmament" by Aaron Zelman.

    Read some history, Gleichschaltung ("coordination") meant that the government could legislate contrary to the constitution. This allowed the rise of the Third Reich.

    1695 - Disarming Act One of the Irish Penal Laws, passed in 1695, under which all Fapists were ordered to surrender their arms, under penalty of a heavy fine for the first offence, and of imprisonment for life for the second.

    1716 - An Act of Parliament for disarming the Highlanders was passed in 1716, but in some cases to very little purpose, for some of the most disaffected clans were better armed than ever, though by the Act the collectors of taxes were allowed to pay for the arms given in ...An Act of Parliament for disarming the Highlanders was passed in 1716, but in some cases to very little purpose, for some of the most disaffected clans were better armed than ever, though by the Act the collectors of taxes were allowed to pay for the arms given in, none were delivered except those which were broken, old, and unfit for use, and these were valued at prices far above what they were really worth.

    Rev Jim II
     
  16. Cliph

    Cliph Eugene Member

    Messages:
    71
    Likes Received:
    3
    Barack Hussein Obama is NOT king. He can not ratify any treaty without approval of 2/3s of the US Senate as per the "ratification clause" of the US Constitution. So everyone calm done and find some real threat to get all exorcised about. If you doubt my veracity, Google "ratification clause".
     
  17. PosterGuy

    PosterGuy Hillsboro Member

    Messages:
    282
    Likes Received:
    15
    Geez....I guess this board is good for about one or two coherent posts before a thread devolves into mindless blabber.
     
  18. 56kninja

    56kninja Portland Member

    Messages:
    458
    Likes Received:
    1
    Don't know if you noticed Remdog, but they pretty effectively robbed us of our freedoms while we are still armed to the teeth. When Bush did it, Neo-Cons Cheered.
     
  19. 56kninja

    56kninja Portland Member

    Messages:
    458
    Likes Received:
    1
    Should also add that, although the Obama Admin. is not opposed to the treaty, they do want there to be an agreement between all involved parties.

    If that happens, this treaty will no longer exist, as I very highly doubt that Norinco would like to see this treaty come to pass.
     
  20. ob1

    ob1 49th parallel Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    603
    Likes Received:
    543
    Odd, since so many of them are coming out of it now !