Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 32

Thread: First Major Step in a Plan to Ban All Firearms in the US

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    N Las Vegas, NV
    Posts
    3

    First Major Step in a Plan to Ban All Firearms in the US

    Have you heard?

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/...59E0Q920091015

    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.

    Granted this is old, from 2009, I thought it may be fitting to resurrect it now that I have found a group that is as dedicated to preserving our Rights as I am.
    Last edited by Wheelchair oc'er; 05-16-2012 at 04:53 PM.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    KC
    Posts
    1,012
    I would recommend you go back to the Constitution to see how treaties get approved and whether or not it bypasses Congress.

    Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    N Las Vegas, NV
    Posts
    3
    I am fully aware of what our Constitution reads, and I am glad that you and I agree on that point. I believe that our current Commander in Chief and his Administration, doggedly insist that "treaties supersede the Constitution" because they want treaties to supersede the Constitution so they can escape the chains of the Constitution! And they plan and scheme relentlessly toward achieving that end.

  4. #4
    Regular Member The Big Guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Waco, TX
    Posts
    1,950
    Quote Originally Posted by Wheelchair oc'er View Post
    Have you heard?

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/...59E0Q920091015

    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.

    Granted this is old, from 2009, I thought it may be fitting to resurrect it now that I have found a group that is as dedicated to preserving our Rights as I am.
    Welcome to the forum.

    Yeh I brought this up a long time ago. Many on here felt that it could never happen. If one follows the subject you will see that we are indeed moving closer to it. Obama has made statements that leads one to believe he can simply bypass congress. It is going to pass, and the Obama administration will try to enforce it.

    TBG
    Life member GOA and NRA. Member of SAF, NAGR, TXGR and Cast Bullet Assoc.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    KC
    Posts
    1,012
    Let's say that President Obama does sign the treaty without consent of the Senate. First, it would be unenforceable due to the Reid v Covert case, which held that treaties may not supersede the Constitution, Secondly, the House would trip over itself in it's hurry to impeach President Obama. Finally, I bet that there is good chance that the Senate would them vote him out.

    I would encourage you to not listen to the whackballs on either side of the fence. As usual, the truth lines in the middle somewhere.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wheelchair oc'er View Post
    I am fully aware of what our Constitution reads, and I am glad that you and I agree on that point. I believe that our current Commander in Chief and his Administration, doggedly insist that "treaties supersede the Constitution" because they want treaties to supersede the Constitution so they can escape the chains of the Constitution! And they plan and scheme relentlessly toward achieving that end.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Nevada carrier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    The Epicenter of Freedom
    Posts
    1,297
    Quote Originally Posted by kcgunfan View Post
    Let's say that President Obama does sign the treaty without consent of the Senate. First, it would be unenforceable due to the Reid v Covert case, which held that treaties may not supersede the Constitution, Secondly, the House would trip over itself in it's hurry to impeach President Obama. Finally, I bet that there is good chance that the Senate would them vote him out.

    I would encourage you to not listen to the whackballs on either side of the fence. As usual, the truth lines in the middle somewhere.
    The Senate would back president Obama, they are controlled by the Democrats, but the House on the other hand would not stand for it. Reid would never allow a motion to come before the Senate that would jeopardize his party's power.

    Also take into consideration that there are three hundred million firearms in private hands, if any military force attempted to confiscate them and only 50% of those guns took out a member of that force, that's 150 million casualties. That would be a death toll of biblical proportions that would far exceed any single conflict in human history; and they know this. Attempting to confiscate firearms from Americans would be the catalyst for the bloodiest massacre to befall the human race. It would start a civil war that would be impossible to fight short of a scorched earth campaign that would result in unimaginable collateral damage. It would trigger the second coming of the american revolution only this time it would not be fought by farmers with pitchforks, but would be lead by veteran officers with ranks and files full of veteran Soldiers who know how to fight. Imagine an insurgency like the one in Iraq but on the scale of the United states. Sound like a winnable campaign?
    Last edited by Nevada carrier; 05-18-2012 at 09:35 AM.
    Nevada Campus Carry: The Movement Continues
    http://nvcampuscarry.blogspot.com

  7. #7
    Regular Member 09jisaac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Louisa, Kentucky
    Posts
    1,694
    I would like to think that too. If there was anything major forced upon american citizens by the federal government, major enough to start a sizable civil war/rebellion, then I don't think many in our armed forces would fight american citizens like that.

