Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 26 to 45 of 45

Thread: What, you thought that 2nd amendment protected you? LOL!!!......

  1. #26
    Regular Member mobiushky's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Alaska (ex-Colorado)
    Posts
    779
    Quote Originally Posted by Brass View Post
    To back up mobiusky a bit, I would like to point out that there have been attempts at backdoor gun-banning by this administration already. The attempt by the EPA to ban lead ammo would have put a serious crimp in all our shooty goodness. Fortunately, Congress also jumped in and scuttled that attempt.

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012...in-ammunition/

    The newest work around has the Obama Administration pushing OSHA to get involved by trying to shut down gun ranges for "employee safety" issues.

    http://www.volokh.com/2012/06/23/osh...hooting-range/

    What I'm saying, is that while the 2A doesn't say anything particular about bullets, safety, importation, .etc, it should be read so as to protect the Right to Keep and Bear along with all the ancillary things necessary to Keep and Bear.

    Just my 2 cents.
    I just read the OSHA violation. The actual citation recommends that Illinois Gun Works require all instructors to use double hearing protection because the electronic protection the instructor was using didn't block enough sound to reduce his exposure to the approved 8 hour average level! He was using electronic ear muffs that only block the peak shot volumes. They also stated that the instructor did not use ANSI Z87+ rated safety glasses when he was instructing as he was "close to the trainee(s) to check their line of sight and was exposed to eye injuries from hot, sharp, flying spent ammunition cartridges being ejected from semi-automatic handguns." (That's a direct quote.) He was wearing glasses, just not glasses with side shields! They also cited the range for allowing an instructor to, you might want to sit down for this it's pretty graphic, well he was just allowed to reach down and pick up a "loaded handgun cartridge" without... well, he did it without wearing protective gloves! I'm sorry to be so graphic. It goes on, but seriously they are trying to shut down ranges.

    What was OSHA's recommendation to abate some of these serious and somewhat graphic violations? The range should (and I'm not making this up) stopping teaching students how to shoot 9mm or .45ACP handguns and ban shotguns and rifles from the range. They recommended that the students only be allowed to shoot .22 pistols. They face a $111,000 fine if they don't comply.

    All of the citations, except the hearing and glasses, were based on lead exposure.
    Last edited by mobiushky; 06-25-2012 at 10:04 AM.

  2. #27
    Regular Member Bellum_Intus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Rush, Colorado
    Posts
    540
    Quote Originally Posted by mobiushky View Post
    What was OSHA's recommendation to abate some of these serious and somewhat graphic violations? The range should (and I'm not making this up) stopping teaching students how to shoot 9mm or .45ACP handguns and ban shotguns and rifles from the range. They recommended that the students only be allowed to shoot .22 pistols. They face a $111,000 fine if they don't comply.

    All of the citations, except the hearing and glasses, were based on lead exposure.
    *facepalm*...

    --Rob
    Kenaz Tactical Group

    "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

    "Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They [socialists] always run out of other people's money. It's quite a characteristic of them."
    --Margaret Thatcher

  3. #28
    Regular Member M-Taliesin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Aurora, Colorado
    Posts
    1,490
    Quote Originally Posted by mobiushky View Post
    Gotta stick up a little bit for myself. I did do a ton of research before I posted.
    <Snip>
    No offense intended. It's just that there are a lot of ways that the government will get around 2A by using laws that make it more difficult to get the arms. I'm not opposed to "buy USA", it's just that there are ways to make 2A irrelevant by making it impossible to get certain things.
    Howdy Pard!
    I appreciate your "no offense intended" spirit, and hope you will appreciate that I do not intend any offense on my part either.

    That being said, too much hysteria goes into the whole "They're going to take away our 2a rights" thing.
    The only way such hysteria can exist, is when people fail to understand the power of the Constitution.

    So I didn't do a ton of research. I did about 2 minutes of research while sitting in a local restaurant with the only other metro area OC'er who showed up for a meet and greet that got transformed into a mini-meet. I went to a trusted source, and here are a few tidbits about claims that our 2a rights can be circumvented:

    First, you can find all the information about the Hillary and the U.N. Small Arms Treaty myth here:
    http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp

    As you scan that site, you'll find language relevant to the near impossibility of dumping or circumventing 2a!

    Note, if you will, that any change to the 2nd Amendment, or any other for that matter, would require a 2/3 vote of the Senate.
    Since there are usually roughly half of the representatives represented by one party or the other, the ability to secure a 2/3 vote is inconceivable.
    It all comes under the concept of "checks and balances" operant in government.
    Note, as well, that the President does not have authority to vacate the 2nd, or any other, Amendment to the Constitution.
    To make a change to the Constitution of the United States, such as adding a new or changing an existing amendment,
    would involve a Constitutional Convention, and the proposed measure would require a vote to adopt from 2/3 of the American States.
    Once again, you have red states and blue, pretty much in some sort of balance.

