Gun Control Treaty

[Joseph87']

Perhaps you folks should read the actual Constitution. The wording is , to pass a treaty requires 2/3 of the Senators PRESENT. Not 2/3 of the senators. That is how we got income taxes and the Feral, uh Federal Reserve. I have no problem believing that Mary Reed would invite some of the compliant anti gunners to a "special session" to get the vote that he wants. Heads up folks, Treason is afoot.

Jesse in Rockville

Damn legalities and loopholes

 

[Jim Sr]

Perhaps you folks should read the actual Constitution. The wording is , to pass a treaty requires 2/3 of the Senators PRESENT. Not 2/3 of the senators. That is how we got income taxes and the Feral, uh Federal Reserve. I have no problem believing that Mary Reed would invite some of the compliant anti gunners to a "special session" to get the vote that he wants. Heads up folks, Treason is afoot.

Jesse in Rockville

​

 

[BradMacc82]

Proposed arms treaties always make me think of this -

"I'm from the government, and I'm here to help."


Let's keep our eyes and ears open for the foreseeable future.

 

[bkuether]

If you believe that this is simply "not a big deal", you are a fool. Everything the occupier does is by design. Someone needs to take out that whorepanion of an adviser. NOT EVEN BORN in the US. They have a communist plan for this country. And it is unfolding before you. It is getting implemented one step at a time. The gun grab has to be the final piece. No one has ever taken over a government, without taking away the guns first. The question really is, when it comes time, who will be brave enough to fire the first shot. What if its the US Armed Forces? Are you going to fire on your own countrymen? Oh and you think the gay military thing doesn't have its place? They will f with their brains so much, telling them "patriots want to take away your right to be gay soldier" they WILL fire on us. Like everything else it will be carefully planned. It will play at everyone's true beliefs but will be somehow twisted. Maybe they will threaten families. Maybe they will threaten incarceration until you reveal your stash. Like someone else said, maybe they will take your money. I don't know. Keep a careful watch. We live in dangerous times.

 

[DarthZed]

If you believe that this is simply "not a big deal", you are a fool. Everything the occupier does is by design. Someone needs to take out that whorepanion of an adviser. NOT EVEN BORN in the US. They have a communist plan for this country. And it is unfolding before you. It is getting implemented one step at a time. The gun grab has to be the final piece. No one has ever taken over a government, without taking away the guns first. The question really is, when it comes time, who will be brave enough to fire the first shot. What if its the US Armed Forces? Are you going to fire on your own countrymen? Oh and you think the gay military thing doesn't have its place? They will f with their brains so much, telling them "patriots want to take away your right to be gay soldier" they WILL fire on us. Like everything else it will be carefully planned. It will play at everyone's true beliefs but will be somehow twisted. Maybe they will threaten families. Maybe they will threaten incarceration until you reveal your stash. Like someone else said, maybe they will take your money. I don't know. Keep a careful watch. We live in dangerous times.

 

[DarthZed]

Perhaps you folks should read the actual Constitution. The wording is , to pass a treaty requires 2/3 of the Senators PRESENT. Not 2/3 of the senators. That is how we got income taxes and the Feral, uh Federal Reserve. I have no problem believing that Mary Reed would invite some of the compliant anti gunners to a "special session" to get the vote that he wants. Heads up folks, Treason is afoot.

Jesse in Rockville

Incorrect. Income taxes result from the 16th amendment to the constitution. Which was ratified by (IIRC) 40+ states, far more than what was needed.

The Federal Reserve Act passed both houses of Congress easily. Some Senators had left town prior to the vote, but by all accounts there was no "conspiracy", and their absence had no effect on the vote.

Jeeze people. A rudimentary Google search restricted to "VETTED and RESPECTED sources" {i.e. not someones blog or webpage} will debunk a lot of these silly theories.

 

[AliasNeo07]

Jeeze people. A rudimentary Google search restricted to "VETTED and RESPECTED sources" {i.e. not someones blog or webpage} will debunk a lot of these silly theories.

But that's not as fun for them.

 

[Rattlesnake46319]

If you believe that this is simply "not a big deal", you are a fool. Everything the occupier does is by design. Someone needs to take out that whorepanion of an adviser. NOT EVEN BORN in the US. They have a communist plan for this country. And it is unfolding before you. It is getting implemented one step at a time. The gun grab has to be the final piece. No one has ever taken over a government, without taking away the guns first. The question really is, when it comes time, who will be brave enough to fire the first shot. What if its the US Armed Forces? Are you going to fire on your own countrymen? Oh and you think the gay military thing doesn't have its place? They will f with their brains so much, telling them "patriots want to take away your right to be gay soldier" they WILL fire on us. Like everything else it will be carefully planned. It will play at everyone's true beliefs but will be somehow twisted. Maybe they will threaten families. Maybe they will threaten incarceration until you reveal your stash. Like someone else said, maybe they will take your money. I don't know. Keep a careful watch. We live in dangerous times.

Have you considered sending your resume to Alex Jones? Talent of this magnitude is too amazing to be confined to our fair forum.

 

[smokey]

Have you considered sending your resume to Alex Jones? Talent of this magnitude is too amazing to be confined to our fair forum.

Dangit 'snake! I was able to largely ignore this thread until I saw you posted in it. I was compelled to see what funny smack was laid.

 

[Rattlesnake46319]

Dangit 'snake! I was able to largely ignore this thread until I saw you posted in it. I was compelled to see what funny smack was laid.

Sorry brother. I'm compelled to seek out lunacy and pass judgment. It's a character flaw.

 

[bpSchoch]

Apparently we signed a treaty back some time, that when the executive branch signs a treaty, it is considered accepted until the senate votes on it or a president accepts it. The way it is, once it signed, it's passed. The dems in the senate will just choose not to vote on it. (I may not have the exact details but this is what Judge Napolitano not to long ago.

What's needed is a new constitutional amendment stating something like the follow:

All of the rights of the people as protected by the constitution and the bill of rights, including the 9th and 10th which state that rights of the people include more than what is specified in the first 8, can not be infringed whether by a legislative body, executive branch or treaty.

 

[pcfixer]

Apparently we signed a treaty back some time, that when the executive branch signs a treaty, it is considered accepted until the senate votes on it or a president accepts it. The way it is, once it signed, it's passed. The dems in the senate will just choose not to vote on it. (I may not have the exact details but this is what Judge Napolitano not to long ago.

What's needed is a new constitutional amendment stating something like the follow:

All of the rights of the people as protected by the constitution and the bill of rights, including the 9th and 10th which state that rights of the people include more than what is specified in the first 8, can not be infringed whether by a legislative body, executive branch or treaty.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bricker_Amendment

The Supreme Court in 1957 declared that the United States could not abrogate the rights guaranteed to citizens in the Bill of Rights through international agreements. Reid v. Covert and Kinsella v. Krueger concerned the prosecution of two servicemen's wives who killed their husbands abroad and were, under the status of forces[107] agreements in place, tried and convicted in American courts-martial.[108] The Court found the Congress had no constitutional authority to subject servicemen's dependents to the Uniform Code of Military Justice and overturned the convictions. Justice Hugo Black's opinion for the Court declared:

There is nothing in [the Constitution] which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to [it] do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution. Nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification of the Constitution which even suggests such a result. These debates as well as the history that surrounds the adoption of the treaty provision in Article VI make it clear that the reason treaties were not limited to those made in "pursuance" of the Constitution was so that agreements made by the United States under the Articles of Confederation, including the important peace treaties which concluded the Revolutionary War, would remain in effect. It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights—let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition—to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power under an international agreement without observing constitutional prohibitions. In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and the Senate combined.[109]
​

 

[swinokur]

From SAF:

​

UN Arms Trade Treaty Meeting Just 24 Hours After
Re-Election:
​

​

I write to you today with the upmost concern. We were hoping to be preparing for Governor Romney's agenda after the election, instead we must prepare for the worst. You have seen how much damage President Obama has generated in four years; now that he does not have to worry about re-election we will finally see his true agenda. This is not a prediction; he has said it when he did not know the cameras were rolling:
President Obama: "This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility."
Russian Prime Minister Medvedev: "I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir."
Barack Obama told his supporters that voting is the 'best revenge.' I guess now we know what he was talking about. The revenge he seeks is against American gun owners and their Second Amendment rights.