    I see most in the armed forces as good people, just like you and I, they will follow to an extent. After that point is reached though, they will distance themselves from what they are told to do and go towards what they know is right (not killing American's for their guns).

    And if the Feds bring in troops from other countries to fight the Citizens then that would be a whole new can of worms.
    No man alive can beat me in a fair fight: It's not fair to chase a man down and beat him.

  8. #8
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    Quote Originally Posted by Wheelchair oc'er View Post
    I am fully aware of what our Constitution reads, and I am glad that you and I agree on that point. I believe that our current Commander in Chief and his Administration, doggedly insist that "treaties supersede the Constitution" because they want treaties to supersede the Constitution so they can escape the chains of the Constitution! And they plan and scheme relentlessly toward achieving that end.
    They can believe that all they want but the fact remains their hands are bound by chains of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Charges of high treason would be in order for a president to do otherwise.
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  9. #9
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    Quote Originally Posted by Nevada carrier View Post
    The Senate would back president Obama, they are controlled by the Democrats, but the House on the other hand would not stand for it. Reid would never allow a motion to come before the Senate that would jeopardize his party's power.

    Also take into consideration that there are three hundred million firearms in private hands, if and military force attempted to confiscate them and only 50% of those guns took out a member of that force, that's 150 million casualties. That would be a death toll of biblical proportions that would far exceed any single conflict in human history; and they know this. Attempting to confiscate firearms from Americans would be the catalyst for the bloodiest massacre to befall the human race. It would start a civil war that would be impossible to fight short of a scorched earth campaign that would result in unimaginable collateral damage. It would trigger the second coming of the american revolution only this time it would not be fought by farmers with pitchforks, but would be lead by veteran officers with ranks and files full of veteran Soldiers who know how to fight. Imagine an insurgency like the one in Iraq but on the scale of the United states. Sound like a winnable campaign?
    Well such an event would not be a precedent. After all, the spark which ignited the American Revolution was gun control.
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  10. #10
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,274
    Quote Originally Posted by 09jisaac View Post
    <snip> And if the Feds bring in troops from other countries to fight the Citizens then that would be a whole new can of worms.
    What, like some sort of 'The Hessians
    are coming kind of thing?'
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  11. #11
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    Quote Originally Posted by 09jisaac View Post
    I would like to think that too. If there was anything major forced upon american citizens by the federal government, major enough to start a sizable civil war/rebellion, then I don't think many in our armed forces would fight american citizens like that.

    I see most in the armed forces as good people, just like you and I, they will follow to an extent. After that point is reached though, they will distance themselves from what they are told to do and go towards what they know is right (not killing American's for their guns).

    And if the Feds bring in troops from other countries to fight the Citizens then that would be a whole new can of worms.
    My last job was with a major defense contractor and as one might expect, we frequently had members of the armed forces ion our building for seminars and such. On several occasions, I posed this question to some of them.

    If an executive order was issued to the armed forces to begin the confiscation of privately owned firearms, do you believe the military would comply with the order?

    To a man, they said "no". A few indicated that there would be a couple of officers who would be willing to carry it out but the vast majority would not and they would not because such an order would not only be illegal, but it would also be a violation of their military oath.

