Clinton and Obama Have Said They Will Sign UN Small Arms Treaty!
Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton and President Obama have said the U.S. will commit to and sign the UN Small Arms Treaty that will set the stage for foreign gun control laws in the U.S.
TELL THE ANTI-SECOND AMENDMENT LIBERALS WE ARE NOT GIVING UP OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS WITHOUT A FIGHT
Obama is not telling the truth and continues to ay "I'm not going to take your guns away" and "Lawful gun owners have nothing to fear... I think people can take me at my word." Yeah right and the government has the Gulf Oil Spill under control.
Obama continues to work to keep the UN Treaty cloaked in secrecy, so that there will be no publicized gun control debates in the media or votes in Congress. Take action now, do not wake up one morning and find that the United States has signed a UN treaty that:
Prohibits firearm and ammunition manufacturers from selling to the public.
Prohibits any transfer of firearm ownership.
Requires US citizens to deliver any firearm they own to the local government collection and destruction center or face imprisonment.
This has happened in other countries, and is happening now!
Hillary Clinton and her anti-constitution cronies are partnering up with the anti-Second Amendment collaborators of the United Nations to pass "The Small Arms Treaty." If this treaty is passed YOUR firearms rights will be compromised and the Second Amendment will be obliterated. "The Small Arms Treaty" is being touted by liberal gun-grabbers as a treaty that will help fight against "terrorism," "insurgency" and "international crime rings." The treaty is merely a facade to seize control of ALL FIREARMS owned by law abiding American citizens.
TELL THE ANTI-SECOND AMENDMENT GANG WE ARE NOT GIVING UP OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS WITHOUT A FIGHT
UN To Confiscate and Destroy "Unauthorized" Small Arms
The treaty calls for tougher licensing requirements. That means everyday, law-abiding Americans will be subjected to even more bogus bureaucracy to obtain a firearm. It is unfathomable that regular citizens would be treated just like the criminals the treaty claims to protect us from. "The Small Arms Treaty" will hijack and destroy all weapons that are classified "unauthorized." What exactly classifies a firearm as "unauthorized" is up to the liberal gun-haters. The treaty will ban the trade, sale, and private ownership of all semi-automatic weapons. Clinton, Obama and their anti-liberty commission are also calling for an INTERNATIONAL GUN REGISTRY that would pave the way to eventually disarming every American citizen.
The globalist gun agenda ultimately seeks to take away not only your individual liberties, but also more importantly, your complete autonomy. Obama, Hilary and the United Nations conspirators believe that every single American is not capable of making their own decisions so they want to make them for us. Just like Obamacare, again big bureaucrats want to take away your right to live freely without the government breathing down your neck.
Now is the time to take action. We can't afford to lose this battle. This treaty has to be ratified in the Senate. It ONLY takes 67 members of the Senate to ratify and pass this unconstitutional treaty. NOW it is time to speak out against "The Small Arms Treaty."
Keep calling your Senators today, toll free numbers include 1-877-851-6437 and 1-866-220-0044, or call toll 1-202-225-3121 AND REGISTER YOU'RE OUTRAGE at ongoing efforts to take guns away!
CALL PRESIDENT Obama, 202-456-1111 and 202-456-1414 expressing your disdain and ABSOLUTE REJECTION of all GUN BANS.
DO NOT BE SILENCED - MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD!
NOTE: We need TENS OF THOUSANDS of faxes and PHONE CALLS and EMAILS delivered to ALL Senators right away!
For our projects to be successful, we must count on the voluntary financial support from individuals like you who care.
Your contribution of $20 or $25 is urgently needed today. If you can afford to send $50 or $100 or more it would truly be a godsend.
Remember, protecting our freedom is not inexpensive.
But then, it's impossible to put a price tag on freedom.
Together, we can preserve the Constitutional rights our Founding Fathers intended our people to have forever.
For more information about CCRKBA go to ccrkba.org/
Thank you. I know I can count on you.
Sincerely,
Alan Gottlieb
Chairman
Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms
If you prefer to donate by check, please mail to:
The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms
12500 NE Tenth Place
Dept Code 4251
Bellevue, Washington 98005
With more than 650,000 members and supporters nationwide, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is one of the nation's premier gun rights organizations. As a non-profit organization, the Citizens Committee is dedicated to preserving firearms freedoms through active lobbying of elected officials and facilitating grass-roots organization of gun rights activists in local communities throughout the United States. Contributions are not tax deductible. The Citizens Committee can be reached by phone at (425) 454-4911, on the Internet at ccrkba.org or by email to InformationRequest@ccrkba.org
Obama is GAY!!!! and so is The UN
ResponderEliminarAs I said in a post about Israel earlier,
ResponderEliminarAmericans as a silent majority don't march or protest. We have lives to live and won't become "a howling mob" until these folks are beating down our doors. Americans, because of our history will, I believe, not go silently into the night however.
The powers that be will try once again to collect our guns and again will come up short. Yes, I said again, remember the "putsch" in the early '90s when Clinton held both houses of Congress and an assult weapons ban was winding its was thru congress? The same fear was there 'cause some in Congress wanted a very open ended definition of the word "assult". They also said that it was good for the children.
