law abiding or staunch patriot (even to the point of criminal)

Discussion in 'Legal and Activism' started by lamuskrat, May 7, 2010.

  1. lamuskrat

    lamuskrat New Member

    29
    0
    0
    While you were watching the oil spill, the New York failed terrorist bombing and other critical crises, Hillary Clinton signed the small arms treaty with the UN.



    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


    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 has happened in other countries, past and present!

    THIS IS NOT A JOKE NOR A FALSE WARNING.

    As sure as government health care will be forced on us by the Obama administration through whatever means necessary, so will gun control. Read the Article U.S. reverses stance on treaty to regulate arms trade WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States reversed policy on Wednesday and said it would back launching talks on a treaty to regulate arms sales as long as the talks operated by consensus, a stance critics said gave every nation a veto. The decision, announced in a statement released by the U.S. State Department, overturns the position of former President George W. Bush's administration, which had opposed such a treaty on the grounds that national controls were better. View The Full Article Here


    Click on the link below for further acknowledgement…..

    U.S. reverses stance on treaty to regulate arms trade | Reuters
     
  2. bkt

    bkt New Member

    6,964
    0
    0
    There is legal precedent established that a treaty cannot nullify or overturn a portion of the Constitution.

    Even if there were no challenge to such a treaty, I know no one who would comply.
     

  3. Bigcountry02

    Bigcountry02 Coffee! If your not shaking, you need another cup Supporter

    7,247
    45
    48
    Do have a current link, the one from reuters is 14 Oct 2009? Currently, NRA and GOA have no current information.
     
  4. KalashnikovJosh

    KalashnikovJosh New Member

    1,156
    0
    0
    If you read the Supremacy Clause to the US Constitution -

    You will see that the law must be 'made in pursuance of' the US Constitution,which is the Supreme Law first and foremost.Treaties must be made only in accordance with the authority granted the government.
    The government is not granted the authority to violate the Second Amendment via treaties.
    -AND-
    Any law made that is not Constitutionally authorized is illegitimate.
    But hey,when theyre making an argument along the lines of 'the supremacy clause says all federal law is supreme' to defend the Health Care Scam,little details like that seem to get 'lost in translation' from the plain English of the 1700's to the plain English of today.....funny how that happens.

    In either case.

    If they ever decide to outlaw guns,they can come and take them.I wont surrender them.
    I'll not bow to tyrants;Even to the point of 'losing' my 'law abiding' status.

    The Brits called our Founders 'criminals' too.I'll be in good company.
     
    Last edited: May 7, 2010
  5. Dillinger

    Dillinger New Member

    23,972
    1
    0
    Unless bkt is worried, I am not worried. ;)

    He is our Legal Eagle Expert around these parts. *thumbs up* & respect*

    The man has FORGOTTEN more knowledge of the Constitution, Constitutional Law, Legal Precedent and all things pertaining to living under the Laws of The Land laid forth by our Forefathers than most here will EVER know.

    This story has been told before, and the result has been the same. Nothing thus far.

    Honestly folks, there are 4 more years at stake for The Great Messiah. If anyone thinks he is going to take a run at guns BEFORE the 2012 Election Results are in, you are sadly mistaken I am afraid.

    JD
     
  6. KalashnikovJosh

    KalashnikovJosh New Member

    1,156
    0
    0
    I've heard this story before too.

    I have a friend who thinks he wont need votes to stay 'in power' by 2012.

    I dont know,but I'll not put anything past someone who had a picture of Mao on an ornament on his Christmas tree.
     
    Last edited: May 7, 2010
  7. bkt

    bkt New Member

    6,964
    0
    0
    OK, I owe lamuskrat an apology. I just re-read what I wrote and it was terse and probably came across as rude. Sorry, bud, I didn't mean it that way.

    When I first heard about this UN treaty that would do an end-run around 2A, I nearly filled my pants because the Constitution DOES say that treaties are the Supreme Law of the Land along with the rest of the Constitution. But after doing some digging, I found there are several instances where treaties were proposed and even signed which contravened the Constitution and thus were nullified; states themselves do not have to abide by such a treaty.

    That said, let me clarify the second thing I said. I know of no currently-law-abiding firearm owners who would choose to remain law-abiding over choosing to remain firearm owners. Longstanding, common-sense natural rights and the rights enumerated by our brilliant Founders trump the crap the brain-donors in government come up with.
     
  8. skullcrusher

    skullcrusher New Member

    10,888
    1
    0
    +1 JD.

    Once bkt heads to the hills with his BOB, I do as well, especially when it comes to Constitutional stuff and all.

    Please, I ask all members to double check the dates of proposed bills and treaties. Double check e-mails that attempt to get the masses riled for validity of information.

    Don't do it for me, do it for your forum cred. ;)
     
  9. KalashnikovJosh

    KalashnikovJosh New Member

    1,156
    0
    0
    BKT-I always thought the Supremacy Clause clarified the terms by which the federal government may enact law or write treaties.As long as they arent violating the Constitution,they are the supreme law.

    Is that correct?
     
  10. bkt

    bkt New Member

    6,964
    0
    0
    As I understand it and for the most part, yes. As long as they aren't violating some part of the Constitution, they're fine.
     
  11. KalashnikovJosh

    KalashnikovJosh New Member

    1,156
    0
    0
    Ahh,but alas!

    So many 'experts' these days say that 'the supremacy clause means all federal law is supreme'.They were bleating it all over the TV when the states sued the feds over the health care scam.They dont bother to mention the part about how the federal law needs to abide by the Constitution,cause if it doesnt-its illegitimate......which is EXACTLY what the health care scam is.

    I noticed you mentioned 'nullification'.

    Are you an 'evil tenther'?
     
  12. bkt

    bkt New Member

    6,964
    0
    0
    Are these the same "experts" who are routinely surprised or shocked at the news, whether pertaining to monetary, economic, employment, polling or other issues? :)

    Anyone who says all Federal law is supreme is an idiot. Laws get knocked down as unconstitutional all the time. And these days, we're seeing a bunch of states contest Federal law because that law oversteps the bounds of the Federal government as defined by the Constitution. That's good! These will end up in court, and here's to hoping the courts side with the states.

    Yes, I'm an evil "tenther" insofar as I acknowledge what it says and its importance, but I don't know the secret handshake or anything.
     
  13. KalashnikovJosh

    KalashnikovJosh New Member

    1,156
    0
    0
    Theres a secret handshake?

    The 'experts' I speak of are the ones that those particular 'experts' you mention called on to explain the 'legitimacy' of the federal government taking it upon itself to grant itself the authority to order us all to buy a product or face financial penalties.

    And yes,they are idiots.They call themselves 'Constitutional experts',despite the irony that they dont seem to understand the Constitution.

    And yes,despite the intentionally fostered association between nullification and the Civil War(and how it was fought over slavery),the states are nullifying certain out of bounds federal laws,just like they nullified the fugitive slave act.

    And its about time.
     
  14. robocop10mm

    robocop10mm Lifetime Supporting Member Lifetime Supporter

    11,380
    1
    0
    Don't all international Treaties have to be ratified by a 2/3 majority of Congress? So what if Hitlery signed it. Her signature means diddly squat. So what if Dumbo signs it. If Congress does not pass it, it is dead.
     
  15. Last Crow

    Last Crow New Member

    400
    0
    0
    That’s what it says on the US Senate web site. That would be 67 votes for passage, I don’t think that will happen.
    U.S. Senate: Art & History Home > Origins & Development > Powers & Procedures > Treaties
     
  16. KalashnikovJosh

    KalashnikovJosh New Member

    1,156
    0
    0
    Yeah but Hitlery is a 'modern progressive'.

    That means she knows whats best for everyone.

    She doesnt need to follow the law that limits her sharing her gift of benevolent greatness with the world.

    (I'm going to go puke now,see you folks tomorrow.)
     
  17. alsaqr

    alsaqr Well-Known Member Supporter

    6,196
    247
    63

    Total bull$hit. There is no such treaty at present. No such treaty will even exist before at least 2012. The proposed treaty is not about gun control in the US. The UN has no such jurisdiction in the US or any other country. That is stated in a UN resolution.

    International Gun Ban Treaty? | FactCheck.org

    It really does sadden me that folks buy into lies, distortions and demagoguery without ever attempting to find out the truth of the matter. This crap is being kept alive by the gunshow promotors, ammo distributors and others who have a vested interest in keeping gun and ammo prices high.
     
  18. IGETEVEN

    IGETEVEN New Member

    8,358
    4
    0
    Indeed.

    "Propaganda is neutrally defined as a systematic form of purposeful persuasion that attempts to influence the emotions, attitudes, opinions, and actions of specified target audiences for ideological, political or commercial purposes through the controlled transmission of one-sided messages (which may or may not be factual) via mass and direct media channels."

    Richard Alan Nelson


    Jack
     
  19. KalashnikovJosh

    KalashnikovJosh New Member

    1,156
    0
    0
    I dont buy into the hype of lies.

    I do however ascribe fully to the belief that there are people in this country who want to disarm the populace to make them more easily 'dealt with'.

    They are called "Socialist Progressives".They ascribe to Marxist and Communist ideology,and rather than attempting to violently overthrow the Republic as is their usual modus operandi,they have been diligently working for decades to 'progressively' bring us to socialism by abusing interpretations of government power-by rotting the body politic from within,as Cicero put it.

    Conspiracy theory?

    I think not-given the history of the Socialist Progressive movement in America who deem it necessary to implement what they believe is right for everyone else including such programs and ideology as social equality,welfare,GUN CONTROL,environmentalism, and last but definitely not the least of their evils-EUGENICS,its not hard at all to come to the conclusion that they would want to take total control of the use of force and place it under a large,powerful central government that they can then use to implement their policy and ideology.
    After all-they know they cant get away with murder if the victims are armed.

    And I dont underestimate evil.

    They will use anything they can to implement their agendas.

    Including the UN.

    And Hitlery is a self-described "Modern Progressive".

    Do I believe this particular report?
    I'm not going to discount it-I'll keep my eye on it.But it hasn't happened yet.

    And it does seem a bit far fetched.(Unless you understand the history of the Socialist Progressives in America.)

    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear."
    -Marcus Tullius Cicero 42B.C.
     
    Last edited: May 8, 2010
  20. orangello

    orangello New Member

    19,156
    0
    0
    That could cut down on the target shooting fun, but would it really matter in a self defense situation? It wouldn't to me, though i would be more careful to wear gloves when loading mags.

    At one point in my life "Legal" meant right, good, correct, proper, acceptable, now "Legal" just means government-approved and simpler. (Just my opinion, not representative of this forum or any other members) When it comes down to it, i believe that most people in this country will choose what is "right" or "good" rather than what is "legal".