    I had thought this would be the case and I also believe something else would be in the works against any administration which tried to do this. Think about it. You would have young enlisted people attempting to confiscate firearms and you can bet there would be flare ups across the nation. A soldier from, say, Oklahoma trying to disarm people in Georgia and getting shot at has to know the same thing is most likely happening in his home town as well where his friends and family could easily be targets of people like himself. He is NOT going to like that at all.
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    ripley wv
    Posts
    144
    HMMMMM ever read the story of Blair Mt. this was almost 100 years ago. US planes bombed coal miners, WV National Guard fought against, fired upon and killed American citizens. The coal war ended when the coal miners, many of whom were veterens of WW1 laid down thier arms because they could not fire on American troops, with which they had fought side by side with. But that was 100 years ago, times are different. Yes they sure are Obama scares the crap out of me, he is smart and evil. A lethal combination. What if some kinda of armed civil upriasing occure's, who would fire on whom. Many younger Americans dont have the same since of patrotism as they did years ago due to brainwashing while in school. What would be the outcome if it ever happens. Just something to think about. I hope and praywe never find out. Obama will try an end around of the Constitution.
    I am not a gun nut, nor am I a nut with a gun
    I simply rufuse to be a helpless victim, I may be unable to stop myself from being a victim but at least I wont be helpless

  13. #13
    Regular Member Nevada carrier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    The Epicenter of Freedom
    Posts
    1,297
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    What, like some sort of 'The Hessians
    are coming kind of thing?'

    Something like that!
    Last edited by Nevada carrier; 05-18-2012 at 09:39 AM.
    Nevada Campus Carry: The Movement Continues
    http://nvcampuscarry.blogspot.com

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Big D
    Posts
    1,059
    Why in the world do you think that a Constitutional scholar, who has shown nothing except respect for that document, would ever try to destroy it? Of all people you could accuse of "being on the tipping point toward treason", our president is not one. We all could find something we do not like about any particular President's handling of one or more issues, but President Obama has done nothing to restrict ownership of firearms.

    He is a Chicagoan, and many there simply have been raised and indoctrinated that guns are bad (and when you see people being killed on the magnitude seen there you might also). But to his credit, he hasn't attempted to impose that on the rest of us.

    Chicken Little seems to be alive and well, and she isn't the canary in a coal mine, but someone whose sky is falling.

  15. #15
    Regular Member MyWifeSaidYes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Logan, OH
    Posts
    1,028
    Two words - Eric Holder

    No, wait. That's not enough evidence.

    Six words - Eric Holder still has a job!

    Yes, it's possible for someone raised in Chigago to be brought up anti-gun, but Obama didn't move to Chicago unti 1985.

    Hopefully, Obama has seen what the LACK of Legally Armed Citizens has done for both Chicago and DC and now realizes the importance of our rights protected by the 2A.
    ------------------------------------------------------------
    What does a caring, sensitive person feel when they are forced to use a handgun to stop a threat?

    Recoil.

  16. #16
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    Constitutional scholar? I don't think so. Not when he said that,

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jr9mLB3yKs

    These are not the words of a Constitutional scholar but more those of a radical non-believer in these our most hallowed founding documents. I might add that as soon as he uttered the words that the Constitution is a charter of negative rights, he departed from any measure of a Constitutional scholar for the simple fact that this is just not true.
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,011
    Typical TPub fear mongering. We have heard this type of FUD since the election (even before he took office). I suspect we will hear an unending stream of this type of story as the election comes closer, especially considering who will be his GOP opponent.
    Last edited by beebobby; 05-18-2012 at 01:20 PM.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Tryon, NC
    Posts
    60
    I'm a currently serving National Guardsman and did 4 years active duty Marine Corps. An order to do this would be wholly unconstitutional. I have no obligation in my oath or contract to carry it out. My oath didn't say "uphold and defend the government". It states "swear to uphold and defend the CONSTITUTION of the United States against all enemies foreign and DOMESTIC". If the president or anyone else issues that order, they have violated this and thus become an enemy. You know what we do to enemies.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Sierra Vista, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    113
    Quote Originally Posted by beebobby View Post
    Typical TPub fear mongering. We have heard this type of FUD since the election (even before he took office). I suspect we will hear an unending stream of this type of story as the election comes closer, especially considering who will be his GOP opponent.
    Oh, so you want to wear blinders do you? I sure do see a lot of this from the other side also. I just wonder why people choose to be half blind. Wake up and see what is happening all around and you will realize that there is a ton coming from the Dems also. But why face reality.........