Luckily it failed, "for the most part."
I believe that these same folks are back and they'll dust off the same old montra and try it again and just like they did with nationalized health care.
The gov't will get one step closer to the goal of weapons confiscation.
It's the frog in boiling water principle.
The "Statist's" in our gov't today have been plotting the overthrow of this great country, and consolidating their power for years.
There, I said it, "they're plotting", I guess that makes me an official nut.
But I digress...
They just keep up a steady stream of constant pressure, pack the courts and make sure that future generations of Americans don't know the real history and founding of our great country.
It's like the devil said to Eve, "...is that what God really said?"
I'm really afraid of another proposed constitutional convention.
The End?
I mean this respectfully are you really serious? They couldnt pass a constitutkional convention or even an amendment which is what it would take on guns. A review of sup court opinions reveals that they all understand the right to bear arms some believe it is not an unfettered right but still respecr the right we can argue that but no one can come for your arsenal
ResponderEliminarThe problem w/ the UN is that our Constitution recognizes *treaties* as equal w/ our own laws --- signing something w/ the UN means our courts will have to interpret that treaty as Constitutional.
ResponderEliminarAll it takes for "them" to take your guns is a bigger arsenal than what "you" have and a stacked court. The Supreme Court has historically *changed* its opinions on things-- what do you think makes the gun issue any different?
As usual, we worry about what someone wrote on the internet. No where is there any thing written that verifies such a treaty. Nothing has been drafted or voted on. Any treaty we make with anyone does not change our constitution. If you are afraid of what might be changed in the constitution, such as the second amendment, then go to the ballot box in November and change your representative or senator. Giving credibility to these "scare" type information articles on the internet is a waste of time.
ResponderEliminarSomeone tell me where in my posted article it says that there has been a treaty signed?
ResponderEliminarThe gun group I cited (I receive e-mail newsletters and press releases daily) merely reported that Obama and Clinton both said that they will sign it.
However, not all treaties have been sent to the U.S. Senate. Most of the time, these things are "agreements" or "resolutions" or "stipulations" or bureaucratic rules and procedures issued as edicts.
The U.N. Small Arms Treaty would probably not go before the U.S. Senate because in 1945, we supposedly joined the U.N. and therefore, any of the Security Council or General Council laws/edicts/etc would be issued from that body.
The fact we have fought U.N. wars since after World War II (via their resolutions) has not stopped anyone from their flag-waving faux patriotism, has it? Iraq, Iraq II, Afghanistan, Bosnia, Korea, Vietnam...all of those under the auspices of the U.N. Where were those wars ever declared via the U.S. Constitution?
Fact is, the Obama folks said they will sign it...but it hasn't happened yet.
hector, here it comes back at ya,
ResponderEliminarOur vaunted Ruth Bader Ginsburg stated "American courts should look more to foreign court rulings and international law in interpreting our Constitution." you don't have to believe me, I can bring up many more comments such as these which buttress my point. Only 1 person's opinion but becoming the predominant opinion of the Supremes.
And look how much our counry owes to these folks...
The Supremes said... that a black man was only...what 3/5 of a person when it comes to the citizen count.
The Supremes said ...that a black man was property, not a citizen of the U.S.
The Supremes said...separate but equal didn't violate the U.S. Constitution
The Supremes said...abortion is a right to privacy and the developing child has none
I can go on and on...as you know.
With the *originalist* view of the Constitution fading away and the *statist* view coming into sharper focus everyday, i.e. nationalized health care, a ruling such as the one I spoke of isn't far out. That is why the *statist* oligarchy seeks to pack the courts with idealogs instead of folks who know and adhere to Constitutional principles as they were laid down by the founding fathers.
One last note hector,
ResponderEliminarThe tooth fairy isn't trying to do Santa Claus's job. He knows his job and according to my kids, does it well.
All without gouging the taxpayer for the money or passing a superfluous stimulus bill designed to bilk old folks w/o teeth to pay for kids with excess ones. The Supremes will probably uphold the right, however, of Congress to tax the tooth fairy.
Thus endeth the debate of the tooth fairy?
i like the part when you're proven 100% wrong you spout off on a tangent. you try to change the debate to something else when you see that your stance is indefensible.
ResponderEliminarfun fact: all the "supremes" steve talks about, only 3 current us supreme court justices were appointed by democrats. only 1 by obama. this shows an obvious ploy by a shadow government to take away your guns. maybe even by a muslim shadow government??? maybe by a muslim shadow government who are as we speak discussing legislation to abolish kittens!!! to arms sheeple.
ResponderEliminarI guess that *denying* that the Supremes have ruled against the Constitution and the American people isn't...a strawman argument? Like all leftists in this country, when your argument breaks down, you resort to name calling,
ResponderEliminaryou overbearing fusspot. :-)
Thurgood Marshall in his later years became indifferent to his judicial duties and left much of his writing of opinions to his clerks and sometimes didn't even bother reading the briefs submitted by counsel. He would tell his clerks, "If I die, prop me up and keep on voting". Hell, he told fellow justice William Brennan, "you can learn a lot about life from soap operas. This dude was one of our vaunted Supremes?