SELECT HERE TO TAKE OUR UN ARMS TRADE TREATY POLL & DEFEND YOUR SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS!​

During the second Presidential debate, President Obama said, "seeing if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced" when asked what he would do about gun control if re-elected. Well he has been re-elected and cannot let our Second Amendment rights be put in jeopardy. The American people have feared his re-election but have been preparing for it. In eight of the critical swing states already 2.1 million potential voters have bought guns in 2012. The public understands the shaky ground we walk on with our President but we must stand up to their Administration.
The previous Assault Weapons Ban was passed during a democratic controlled Congress in 1994 and expired in 2004. Experts say it did little to reduce violence. From 2008-2010 gun-related murder and manslaughter dropped 11%, this of course was with no Assault Weapons Ban in place.

SELECT HERE TO TAKE OUR UN ARMS TRADE TREATY POLL & DEFEND YOUR SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS!​

Along with the Assault Weapons Ban we also have to worry about another UN Arms Trade Treaty. With extensive pressure on Congress the last Arms Trade Treaty was knocked down several months ago. Only 24 hours after being re-elected the Obama Administration met with more than 150 worldwide Governments at the UN to support renewed debate on the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty. It is obvious what is first on the President's agenda when he does not have to worry about re-election. Going after our Second Amendment Rights!
The UN Arms Trade Treaty threatens us with diminished use of our firearms and ammunition, infringing on our Right to Keep and Bear Arms as AMERICANS.

SELECT HERE TO TAKE OUR UN ARMS TRADE TREATY POLL & DEFEND YOUR SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS!​

The next four years are not going to be easy. America bought into the lies, liberal media bias, and the Obama campaign's smoke and mirrors act. OUR SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS ARE IN JEOPARDY NOW MORE THAN EVER BEFORE IN AMERICAN HISTORY. President Obama has made it clear he is seeking more gun control. If he passed everything he wanted the only people left with firearms would be criminals. Gun control only affects law abiding citizens not criminals. There will always be a way for them to get weapons. Heck, in Mexico our Government gave the CRIMINALS weapons during Fast and Furious. We will not surrender to the Obama agenda, you can make a difference.

SELECT HERE TO TAKE OUR UN ARMS TRADE TREATY POLL & DEFEND YOUR SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS!​

Together, we can preserve the Constitutional rights our Founding Fathers intended our people to have forever.
For more information about SAF go to www.SAF.org
Thank you. I know I can count on you


Sincerely yours,

Alan M. Gottlieb
Founder
Second Amendment Foundation
P.S. Remember, the anti-gunners are raising tens of thousands of dollars to steal this victory from us -- we need your support now to help stop them dead in their tracks!

To send a check, please mail to:

Second Amendment Foundation (SAF)
James Madison Building
Dept Code 6933-n-saf
12500 NE 10th Place
Bellevue, WA 98005
​

The Second Amendment Foundation (www.SAF.org) is the nation's oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.

Paid for by Second Amendment Foundation, a 501(c)3 non-profit organization. Contributions are tax deductible. Copyright © 2012 Second Amendment Foundation, All Rights Reserved.​

http://smna.conservativecontacts.co...Jm12aWQ9MCZ0Z2lkPSZleHRyYT0=&&&2200&eu=200&&&​

http://smna.conservativecontacts.co...secure.freedomdonations.com/saf/_unsubscribe/​

​

 

[bbguns]

I can't figure out why so many here try to defend BHOs actions with respect to 2A, AWB, and the proposed UN treaty. There have been many posts illustrating the legal path necessary to get something like this passed, and the theorectical difficulty faced by the current administration. Lots have pointed out the beating the D's took in 1994 after the AWB passed.

So what if it's possibly politically risky (was then, may still be now, may not be in a few years...who can say?) to pass another AWB?
So what if the Senate has to ratify a treaty (unlikely today, but who can say what the Senate will look like in the future? What happens if Reid simply ignores it and it doesn't come up for a vote this session...does it get introduced later?)?
So what if the current wording of the UN proposal seems innocent enough? So what if Feinstein's proposed banning of all semi-auto weapons falls flat this session?

You are missing the point...the stated positions of the Democratic Party and the current President are stricter gun control laws, a permanent AWB, and participation in a UN initiative. They will work toward these goals now and in the future. All it takes is a shuffle in the Supreme Court, a few more Senators, loss of the House, or, as Rahm said, a 'good crisis' and the 2A will become a pleasant memory. The fact that there are Democrat/progessive (or whatever you want to call yourselves) gun owners or pro-2A people is irrelevant...you are not in control, the anti-2A crowd is. And if they push through their agenda and lose a bunch of seats, so what? Same thing happened with O-care...lots of D's got tossed but we still have the mandate...damage done. I don't know if any of this will get implemented but I am absolutely certain attempts will be made, now or later. Iget it that some 2A supporters voted for BHO for various reasons but do you really think he's pro-2A?


- A system of licensing and registration is the perfect device to deny gun ownership to the bourgeoisie.-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

- All we ask for is registration, just like we do for cars.--Charles Schumer

- I stand in support of this common sense legislation to license everyone who wishes to purchase a gun...I also believe that every new handgun sale or transfer should be registered in a national registry --Hillary Clinton

- If the opposition disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves.--Stalin

- After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn't do it. I sure as hell wouldn't want to live in a society where the only people allowed guns are the police and the military.-- William Burroughs

- US Senator, If I could have banned them all -'Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns'- I would have!-Diane Feinstein

- I believe in keeping guns out of our inner cities, and that our leaders must say so in the face of the gun manufacturer's lobby.--Barrack Obama

- All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party.--Mao Tse Tung

- The first step is to take weapons off the streets and to put more police on them.--Hillary Clinton

Biden's record:
Keep assault weapons ban; close gun show loophole. (Apr 2007)
Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. (Jul 2005)
Voted NO on banning lawsuits against gun manufacturers for gun violence. (Mar 2004)
Voted YES on background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
Voted NO on more penalties for gun & drug violations. (May 1999)
Voted NO on loosening license & background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
Voted NO on maintaining current law: guns sold without trigger locks. (Jul 1998)
Rated F by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun control voting record. (Dec 2003)


BHO:
I believe in 2nd Amendment, but not war weapons on streets. (Oct 2012)
Fast-and-Furious: no prosecutions for Mexican gun/drug snafu. (Jun 2012)
Midwestern "bitter clingers" frustrated over broken promises. (Aug 2009)
Opposed bill okaying illegal gun use in home invasions. (Aug 2008)
Ok for states & cities to determine local gun laws. (Apr 2008)
FactCheck: Yes, Obama endorsed Illinois handgun ban. (Apr 2008)
Respect 2nd Amendment, but local gun bans ok. (Feb 2008)
Provide some common-sense enforcement on gun licensing. (Jan 2008)
2000: cosponsored bill to limit purchases to 1 gun per month. (Oct 2007)
Keep guns out of inner cities--but also problem of morality. (Oct 2006)
Bush erred in failing to renew assault weapons ban. (Oct 2004)
Ban semi-automatics, and more possession restrictions. (Jul 1998)
Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. (Jul 2005)

So my question is this: Why would anyone assume our 2A rights are secure as we currently enjoy them with what we know about their agenda?

 

[Streetgang]

Great post bbguns...and the crickets are loud here.

 

[pcfixer]

Time to stand UP. Don't abide by any illegal or unconstitutions orders.

http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2009/03/03/declaration-of-orders-we-will-not-obey/

 

[pcfixer]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9G-cQIMmVo4


judge andrew napolitano states rights the 10th & nullification

 

[ericahls]

If you believe that this is simply "not a big deal", you are a fool. Everything the occupier does is by design. Someone needs to take out that whorepanion of an adviser. NOT EVEN BORN in the US. They have a communist plan for this country. And it is unfolding before you. It is getting implemented one step at a time. The gun grab has to be the final piece. No one has ever taken over a government, without taking away the guns first. The question really is, when it comes time, who will be brave enough to fire the first shot. What if its the US Armed Forces? Are you going to fire on your own countrymen? Oh and you think the gay military thing doesn't have its place? They will f with their brains so much, telling them "patriots want to take away your right to be gay soldier" they WILL fire on us. Like everything else it will be carefully planned. It will play at everyone's true beliefs but will be somehow twisted. Maybe they will threaten families. Maybe they will threaten incarceration until you reveal your stash. Like someone else said, maybe they will take your money. I don't know. Keep a careful watch. We live in dangerous times.

For arguments sake lets say everything you said comes true.

What do you plan to do about it??????

 

[oldman12]

For arguments sake lets say everything you said comes true.

What do you plan to do about it??????

Does it really matter what anyone does. Die if you do, die if you don't. Either in a camp or on a battlefield.Of course this is if that happens.

 

[pcfixer]

Comes down to: "Will you live on your knees or die on your feet"