  20. #20
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by mohawk001 View Post
    Oh, so you want to wear blinders do you? I sure do see a lot of this from the other side also. I just wonder why people choose to be half blind. Wake up and see what is happening all around and you will realize that there is a ton coming from the Dems also. But why face reality.........
    Yes, we have heard this before. Not just with the current administration, and not just with the Ds.

    While I do tend to do a Click image for larger version. 

Name:	ultimatefacepalm-1.png 
Views:	83 
Size:	54.9 KB 
ID:	8468 on hearing the "The sky is falling" stuff, it pays to stay aware.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    Quote Originally Posted by nonameisgood View Post
    Why in the world do you think that a Constitutional scholar, who has shown nothing except respect for that document, would ever try to destroy it? Of all people you could accuse of "being on the tipping point toward treason", our president is not one. We all could find something we do not like about any particular President's handling of one or more issues, but President Obama has done nothing to restrict ownership of firearms.

    He is a Chicagoan, and many there simply have been raised and indoctrinated that guns are bad (and when you see people being killed on the magnitude seen there you might also). But to his credit, he hasn't attempted to impose that on the rest of us.

    Chicken Little seems to be alive and well, and she isn't the canary in a coal mine, but someone whose sky is falling.
    He has stated that he is working on gun control "behind the scenes." He has done NOTHING about "Operation Fast and Furious." He and his administration has distorted and lied about the gun problem south of the border saying things like "90% of the guns used in crime come from the US." Or how he was not happy with the gun rider on the credit card reform bill that now allows us to carry in national parks. All of that is simply his actions towards guns and doesn't include anything that he did prior to being president. And lets not forget about Obamacare and how he thinks its Constitutional. Or the war on Libya that he refused to get Congressional approval to go to because he somehow felt that it wasn't a war.

    He might be a Constitutional "scholar" but he sure does try to ignore or work around the Constitution.

  22. #22
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    Quote Originally Posted by ramkatral View Post
    I'm a currently serving National Guardsman and did 4 years active duty Marine Corps. An order to do this would be wholly unconstitutional. I have no obligation in my oath or contract to carry it out. My oath didn't say "uphold and defend the government". It states "swear to uphold and defend the CONSTITUTION of the United States against all enemies foreign and DOMESTIC". If the president or anyone else issues that order, they have violated this and thus become an enemy. You know what we do to enemies.
    Amen to that. And this is exactly what the military personnel to whom I posed this question said. Any president who issued such orders would be doing so illegally which means, of course, no one is required to carry them out. He would have broken the law and anyone who followed them would also be breaking the law.... several of them.
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Sierra Vista, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    113
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    Yes, we have heard this before. Not just with the current administration, and not just with the Ds.

    While I do tend to do a Click image for larger version. 

Name:	ultimatefacepalm-1.png 
Views:	83 
Size:	54.9 KB 
ID:	8468 on hearing the "The sky is falling" stuff, it pays to stay aware.

    stay safe.
    I'm not sure if either I didn't get my message across correctly or if I'm not reading yours correctly. All I was trying to do was point out to the person that they couldn't just blame the Reps for studid stuff, and who knows if it was a Rep that even started it to begin with.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Platte City, MO
    Posts
    25
    When you start reading things with an open-mind it's pretty disheartening the amount of propaganda that your own party and organization puts forth in their effort to control your thoughts and beliefs. As was said, the truth lies somewhere in the middle and doing your due diligence on the subject before spouting off about it hurts us all.

  25. #25
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    I have very serious doubts that the current president or any president is going to issue some sort of order to confiscate privately owned firearms. Not impossible, but VERY unlikely.
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •