Gun Hub Forums banner

1 - 15 of 15 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,360 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
> Obama Finds Legal Way Around The 2nd Amendment And Uses It.
>
> If This Passes, There Will Be WAR
>
> Just got this... pass it far & wide.
>
> 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. View The Full Article
> Herehttp://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE59E0Q920091015
> <http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE59E0Q920091015> 14 Nov.
> 2009
> <http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE59E0Q920091015
> <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. This is a very serious matter!
>
> Silence will lead us to Socialism!!!
>
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
13,173 Posts
Don't treaties have to be ratified by the US Senate before becoming law? I don't see that happening.

If Maobama signs this thing or has it signed and then tries to declare it "the law of the land," then he will truly have "crossed the Rubicon." :mad:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,499 Posts
ExSarge said:
.....If This Passes, There Will Be WAR.....
I need to buy more ammo. AGAIN.

Yeah. I may actually be needing it....................:evil:
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,882 Posts
to ALL:

BHO is a ARROGANT LYING SCUM who deserves nothing quite so much as "being returned to private life" at the earliest possible date
AND
every single one of his programs/executive orders repealed.

this also goes for every member of the city/county/parish/state/federal government that has, at any time/for any reason, supported him and his FOOLISH/EXTREMIST/SOCIALIST policies.

for just one "regular citizen" & member of THE TEA PARTY, i'm working daily to DEFEAT every stinking one of the LEFTISTS/DIMocRATS in 2012.

INVITATION: come visit a meeting & then JOIN your local TEA PARTY in your county/parish & help us DEFEAT THE LEFTISTS, once & for all. - our NATION is AT RISK!

yours, sw
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
221 Posts
Say what you want about Harry Reid, he is pro 2A, and I don't think that he will be in a hurry to ratify the UN treaty. If Schumer ever replaced Reid, it will be game over.

What really concerns me is the possibility of Hussein winning an second term and stacking the courts with Marxists of the mold of his firs two appointments. If that happens, the 2A will eventually become a footnote of history.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
13,173 Posts
Say what you want about Harry Reid, he is pro 2A, and I don't think that he will be in a hurry to ratify the UN treaty. If Schumer ever replaced Reid, it will be game over.
It takes a 2/3 Senate vote to ratify a treaty, and neither Reid nor Shumcky Schumer could get anywhere near that number--not today, anyway.

What really concerns me is the possibility of Hussein winning an second term and stacking the courts with Marxists of the mold of his firs two appointments. If that happens, the 2A will eventually become a footnote of history.
In researching this, I ran across this disturbing note:

In the United States, the term "treaty" has a different, more restricted legal sense than exists in international law. U.S. law distinguishes what it calls treaties from executive agreements, congressional-executive agreements, and sole executive agreements. All four classes are equally treaties under international law; they are distinct only from the perspective of internal American law. The distinctions are primarily concerning their method of ratification. Whereas treaties require advice and consent by two-thirds of the Senate, sole executive agreements may be executed by the President acting alone. Some treaties grant the President the authority to fill in the gaps with executive agreements, rather than additional treaties or protocols. And finally, congressional-executive agreements require majority approval by both the House and the Senate, either before or after the treaty is signed by the President.

Currently, international agreements are executed by executive agreement rather than treaties at a rate of 10:1. Despite the relative ease of executive agreements, the President still often chooses to pursue the formal treaty process over an executive agreement in order to gain congressional support on matters that require the Congress to pass implementing legislation or appropriate funds, and those agreements that impose long-term, complex legal obligations on the U.S.
So could Maobama do it by "executive agreement"? I don't think even bumbling, stumbling, don't-know-when-my-birthday-is marxist idiot Maobama is stupid enough to pull such a move before election day 2012. But, as you say, if he steals re-election, watch out. I'm also worried about what Lame Shmuck Maobama might do between Election Day 2012 and Jan 20, 2013. He'll have almost three months there to throw whatever hateful, destructive monkey wrenches into the country he can dream up.

Of course, any such move will be seen as a Declaration of War by the United States Government against the People of the United States, and will be reacted to appropriately.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,104 Posts
Don't treaties have to be ratified by the US Senate before becoming law? I don't see that happening.
Not only do treaties have to be ratified but there are SCOTUS rulings that
  • A treaty alone, unless "self-enforcing" - whatever that means - has no meaning domestically unless statutes are passed to enforce it;
  • A treaty may not supersede the Constitution.
This does not mean that we should ignore the threat but I have noticed that those who shout the loudest warnings about the treaty generally accompany them with a request for funds which may, possibly, be better donated to deal with more immediate issues.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,804 Posts
He can try, it would guarantee a one and done Presidency, a Republican house and senate and very likely a repeal of everything he has tried to do. Not that his current efforts have not ensured that, but this would seal the deal.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,200 Posts
Well, it finally happened: President Obama formally proposed reinstituting the 1994 "Assault Weapon" ban in the Debates last night.

(Yes, I know, if I hit someone with a potato, it is technically a weapon that I have assaulted somebody with. Feh.)

Obama Calls for Reintroducing Assault-Weapons Ban

It could be an attempt to try recapturing some of his voting base, out of fear of GOP inroads with women voters for instance, but there it is all the same. I wonder if it will be made an issue in Senate and Congressional races as well. I recall most Dems giving this issue a wide berth for the last few years.

As for Mitt Romney, I had to smile when he gave the perfect response, asking how the Government running these weapons to Mexican drug lords made any sense, and saying that is a bigger issue to look at. He stated his opposition to any new gun bans.

However, for those wondering if a push to re-do the 1994 gun ban would pop up out there, it has.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,499 Posts
They're not "complete BS," they are only "BS" so long as we keep our eyes and ears open and our representatives in D.C. accountable. There are international concerns that are working to disarm citizens -- not just Americans, all citizens, everywhere. In most cases little actual work toward that end remains as the citizens have few if any arms amongst them. America remains one of the most heavily armed countries on earth (counting armed civilians, not armies, not weapons like atomic missiles, tanks, jet fighters, bombers and that military stuff) and thus we are often the focus of this agenda.
Yes, a lot of these "letters" and "alerts" are alarmist and greatly exaggerate the danger, as well as often mischaracterizing the abilities of the internationalists and ignoring the role of our own congress. However, I would far prefer to be deluged by this rather than have the whole matter ignored; Gawd knows what congress might actually approve if we were not holding their feet to the fire.
A few nuts in the banana-bread is a good thing.:thumbsup:
 
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
Top