No, what I'm saying is that these folks that are supposed to be the 3rd leg of the Constitutional stool, are out to lunch most of the time and they don't let established law or precedence get in their way of interpreting a "living document".
The congress is a whole 'nother discussion.
every piece of the above arguments for this being true are all conjecture. its a bunch of "what ifs" and "you know they will" type of talk. i have provided evidence that us law does in fact supercede treaties. i along with others have asked for someone to produce this document of destruction. guess what, it doesnt exist. it has not been drafted yet. the treaty is supposed to deal with international trading of small arms not private us ownership of such. PLEASE post where you have read the treaty so we can settle this.
ResponderEliminaralso joey, (this is in case someone is too lazy to ready joey's link and just think that its hard proof of some sort)
ResponderEliminarthe infowars article you referenced is pretty much the same article you have. it reference a currently non existent treaty and its always non existent power to supersede US law. it is just more wild conjecture. Unless i'm shown where this treaty says this, i'm filing it under retarded fear mongering. lets not forget how obama shoehorned in that bill so we could carry guns in national parks. that was step one in his plan to take your guns away. that's how sneaky he is.
AHA,
ResponderEliminarNow you show your true colors. I never mentioned who appointed them, I spoke only about who they "the Supremes" are.
We're all wrong here and yet you keep posting.
Yeah, we've gone way beyond the original post here.
OK here's one for you United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
Boy that's a long one.
Ratified by the Senate and signed by Bush 41 in October 1992 (look it up). No it's not binding but the Kyoto protocol is and it's one step away and the U.S. gov't will take back seat on this one and oujr money would, if passed, go to other countries whether we as U.S. citizens wanted it or not.
The UN is in itself an organization that has pulled US into foreign entanglements because of it's treaty powers that our Constitution...recognizes...nope, by your admission...good thing K O R E A never happened, huh?
That's what I'm talking about, treaties with foreign gov'ts ARE recognized by our gov't to the detrement of our Constitution.
The dem's couldn't wait to get on board when Bush 43 went to war in Afghanistan and Iraq 2. They fell all over themselves to practically give Bush 43 a blank check on force. Most of them wanted to *ride the popularity wave* of revenge and war. Then when things didn't go according to plan, politics took over. Where the hell was the leadership that we elect these folks for? Where were the statesmen/women? I only saw cheap politicians, with second rate opinions. Political points were to be made at any and all costs, blame Bush for everything...
"Bush lied and people died", remember that one?
Problem, we trust and rely on people and their ever changing views of society and gov't 'cause it sounds or feels good, instead of the bedrock of our nation, *the rule of law* as laid down by the founders.
hey steve how about you stay on topic. where in this treaty does it lay out that our guns will be taken away??? please quote that section for me.
ResponderEliminarThe rule of law as laid down by our founders you mean the one you quote that gives bindinfg effect to treaties
ResponderEliminaris itS the treaty powers our constitution recognizes or notwithstanding the treatys that existed prior to ratification of USC first one is a con ern in thia matter seconx saya it cAnt be done apologizie for spelling its an i phone
ResponderEliminarI just remebered you are actually missing the best supreme court usurption of powers and interpretation of the USC. Marbury v madison where the court granted itself the powers we now take for granted as its powers
ResponderEliminarthe response to steve's link is hilariously appropriate. NOT FOUND. how about someone post a copy of the actual treaty thats going to take away our guns. i've yet to see it.
ResponderEliminarsteve can write long paragraphs about things unrelated to this article. when in fact all he needs to do is post a link to the treaty that claims that the government is going to take away our guns. Joey can post a link to the treaty also if he'd like. i'm on the edge of seat, full of anticipation.
ResponderEliminarALRIGHT!!!! Who dropped the idiot bag and let Hedtke out...again?????? Whose assigned the task to round him up and double tie the top?
ResponderEliminarCuriously enough, as a member of the NRA and a subscriber to the American Rifleman, guess what? They are totally unaware of this huge CONSPIRACY to take our guns. Imagine all those NRA lawyers and lobbyist and they haven't an inkling of this liberal subtrafuge. One would think they would be on top of this crucial possibility. Just goes to show, you can't trust anyone these days, not even the NRA.
Hector, you are absolutely dead on in your appraisal of the situation. Hedtke has nothing more to do than daily search the Internet for the conspiracy du jour. He found this latest in a long series of conspiracies and is promulgating another to whip-up the mentally challenged, red-neck, ultra right-winged, idiot fringe without the intellectual capacity to investigate the sourcees. Let us pray he gets back on his meds. He soooo wants to be a prophet, but alas, it is the lot of a prophet to be "stoned." I'm not talking the wacky weed. Shussh. Don't tell him...
BTW, seen any Messianic Jews with rocks recently? Beware of Joey, Steve!!!
Jimbo
I have to agree with hector. As I stated in an earlier post, we have yet to see a draft of a treaty, much less one that has been approved or signed. People love to use these scare tactics to motivate voters to vote for or against their agendas. In this case, we don't need scare tactics and false information. Obama's record speaks for itself. He is not a competent leader and hopefully will be replaced in 2012. The same goes for this November where we would hopefully rid ourselves of lifetime politicians whose agendas are primarily self, and we get a slew of representatives as opposed to politicians. You can use your "Tooth Fairy" analogy all you want, but in the end, it is facts that should guide our emotions and our logic, not Hollywood type rhetoric.
ResponderEliminarLets all sit here in the same idiot bag and actually read the Stevenators original post. I was having fun and spouting off. Yes I do belive that our precious gov't that y'all love and trust so much will try once again to begin confiscation.
ResponderEliminarWhat I wanna know is what meds y'all take that makes you believe they won't?
You clowns actually believe the gov't will let something like the law get in the way of their plans?
I'll back up my rant and y'all...well...the fingers can only type what's in the brain. And I know that I'm always on y'alls mind.
Hey, I've got an idea...
Why don't all y'all come over to my place and we can get to know each other EVEN BETTER.
Gingersnap and Jimbo, the anonymous twins, babe, since you 2 are the same person,
Bring extra meds...maybe y'all, I mean you can share.
And jimmy, babe, what mean subtrafuge? and why do lobbyist's use so much of it?
Boy, y'all sure showed me
Call me!
I told you that I could go on, would you really like me to?
ResponderEliminarupon further review, no one on the nra site says the treaty will take away your guns.....because its not been written yet. they say it has the potential to but that it hasnt been written yet. we could put some of their fears to rest if we email them the plan of action joey linked to.
ResponderEliminarLook, I'm disguising my true identity
ResponderEliminarYou, hector, wanted to debate the tooth fairy, not me
What tangent are you talking about?
a pencil has the potential to be a dangerous weapon nutbag (i'm using nutbag like steve uses babe, its non gender specific, just demeaning like babe). so as i was saying nutbag, thats ridiculous, who are you, nostradumbass??
ResponderEliminari love how you call the illicit guns part bait. you do this to try to discredit them without proof. your entire argument is based on an imaginary situtuation where not doing what they're saying because you know they're evil and that's what's gonna happen.
also i believe you need an amendment to the constitution to change a previous amendment.
please site the case that overturned reid v covert. please site it. please site it. tell me so your fairytale will make more sense......................nutbag.
hector, babe
ResponderEliminarDid you read the link I supplied for you to the treaty that, you say,doesn't exist? You love your links just like you love to condescend. To find the link, look up just a little higher. There's your link to the legislation that (you say) doesn't exist.
Remember, snope's and wikipedia didn't write the legislation, the UN did.
Your behavior is typical of most middle school mentality children, hide behind anonymity and when your argument breaks down, resort to insults and condescention.
Did you read the non-existant (you say) UN legislation?
That's what you we're demanding of everyone, especially me, show me the treaty.
I read it over before I posted it, and let you condescend your way into the the night.
Did you read it or does it get in the way of your condescention?
Would you rather check snope's to see if you can come up with another condescending remark before continuing?
Or are you the real Nostradumbass that just divines the UN treaty?
tick...tick...tick
We're waiting
Gov't=God
ResponderEliminarso you're gonna show me where reid vs. covert was overturned. or are you going to show me where amendments can be repealed without another amendment.
you're making a strawman argument. you've lumped me into a group to try to minimize my points. you go on a long rant about milk, my established links in society, and my stance on muslim extremists. NONE OF THESE ARE WHAT THIS DISCUSSION IS ABOUT. I HAVE STATED NO STANCE ON ANY OF THESE. YOU ARE TRYING TO REDIRECT THE ARGUMENT TO SOMETHING ELSE BECAUSE YOUR PROOF IS NONEXISTENT.
You claim that i'm ignorant, but i forth proof. i know that it takes a constitutional amendment to overturn a previous amendment. i showed you the fact that us law trumps its treaties. what do you respond with:
"I have no links for you Hector so feel free to call me a nutjob, it bolsters my argument. "
in what bizzaro world does not being able to substantiate your point make your point?????
here's another one of your doozies:
"Odds are Hector has too much invested in the current established system to be able to accept anything other than his point of view."
one, thats another strawman (you're good at those) two, i've shown you that our constitution does not allow for things to unfold like you're saying they are. i supply specific facts. i cite court cases. you show nothing. then you accuse me of no being able to accept another point of view. you sir are full of it.
hector, babe
ResponderEliminar1)Where did I ever say that this treaty would take away your rights?
2)When did I ever say Ried v Covert was overturned?
3)Call it what you want, call it the 2008 hector thinks he's everything and a bag of chips treaty if you want, it's still the UN legislation (outline if you will) for small arms control (dated 2008) that YOU say doesn't exist.
Our own vaunted congress didn't know what was in the health care legislation that they passed into law recently and those still morons signed it.
What makes you think that they'll (the congress) give any more attention to this legislation if it has specific language in it, wait I've got it...
"We're the UN and we're gonna take your guns away treaty"
Amendment one...
Especially Steve's... twice!,
yeah, that'll make 'em sit up and take notice.
Here's a quote right out of the manual...
This How to Guide is designed for national law makers tasked with supporting or leading the review of SALW legislation, in addition to others, such as UN staff in-country or civil society organizations,who may engage in, or support a review process. It is intended to provide practical information on the process to review SALW legislation, on key issues and factors that should be considered and to outline the measures that states may consider when reviewing their legislation.
One small paragraph, and how many times was the legislation used?
I don't need someone to use the words "stealing from another person is a crime" to know that stealing is wrong!!!
For gods sake man, I see it all so clearly now, if the ink dries, then the treaty is null and void. Good thing the GUIDE (there, hows that) is 2 years old.
No wait, the health care legislation was how many years old when our congress dusted it off and presented it all over again for passage?
Last, babe, you don't need a constitutional amendment to overturn and amendment. The 1st amendment has been overturned many times by the courts. Just look at the freedom of religion and the free exercise clause.
If you're too blind to see that, then you're beyond help
Homerun in the bottom of the ninth, babe
We all loose
hector, babe
ResponderEliminarI just wanted to say thank you,
Christ Jesus was thought to be a nutjob in his time...
Martin Luther was thought to be a nutjob in his time...
Galileo was thought to be a nutjob in his time...
Christopher Columbus was thought to be a nutjob in his time...
The founding fathers were thought to be nutjobs in their time...
The men who put us on the moon were thought to be nutjobs in their time...
Damn, I'm in good company...
it's good to be thought to be a nutjob in my time...
...especially by the likes of you
steve nutjob,
ResponderEliminari'm going to break this down into the 3 points of which you just replied
1)Where did I ever say that this treaty would take away your rights?
my assertion on every post here (minus 1) has been that treaty will not take away your rights. you have argued against that since. i've said that this treaty will not affect your gun rights. so you agree with me now. awesome. why have we been arguing?
2)When did I ever say Ried v Covert was overturned?
great we're on the same page again. we both recognize that its been upheld that treaties do not supercede us law.
3) well this ones too long to quote just look up a little
good you recognise that this is not the legislation that will be signed. we both know its not been written.
so like i've been saying since the get go. THIS ARTICLE IS BUNK AND NOTHING MORE THAN FEAR MONGERING.
you can run all over the place with your rambling but this has been my point since the beginning. i'm glad you see it my way now.
Lol. This whole strawnam thing you got a passion about and the lumping you into group to minimise your points, hhmmm is that the same as labeling someone a nutjob, that would kinda lump someone into a category in order to discredit their points. Hector can you show me where it says that the President can sit at the head of a foreign governmental/organisational body ie the U.N. security council. Perhaps you can show me where it says he can't and then let me know if there's a chance obama will chair the U.N. security council. (oops just looked it up he has). These control freaks will weesel their way around anything if they want to. Its like a burglar, just cause you got the doors and windows shut don't mean they won't get in. You need to take into account their intent and if you beleive that the people in control want to help and protect the population rather than milk the population and serve the interests that placed them in power, well you are naive. But keep screamin loudly that everythings O.K. nothin to see here. LOL.
ResponderEliminarHis logic is not strained, 'in their time' charles manson and ted bunny were average joes until they were found out. Adolf Hitler had a cult following much like Obama and recieved Time Magazine's man of the year in 1938 I think. He was seen as Germany's saviour much like Obama was touted to be Americas. The last thing Hiltler was regarded as was a 'Nutjob' in his time. It was after people could no longer ignore the obvious facts that they turned and realised that he was not the man they thought he was. Obama's public image vs. his presidential actions. Think about it or just keep throwin out the nutjob label. So by steves logic time will tell who the real nutjobs are. Those that have cloudy hindsight have no faculty for foresight. Peace
ResponderEliminarOh yeah and to add to my last comment Obama got a Nobel peace price didn't he. Lololol. Thats hilarious on its own but I draw parallels to Hitlers Man of the year prize here. Like I said, time will tell.
ResponderEliminarhector--
ResponderEliminarof course RvC hasn't been overturned yet. what was said was that it is easy enough TO overturn a court's *opinion*. Historical scavenger hunt: find how many times the SC has reversed itself.
This obviously isn't fear-mongering because even the NRA has this on their perpetual watch list [14 years so far]. And the only reason the NRA gets involved in *int'l* legislation is if there's a VALID concern that it will infringe on our *personal* rights. Do you think the enire NRA is a nutjob too?
where do you think they get a *guide* for something if it's not anywhere near being implemented or planning on being implemented? just as a technical writing project for fun? This is anything BUT an "imaginary" situation-- Real Meetings with Real People have been taking place for over a decade with the intent to make this FORMAL.
This actually passing is potential: their attempting to GET it passed is *actual*.
The SC overturning RvC is potential: their ability to do it is *actual*.
and once the SC speaks, it *is* Constitutional by very definition in the Constitution. Unfortunately it's one of those circular logic things. good luck removing a SC justice. Especially w/an administration that has an agenda for signing and implementing this type of legislation.
hector, babe
ResponderEliminarYou like that word *rambling*, did you get it out of your snopes book of condesention?
GO BACK TO MY ORIGINAL POST.
I think that you'll find that you rambled off of the reservation of what I was saying, but to be fair, yup, a UN treaty was mentioned and I pursued looking into it.
If the elected oligarchy says that they will sign something that hasn't been written yet, that doesn't mean that when it comes about, they won't.
I go back ONCE AGAIN to government run "Health care". That bill hit the floor of congress so fast, it made the American people's collective head spin. It wasn't anything new, it was the same old tripe that was left over from last time, probably written by lawyers and staffers of dinosaur congressmen /women years before, maybe even decades.
NO ONE (BY THEIR OWN ADMISSION) KNEW WHAT WAS IN THE GOV'T RUN HEALTH CARE BILL. They didn't care, they just wanted to consolidate their power and this (health care) was a vehicle to do it. Congress voted on it (mostly a party line vote), passed it, THEN READ IT.
TOO LATE/CHECKMATE!!!
I bet you thought that would never happen?
I'm talking about this same mentality being applied to this proposed treaty that they say they will sign in the article. If you think that anything will change just because of some amendment or court ruling, you've got your head in the sand.
Show me where congress or the courts let something like the law get in their collective ways when IDEOLOGY was or is involved.
AGAIN...
Our own recently passed government run health care bill *MANDATES THAT EACH CITIZEN GET HEALTH CARE INSURANCE AND IF WE DON'T WE CAN BE FINED OR IMPRISONED?*
Show me where that's constitutional, the Constitution NEVER, NEVER says that congress has this kind of power.
Your buddy Hitler did things like that...
He burned down the Reichstag in 1933 and blamed the commies for it. The state run press of the time dutifully reported it the same way Hitler and his thugs wanted it reported.
He did it to CONSOLIDATE HIS POWER.
You would've been there saying (by your own reasoning), "...look you nutjob, there's no evidence that Hitler is trying to take over anything! There are laws against what you say he's doing, your logic is strained"
Too bad snopes wasn't around back then, huh?
Our own founders (United States) warned us against this very kind of thing that is happening in our country (not in the past, not in the future, but NOW) and doing everything in our power to stamp it out before it ever starts. Out of respect for one post, I'll leave 'till later example after example of this very founding principle.
By the way, I'm glad that you agree with me now when you say that the supremes will change their mind and bring back slavery, they already have...
What the hell do you think abortion is...can you say Roe v. Wade?
It doesn't say slavery anywhere on it (shades of treaty or gun confiscation) but the result is the same. A child with "zero" rights, now even up to the point of delivery can be killed/legally.
Can you say property "it's my body". That's EXACTLY what the slave owners were saying back at the founding of our country forward until the civil war was decided...
"it's my property/not a citizen of these United States and the supremes agreed with 'em
NO, you haven't proven squat?
It's because of folks with your attitude in this country that we have come to this point.
I beg you to consider our friendship and I ask you in all sincerity...
DO NOT VOTE, EVER AGAIN, PLEASE!!!
Gov't=God
ResponderEliminarYou're right Brother. I suspect that hector and I will find common ground one day. All freedom loving Americans want to believe the best about their country and gov't. So do I, but as Prez. Reagan once said...
"trust but verify"
Peace in Christ and Almighty God's blessings on you as well
Wasn't it Reagan who also said, 'The Gov't is the problem'? The political system is a show like the WWE and just like the WWE there are some people who actually beleive the drama that goes on isn't pre-determined and scripted. Have you read Carroll Quigleys 'Tragedy and Hope'? Good view on history and the rise of the current power structure from an establishment insider.
ResponderEliminarreasoning my ass. you're the person who said that by you not being able to prove your point you proved it. i read and post facts. you try to tell me charles manson led an average life. get real.
ResponderEliminarwe've already found common ground we agreed that this treaty will not take away your rights.
ResponderEliminarquoth steve
1)Where did I ever say that this treaty would take away your rights?
"he is part of the disinfo that is deliberately put out there to stiffle anyone on the verge of waking up"
ResponderEliminarnow i'm part of the conspiracy theory too? do you hear yourself?
All I can say is, "My guns are my guns, always had them, always will".
ResponderEliminarhector, babe
ResponderEliminarI never compared the prez to hitler... and yes you nauseate me.
By the way...
I think that you have ego envy
Please, don't breed either
Charles Manson was a travelling opportunist who had a strong personality and endeared himself to many people. Still no word from you on the Obama Hitler parallels? No word on the constitutionality of Obama chairing the U.N. security council? You are quite selective on what you respond too. Keep deluding yourself.
ResponderEliminarThat was me comparing Obama to Hitler in defense of your nutjob response. See below.
ResponderEliminar"His logic is not strained, ‘in their time’ charles manson and ted bunny were average joes until they were found out. Adolf Hitler had a cult following much like Obama and recieved Time Magazine’s man of the year in 1938 I think. He was seen as Germany’s saviour much like Obama was touted to be Americas. The last thing Hiltler was regarded as was a ‘Nutjob’ in his time. It was after people could no longer ignore the obvious facts that they turned and realised that he was not the man they thought he was. Obama’s public image vs. his presidential actions. Think about it or just keep throwin out the nutjob label. So by steves logic time will tell who the real nutjobs are. Those that have cloudy hindsight have no faculty for foresight. Peace"
G=G
ResponderEliminarI am familiar with Tragedy and Hope, and yes the int'l bankers are a scourge on our societies.
That being said, I still believe in the unending spirit that has been unleashed in our "shining city on the hill" nation of principles in these United States. Yes, I think that these folks cast a long shadow, but I also believe in the sunset principle.
Almighty God has singularly blessed our great country with the founding fathers and their recognition of "unalienable rights". That is why the U.S. is the preeminent power (military and economic) in the world today. It's our people, regardless of status that make the real difference.
Every day we get up, go to work and provide for a foundation that makes this country the economic powerhouse that it is today. Despite the leeches, thug politicians, ignorant gliteratti and neredowells.
With massive gov't intrusion and plundering on all sides of the private sector, "we the people" still have lapped any other country on the planet when it comes to sucess.
We succeed not because of gov't but because of the lack of it of it
The warning lies in this...
An American citizen said to one of the founding fathers, thanks for your work (constitution) and the founder said...
...now you must keep it (paraphrase of course) that's the hard part
sorry if i confused you with god and govt. also dont worry your wife likes it on the face when i finish
ResponderEliminarso who's gonna tell me how this treaty is going to bypass all the laws in place that will keep it from taking our guns?? thats been my question the start.
ResponderEliminarPoor Hector you missed the point once more. You stated,
ResponderEliminar"charles manson, ted bundy, adolf hitler were all nutjobs too. your logic is strained steve."
My point was that some people that are considered nutjobs now were considered as great high standing individuals. You really don't get it do you. Your false sense of security and faith in your leaders will cost you dearly in the end.
Back to guns, one of the only things done after Katrina was to disarm the remaining population in New Orleans. Speak to some people in the military and ask them if they've been trained to disarm the American people. It may not be a treaty but you'd have to be a Hector to not realise that disarming the public is high on the agenda. Democracy and the constitution can easily be suspended in a crisis and we know how big a threat those brown cavedwelling sandmonkeys are. they have so much power that the entire U.S. defence structure is shaking in their boots. (That last bit was sarcasm) Wake up and realise that the real enemies are not Muslim Arabs but those that currently protect(erode) your rights. Oh and conspiracies don't exist, everything is as it seems. You're a good obedient citizen. Keep waving that flag and pretend it still stands for something noble.
hector, babe
ResponderEliminarI SAID RIGHTS, NOT GUN RIGHTS.
Pay attention to MY words…are or you still to busy condescending to check facts?
so gun rights arent rights? you're making less sense by the second
also the gun rights are what i've been referencing the whole time. you know when i've been asking how this yet penned treaty will remove your GUN RIGHTS. if you've been talking about your right hand you might need to specify next time.
ResponderEliminarso you're not going to address the fact that laws prevent the events to unfold like this article states. instead you'll say that since someone has previously fallen from grace that our current present is definitely going too. since this impending disarmament is looming why did the supreme court do this
ResponderEliminaren.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
are they long conning you and steve both. your whole argument revolves around future events that have not happened but that you believe may happen. i'm sorry but that's speculation. wild speculation at that. that still doesnt make it true. what is true is the fact that treaties dont supercede us constitutional law and this article is poop.
steve you're trying make an exception the rule. thats the converse accident fallacy. you also like to throw the slippery slope in there with it (dont worry most amateurs do). i'm no authority on anything steve. i just pointed out the laws that prevent what this articles says will happen to happen. you are the one who is building your own construct to reinforce your point. I'm actually citing the constitution and previous supreme court rulings. you're only retort is "well uh they've changed a ruling before they're gonna change this one." in the world of debate sir that is weak.
ResponderEliminarrights as opposed to gun rights...yeeeaaaa steve. we havent been talking about gun rights this whole time (well granted you haven't, but i have). you're too busy looping around trying to be not wrong to get your story straight. so gun rights arent rights anymore. ok dokey stevie. you get more entertaining by the post
ResponderEliminaroops-- sorry: that post above is mine-- Amy's. I'm on steve'slaptop and it auto-fills.....
ResponderEliminarrrrr...
and hector--
ResponderEliminarjust saw your little [and i'm sure it's all little] blurb up above to Steve;
i can assure everyone that you obviously DON't know what i like.
but Steve does. :D
i'll catch your last post later -- got business to take care of now..... ;)
for the fun of it,here are the examples of converse accident: pay close attention to the conclusions. take the quiz at the bottom of the linked page too...
ResponderEliminar-------------------
# Thus, a general statement is made on the basis of insufficient evidence or on the basis of only a few examples.
1. E.g., "Wow! Did you see that teenager run that red light? Teenage drivers are really pathetic."
2. E.g., The following argument is raised to oppose the view that boys have greater inherent mathematical ability. "When I was four, my father taught me the beauty of numbers, and I have excelled in mathematics ever since. My conclusion? The males who grew up with a high aptitude for math are not spending enough time with their daughters." Nancy Whelan Reese, "Letters," Time, (Vol. 117, No. 1), 6.
# The generalization is sometimes made on the basis of carelessly selected evidence
1. E.g., "I interviewed ten people on Main Street in Greenwood on Friday night, and they all stated they would rather be there than watching TV. I conclude that the folks in Greenwood don't like to watch TV on Friday night."
2. E.g., "As I drove to school this morning, not one car which was turning had its turn signal on. Thus, I conclude that drivers in South Carolina are not trained to drive very well."
3. E.g., "The induction problem forever haunts us. How many instances of a class must be observed before one can be really sure? Having experience two uncoordinated woman-drivers, am I justified in making a generalization about woman-drivers? (For too many man, a sampling of two seems to justify such a generalization. Women, of course, never make this sort of error.)" James L. Christian, Philosophy (HBJ College, 1998).
==================
Amy's statement:
The Supreme Court has the power to reinterpret the Constitution and has shown that it can and does reverse itself. Therefore, i will not rule out the potential that they will do so on a hot button issue garnering global attention.
Joey,
ResponderEliminarBosnia and subsequently Kosovo were "Peace Keeping" missions. the U.S. Armed Forces were not allowed to engage in open combat. "Do not fire unless fired upon" was the standing order. it was not a war but rather an excersize in futility.
Bill Clinton was asked by the U.N. for help by Kofi Anan and Bhutros Ghali. He gave it and we sent forces. (He had to justify the pay raises he gave to the military.)
remember we are more than 6million dollars behind in our U.N. dues. We pay that back by allowing our forces to go on peace keeping missions all the time. most we dont hear about. any one ever hear about all the 600 us forces in africa? yes we do have them there under U.N. control
charlotte, my only reason for posting was to show that this type of decision doesn't need a "radical" change-- they only need a minor tip in the balance. Kagan's confirmation hearings will be a big lynchpin in that.
ResponderEliminari agree that most people don't bother doing any background checking-- that was evident just in this thread w/ how little people know about what's going on in the UN, the US' involvement if we sign a treaty, how our amendments can be changed/reinterpreted, how easy it is to control firearms in this country w/o ever touching the 2d amendment, and how easy it is for all of this to fall right into line w/ the concerns in the original article.
charlotted...
ResponderEliminarThe more proper question would be...Why wasn't this 9-0 by the supremes?
Chipping away...and they'll be back (the plaintiffs) to try in front of the supremes once again and I believe that next time they'll get exactly what they want.
No more 2nd amendment.
Problem is allot of repub's are nothing more than demo lite. They need to go as well.
I see a reconing in this country that is coming and it seems at this point to be unavoidable.
Huge tax increase come 1 Jan 2011...no matter the election outcome, the repub's can't stop it.
Obama will still be prez...
The supreme court will have a clear majority of hard leftists...
Debt default in the US and I believe China will sell off our debt they hold to even worse enemies...
The oil rigs are leaving the gulf as we speak and probably won't return...
etc...
etc...
etc...
It is indeed demoralizing to see injustice prevail when the opposite is clear. As in the 2nd amendment case, the most prevalent argument is banning guns keeps everyone safer. There is no consideration of the idea that criminals, regardless of laws, are going to possess guns. They are already breaking the law or they wouldn't be criminals. Possessing a gun in a state or city that forbids it is of no consequence to a criminal. They could care less. Banning guns only works on law abiding citizens. Who does not understand that concept. You can ban guns until you run out of printer ink, but the fact remains, criminals will still have guns. This leaves John Q Citizen pretty much helpless. All states I have checked so far have had a lower felony crime rate the very next year after passing concealed carry laws. In Dallas alone, armed burglars are being shot while committing a crime with a gun or weapon of some sort. Can there be a greater deterrent? Don't think that I am naive enough to think that CHL will alleviate the criminal faction in our community. But it at least gives average Joe a chance, should he want to go that route. Above all, guns are not for everyone and guns do not fix everything. But they keep many criminals at bay when they don't know who has one and who doesn't.
ResponderEliminarcharlotted-- the only problem with your position [our position, because I tend to agree with you] is that on a global scale countries are so convinced that a *gun free* society is achievable and preferable that they are entering into treaties and passing laws to that end. Depending on how you spin the statistics, they will point to numbers that appear to support their case, and the UN has already decided it WILL agree with those sorts of statistics. And ultimately [per statements in one of those links up above], they consider civilian casualties an acceptable loss to achieve a "civilized, gun-free" society.
ResponderEliminarA treaty, if you will, is an agreement between two or more countries where willing parties assuming obligations among themselves, that can be held up to international law if either of the parties in question violates said agreement. NOTHING is ever mentioned about changing the constitution of any country to ratify or go along with a treaty. There are a lot of unstable people out there that try to stir up controversy for the sake of argument, and getting people stirred up for whatever the reason.
ResponderEliminarRegardless of what is going on in the administration right now, this is still America. We as Americans still have a Congress, such as it is, that in the end, must rule for, of, and by the people. As much as Obama would like to erase this from history, it will take more than a Socialist wanna be to do so. As soon as "the people" wake up and take care of business in November, we can get back to being the greatest country in the world and stop apologizing for
nothing more than "being there" when they need us. GO USA