Originally Posted by alsaqr
Do not buy into the false theory that Republican politicians in DC give a damn about our gun rights.
Yep.There are 'progressives' in the Republican party.
What a 'progressive' is,is someone who believes that big government can solve all problems faced by society;by 'socially engineering' society to be what a few elite believe it would best resemble.Big government can solve all problems,if only we should all surrender our will to it.
Freely or otherwise.
Doesn't matter the party-there are misguided politicians of that ilk on both sides of the political aisle.
They might not even identify themselves as 'progressive';but if it walks like a duck,and it quacks like a duck......
I wasn't a fan of Bush,or his daddy,and I am very disappointed that the last election didn't offer a limited government option from either side of the aisle,after what we just went thru with Bush jr. and his massive expansions of government power.
John C. Calhoun-
Moreover, it is a “great mistake,” Calhoun wrote, to suppose that “the mere insertion of provisions to restrict and limit the powers of the government, without investing those for whose protection they are inserted, with the means of enforcing their observance, will be sufficient to prevent the major and dominant party from abusing its powers” (emphasis added). The party “in possession of the government” will always be opposed to any and all restrictions on its powers. They “will have no need of these restrictions” and “would come, in time, to regard these limitations as unnecessary and improper restraints and endeavor to elude them . . .”
The “part in favor of the restrictions” (i.e., strict constructionists) would inevitably be overpowered. It is sheer folly, Calhoun argued, to suppose that “the party in possession of the ballot box and the physical force of the country, could be successfully resisted by an appeal to reason, truth, justice, or the obligations imposed by the constitution” (emphasis added). He predicted that “the restrictions [of government power in the Constitution] would ultimately be annulled, and the government be converted into one of unlimited powers.” He was right, of course.
Check this out-Doomed From the Start?
Originally Posted by alsaqr
Folks do not flatter themselves or help our cause by spreading propaganda that is not true. Anyone who believes that Hillary Clinton signed a UN treaty to take away our guns needs a 9th grade course in American government.
This kind of rhetoric is only appropriate IF
such a treaty is actually signed and implemented-to the degree that it threatens liberty the way the post presumes....
Otherwise it is propaganda.....
But I wouldn't put it past them (Hitlery and ALL big government types) to try........And at this point,its going to take education outside of the one 'given' to us by government to truly understand just whats going on in government today.....
After all,any 9th grader SHOULD know that this is a "Republic with democratic process under Constitutional law"
...but ask one.
I seem to remember my grade school history and civics teachers calling the Constitution a "living document subject to modern interpretation" rather than the Supreme Law of The Land,which it clearly declares itself to be(the Supremacy Clause).
"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government."
And as for the 'modern progressive' Democrats Billary Klintoon- anyone whos been around long enough to see what happened during the Klintoon regime should know that they will do anything,say anything,and make any circumstance,reason or excuse to totally disarm the American people.
No wonder people are making such outlandish claims about Hitlerys involvement with the "United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs".
One could hardly blame them.
However,your absolutely right.
People should be careful what they're saying and how they are presenting the facts,in this particular instance they shouldn't be making FACT-LESS
claims like this-
OBAMA FINDS LEGAL WAY AROUND THE 2ND AMENDMENT
AND USES IT. IF THIS PASSES, THERE could BE WAR
On Wednesday Obama Took the First Major Step in a
Plan to Ban All Firearms in the United States
This is a very bold accusation,and if its baseless-it makes people who repeat it look pretty silly.
All that being said,I still believe that there is a grain of truth in every lie.
I still refuse to put it past the misguided hoplophobic masses that yearn for total disarmament 'for the good of the children' and the manically power hungry crooked politicians who are too eager to deliver this for them and reap the ultimate power of a total monopoly on arms by a government they control, from doing anything they can conceive might be even remotely helpful in accomplishing their goals.
And if theres any doubt there will be any restraint from implementing Constitutionally illegitimate 'law',just consider 'gun control' itself.
And undeniably,part of the UN agenda is,in fact,focused on control of small arms:
I believe a more factual debate on the subject could have been started with that UN webpage.
Then it wouldn't have been 'propaganda',but "right out of the horses' mouth" fact.
We can start with this quote-
"world leaders must accept the fact that we cannot let
the free market rule the international arms trade”.
Oscar Arias, President of Costa Rica and.Nobel Peace Prize laureate
So who gets 'control' if not the free market?
Who gets to 'dictate' the 'global arms trade' to the world?
Who is this that wants total global control over small arms?
What does that 'global control' entail regarding our sacred,inalienable right to keep and bear arms in defense of ourselves and our nation,as a free people?
Historically speaking,has 'gun control' ever been in the best interests of the people denied small arms or has it been a tool used for 'control' over those people by those who demand that 'control'?
What has been the cost of denying personal arms -the tools of self defense from criminal and tyrant alike- to any group of people,for any reason?
What have the governments instituting such 'gun control' measures been like,and do we really want a self-described world governing body having that kind of control?
And what could our progressives,long in the business of stirring up fear and bigotry to implement their agenda of total control of weapons in America hope to garner by such global control?
Mere international weapons trade restrictions?
In that case say good bye to imported weapons and ammo in the least.....
Better question could be:why is it so important for the world to now have a 'world government' like the UN take control of international arms trading?For the good of the children in the entire world?Because they know whats best for everyone in the entire world at the UN?
Or,like the historically proven proclivities of almost all forms government implementing 'weapons laws' or 'gun control' before them-is it that they seek to have a monopoly on the use of force?
Should members of our government -the Citizens employees- even be participating in such discussions of seceding 'control' of any kind of trade to a global government,or should the rule of Constitutional law dictate how much control our government may have and/or will allow over the trade of American citizens?
Are our employees acting on our best behalf in this regard?
The answers to these and more questions-inquiring minds would like to know......