View Full Version : Maybe old news but new to me, thought ide share
Obama finds way Around The 2nd. Amendment and Uses It.
If This Passes, There Will Be WAR!
The Full Article Herehttp://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE59E0Q920091015 (wlmailhtml:{170280E1-B0C5-4648-B930-E812AD51B22D}mid://00000002/!x-usc: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 Articlehttp://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE59E0Q920091015 (wlmailhtml:{170280E1-B0C5-4648-B930-E812AD51B22D}mid://00000002/!x-usc:http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE59E0Q920091015)
Sounds like BS. Hope it is only a fake email floating around with no truth to it.
iamhunter
12-02-2009, 14:01
Foreign treaties hold no obligation to us as state citizens, and are not enforceable.
The only way something like that would be enforceable is deception.
If you get enough people to believe its "valid" then you can tell your law enforcement to treat it as law.
But whatever agreement the federal government makes with other foreign goverments is in no way binding or enforceable upon us.
But just because it isn't legal, doesn't mean they won't try.
whitewalrus
12-02-2009, 14:04
No, I would believe it. Its a real article on Reuters. There is no telling what is going to happen with all these international treaties that have been floating around.
Link doesn't work so heres the address:
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE59E0Q920091015
iamhunter
12-02-2009, 14:41
No, I would believe it. Its a real article on Reuters. There is no telling what is going to happen with all these international treaties that have been floating around.
Why anyone would even begin to think some "international treaty" can violate a consitutionally preserved right is beyond me.
It's nothing but smoke and mirrors guys. The only reason they even TALK about stuff like this is because we've been brainwashed into thinking that it is somehow within their power to sign away the constitution.
News Flash: It's not.
SA Friday
12-02-2009, 14:44
Article VI of the Constitution
... This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State the Contrary notwithstanding.
2nd Ammendment, Ammendments to the Constitution of the United States: ...shall not be infringed.
Basically, he can't and this is not a way around the 2nd Ammendment. It's BS.
No biggie to me... they can have my guns out of my cold, dead hand. 'nuff said.
No biggie to me... they can have my guns out of my cold, dead hand. 'nuff said.
You chopped off your hand right before the boat accident? How unfortunate.
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE59E0Q920091015
actual link to article above
. (javascript:goToPage(2);)
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.
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the United States would support the talks as long as the negotiating forum, the so-called Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty, "operates under the rules of consensus decision-making."
"Consensus is needed to ensure the widest possible support for the Treaty and to avoid loopholes in the Treaty that can be exploited by those wishing to export arms irresponsibly," Clinton said in a written statement.
While praising the Obama administration's decision to overturn the Bush-era policy and to proceed with negotiations to regulate conventional arms sales, some groups criticized the U.S. insistence that decisions on the treaty be unanimous.
"The shift in position by the world's biggest arms exporter is a major breakthrough in launching formal negotiations at the United Nations in order to prevent irresponsible arms transfers," Amnesty International and Oxfam International said in a joint statement.
However, they said insisting that decisions on the treaty be made by consensus "could fatally weaken a final deal."
"Governments must resist US demands to give any single state the power to veto the treaty as this could hold the process hostage during the course of negotiations. We call on all governments to reject such a veto clause," said Oxfam International's policy adviser Debbie Hillier.
The proposed legally binding treaty would tighten regulation of, and set international standards for, the import, export and transfer of conventional weapons.
Supporters say it would give worldwide coverage to close gaps in existing regional and national arms export control systems that allow weapons to pass onto the illicit market.
Nations would remain in charge of their arms export control arrangements but would be legally obliged to assess each export against criteria agreed under the treaty. Governments would have to authorize transfers in writing and in advance.
The main opponent of the treaty in the past was the U.S. Bush administration, which said national controls were better. Last year, the United States accounted for more than two-thirds of some $55.2 billion in global arms transfer deals.
Arms exporters China, Russia and Israel abstained last year in a U.N. vote on the issue.
The proposed treaty is opposed by conservative U.S. think tanks like the Heritage Foundation, which said last month that it would not restrict the access of "dictators and terrorists" to arms but would be used to reduce the ability of democracies such as Israel to defend their people.
The U.S. lobbying group the National Rifle Association has also opposed the treaty. Continued.. (javascript:goToPage(2);)
You chopped off your hand right before the boat accident? How unfortunate.
I think I'm missing a joke here.... it's not funny when you have to explain it though! lol.
whitewalrus
12-02-2009, 15:56
Why anyone would even begin to think some "international treaty" can violate a consitutionally preserved right is beyond me.
It's nothing but smoke and mirrors guys. The only reason they even TALK about stuff like this is because we've been brainwashed into thinking that it is somehow within their power to sign away the constitution.
News Flash: It's not.
Look at how they have already gone against it. Look at how many sections they have "redefined" to suit their needs or completely ignored. It takes the people to keep them in check.
Believe me that they aren't taking mine, but I wouldn't put it beyond them to pass laws based on the treaty.
iamhunter
12-02-2009, 17:05
Look at how they have already gone against it. Look at how many sections they have "redefined" to suit their needs or completely ignored. It takes the people to keep them in check.
Believe me that they aren't taking mine, but I wouldn't put it beyond them to pass laws based on the treaty.
Yah well they're not getting mine either. So theres atleast two.
All it takes is people with a will.
I think I'm missing a joke here.... it's not funny when you have to explain it though! lol.
long running joke... don't matter if they ban guns, I lost mine down the bottom of a deep lake in an unfortunate boating accident
ryanek9freak
12-02-2009, 20:14
You try to take my guns, nevermind, I just realized I dont' have any. LOL
If you want "my" guns, You will take "my" ammo with them, in any way I decide to deliver it.
I dont doubt this one bit. our 2nd amendment is written to bleakly. Now there are loop holes for criminals, politics,government, everybody and everything can be bent unfortunatly.
Kinda makes you think a little though.
theGinsue
12-02-2009, 22:34
The only reason they even TALK about stuff like this is because we've been brainwashed into thinking that it is somehow within their power to sign away the constitution.
News Flash: It's not.
2nd Ammendment, Ammendments to the Constitution of the United States: ...shall not be infringed.
Basically, he can't and this is not a way around the 2nd Ammendment. It's BS.
I agree that this is nothing but hype and BS, BUT...
By what definition do we identify "infringed"? Has not the 2nd Amendment been limited, infringed and misinterpreted repeatedly - particularly over the last 50 years (more so in the last 17 years)? Haven't these rights been disregarded and brushed aside by politicians, the feds, some states/cities/District to some degree or another?
Lets not say that it can't be done as I feel that it already is occuring.
Those treaties are real and Obongo could sign them but in order for them to be "enforced" the Senate has to ratify them.
For example,Woodrow Wilson signed onto the League of Nations but the Senate refused to ratify it and the LON died.
Great-Kazoo
12-02-2009, 23:31
i don't care if they take my guns. i'll get one from my neighbor:)
i don't care if they take my guns. i'll get one from my neighbor:)
Maybe you can start "storing" them over here along with your ammo.[Tooth]
and when it does come you can say, "here officer. All I Have is this little SKS and .22. Please take them and leave me alone"
I have no problem arming my block
Article VI is what they wish to use to enforce this kind of treaty.
They need you to be uninformed about the Constitution so they can tell you it means one thing when it does not so you will follow along.
The problem for them is Article VI is directed at states rights and is talking about states following treaties and laws made by the "United states".
This does NOT say and is NOT giving power over the "Constituton of the United states", it is only giving power over the states laws.
Stay vigilant fellow Patriots, know your Constitution, if you dont have a copy please pick one up and read it often.
They will try to reinterpert it and use it against us.
Batteriesnare
12-03-2009, 10:48
Tom Tancrado was discussing this on his show on KOA this past Sunday afternoon. The way I understood it (as he explained it) is that if the treaty is passed, the senate would have to ratify it to enforce it here in the United States. I don't think its going to happen, but it does show Barry's intent, and if he wants my guns, he'll be traveling though a wall of lead to get them.
Just because the US signs a treaty, doesn't mean that it will have any effect on our laws. If it was that easy, then the 2nd Amendment would have been repealed 90 years ago.
Batteriesnare
12-03-2009, 10:58
Just because the US signs a treaty, doesn't mean that it will have any effect on our laws. If it was that easy, then the 2nd Amendment would have been repealed 90 years ago.
I understand, but if it is passed by the Senate, wouldn't that cause it to have an effect? I'm just curious, I didn't realize a back door usurpation like this could exist.
That's what I'm saying, I don't think it does exist. If all it took was senate just changing some stuff around, then they would have done it a long time ago.
iamhunter
12-03-2009, 11:10
That's what I'm saying, I don't think it does exist. If all it took was senate just changing some stuff around, then they would have done it a long time ago.
It doesn't exist. The only way it could ever is if they trick you into believing it's constitutional. (which it isn't)
which they have done before. The hope though, is that we won't let them do it again.
Batteriesnare
12-03-2009, 11:26
It doesn't exist. The only way it could ever is if they trick you into believing it's constitutional. (which it isn't)
which they have done before. The hope though, is that we won't let them do it again.
I know its unconstitutional, but that doesn't seem to bother this administration, which is what concerns me.
iamhunter
12-03-2009, 12:25
well trying to abolish the 2nd amendment may very well be the biggest mistake they ever make.
international laws will not supersede our constitution.
I don't think they could ever enforce such a rule.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I remember reading something about these treaties and they basically outlaw Home manufacturing, reloading, importation and such things. They are not exactly outlawing all firearms in private hands.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.