    Point being, there is not any way for any jurisdiction to cobble together some law prohibiting 2a rights that isn't challengable to SCOTUS.

    Have we witnessed a Constitutional Convention in recent times? Yeah, we have. Like 50 years ago or so, when I was just a boy.
    They aren't easily brought about, because most folks do not have any interest in seeing the Constitution diddled with.
    That's why it is so difficult to make any changes!
    Between a 2/3 vote of the Senate,
    a 2/3 vote of the States,
    And the very real possibility of challenges to the U.S. Supreme Court....
    It is a real tough thing for anybody to do.
    Much less, the Secretary of State.

    Ergo, these scare tactics appear on the internet all the time.
    They are going to undermine this right, or that Constitutional safeguard, or dump a particular amendment.
    All manner of folks get all excited because they fall for the fear mongering mythology that usually can be traced to one political agenda or another.
    Such folks will try to whip up a frenzy in order to advance their own agenda, secure in the knowledge that most folks will react from a visceral emotion rather than rationally verify the facts. And most folks, honest to golly, do not check the facts. Both major political parties rely on the apathy of the American people who find it easier to accept what they're being told rather than check the facts.

    And while we are thus distracted by the orchestra of hysteria produced by ad campaigns making outrageous claims about the other candidate or party, very profound and deeply troubling assaults on Constitutional rights can't hold the interest of the people; i.e. the extralegal detention of citizens in Aurora, false arrest, reckless endangerment, assault with deadly weapons, felony menacing, and illegal search in outright and abject violation of Constitutional rights of those citizens so detained.

    Once you read the article found at the link I provided, all the way to the very bottom, you'll see that my claim of having "bigger fish to fry" is entirely valid.

    They cannot do away with 2a. They cannot circumvent it either.
    But they can (and sometimes do) ignore it outright, which is far more troubling.
    Especially when part of a larger program of ignoring the rights of a citizen.

    Blessings,
    M-Taliesin

  4. #29
    Regular Member mobiushky's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Alaska (ex-Colorado)
    Posts
    779
    I know that there are no legal direct assaults on 2A. That's pretty much failed in every case it's tried. But you have to at least admit that there are effective end around ways to accomplish nearly the same thing. Allowing you to buy a gun can still exist even if regulations make is so time consuming and expensive that no one can do it anymore. For instance, let's say for sake of argument that in order for you to purchase your next gun you had to appear before 5 different agencies in 5 consecutive days only between 10am and 2pm. And you have to do that same procedure every time you want to buy a gun no matter where you buy it from. How many people are capable of taking 5 consecutive days off work every time they want to purchase a firearm?

    This is definitely not to say that this kind of thing is happening or even to alarm anyone into thinking it will. I'm being a little ridiculous in order to prove a point. The main point is, there are ways to skirt 2A without legally attacking it directly. Take for instance the CA concealed carry laws. I saw a statistic just this month. The average concealed carry percentage of states that have "shall issue" laws is 2.9% of the total population. In California (may issue state) the percentage is 0.1%. Effectively, they have outlawed concealed carry without actually outlawing it. Talking to friends who live in CA, you can't get a concealed carry permit unless you donate large amounts of money to the local sheriffs. Some sheriffs have issued no permits at all. Now they have outlawed open carry statewide. So the hoops you have to go through to get a gun are enormous and unnecessarily cumbersome. When that happens, people just can't deal with it all and end up not buying at all. But owning a gun is still legal in CA.

    You have OSHA trying to stop ranges from teaching people how to shoot anything but .22 pistols. Which means they would have no idea how shoot anything larger and will be less likely to buy anything but a 22. That's not there yet, but if someone doesn't stand up to it, when will it end? What happens if the EPA gets their wish to ban lead from ammunition? Copper is over 4 times more expensive than lead. And it's less dense, which means the bullets have to change either in size or in weight. So a 100% copper bullet is going to be either large which affects ballistics, or its lighter which affects everything. Let alone what that will do to everything else that relies on copper including construction because copper is a major component of electrical systems. So you'll end up have more people fight over a less available material. Or they could use something else. But exotic alloys that would result in similar performance will be expensive also. For what?

    Regulatory manipulation is an extremely effective way to accomplish what you can't do through the legal system.

    I know there are a lot of misleading claims on the internet. But the fact is, this particular claim was true. Maybe it was late in the game and had already been addressed, but it was 100% true. Not scare tactics.

  5. #30
    Regular Member M-Taliesin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Aurora, Colorado
    Posts
    1,490
    Quote Originally Posted by mobiushky View Post
    I know there are a lot of misleading claims on the internet. But the fact is, this particular claim was true. Maybe it was late in the game and had already been addressed, but it was 100% true. Not scare tactics.
    Howdy Mobiushky!
    I really appreciate your willingness to discuss this topic in a reasonable manner and accept that another (such as myself for example) will have a contrasting opinion.
    That's really what America is all about. Everybody being entitled to their own point of view and the right to express it openly.

    While I quoted the line above from your last post, I don't think the way the original article was written correctly defined the actions taking or having taken place.
    The SNOPE folks checked it out and stated the claim was false. Parts of it might be accurate, but the overall original claims were at least misleading.

    That being said, we tend to focus on our shared interest in 2a. It is my belief, and perhaps poorly communicated, that attacking one particular right, such as 2a, doesn't seem to work well. As an alternative tactic, it seems more effective to undermine the entire Constitution at large rather than the individual parts such as Amendment 2.
    If the laws of our nation could be viewed as a house, the foundation upon which it stands is our Constitution.
    Undermine the foundation, and the house cannot stand.
    Burn the house, but leave the foundation, and the house can be rebuilt.
    Rip out the foundation, and there is no possibility of rebuilding.
    That is the essence of my perspective in previous posts.
    When I talk about bigger fish to fry, it is that we are focused on one front while being outflanked on several others.
    Therein lies true peril.

    The incident in Aurora on June 2 reveals the very agenda at work for all to see.
    Forget about Amendment 2... they violated Amendment 4, 5, 14, and a whole rash of others.
    We witnessed an outright assault on the Constitutional rights of our fellow citizens, but so long as it wasn't a direct assault on Amendment 2, most of us grousse about it but move on shortly to other topics. Indeed, the people behind that outragous power ploy are just biding their time to let the whole thing blow over. What will they do when they've gotten away with it once? I suspect they'd do it again. And if the wholesale trampling of Constitutional works isn't stopped here, maybe next time it will be in Denver. Or Boulder. Or Greeley. Or Colorado Springs. Or other cities and towns all across America. They're hoping to get away with it unscathed, in order to do something very simple... establish a precedent. The worst outcome is that we, the American people, become complacent to abuses of our rights and do nothing about it.
    And something they also hope will happen is that we continue to quarrel amongst ourselves so there is no cohesive response to oppressive tactics.
    Conservatives quarrel with Liberals, and vice versa. Republicans are at the throats of Democrats, and vice versa. Religious groups of one sort actively oppose religious groups of another sort. When you take the measure of America, there isn't much United to it.

    The last thing those in power want to see is folks putting aside differences to find common ground upon which to agree and act.
    The last thing they want to see happen is for Americans to unite as American people. Not conservative people, not liberal people, but Americans.
    Because if we, the People of the United States of America, unite.... their power is jeopardized.

    Anyhow, I do thank you for your thoughts and time taken to discuss these matters in a rational manner, and you have my respect as a fellow American.
    I just hope we continue to have an America to have fellowship in! After the Aurora incident, I am feeling much less confident that our nation is secure.

    Blessings,
    M-Taliesin

  6. #31
    Regular Member mobiushky's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Alaska (ex-Colorado)
    Posts
    779
    I think I might be a little confused? The part I was saying is 100% true was the attempt by the ATF to ban importation of anything but "sporting" shotguns. Not the UN treaty thing. The ATF did recommend banning non-sporting shotguns from importation only because they knew they couldn't do it with US manufacturers. But if you read that report, the overall tone was one of wishing they could ban them all.

    What you said about being outflanked really reinforces my feeling the way I do. You see, each of us has a different focus of concern. I'm not a duck hunter. I don't own any sporting shotguns. So if someone tried to make it more difficult to buy duck hunting shells, I'd probably be oblivious. But there are people who are keenly aware of it. And they tend to focus on their aspects. In the big picture, we all have the same goal and that is the defense of 2A in every arena. But individually, we will focus on the areas that mean the most to us personally. In that sense we have the ability as a group to maintain our flanks while still working toward the same objective.

    To me you are a great defender of the main spearhead of our rights. Defend 2A, but defend the Constitution more so! I love that.

    But some of us see the erosion of our rights in smaller maybe less obvious ways as just as bad. In my mind, subverting the direct legal attacks is more insidious and underhanded. But it happens. That's why I get worked up over little things. They are the flanks to me. I hope that makes sense.

  7. #32
    Regular Member mobiushky's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Alaska (ex-Colorado)
    Posts
    779
    Quote Originally Posted by M-Taliesin View Post

    First, you can find all the information about the Hillary and the U.N. Small Arms Treaty myth here:
    http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp

    As you scan that site, you'll find language relevant to the near impossibility of dumping or circumventing 2a!

    Note, if you will, that any change to the 2nd Amendment, or any other for that matter, would require a 2/3 vote of the Senate.
    Since there are usually roughly half of the representatives represented by one party or the other, the ability to secure a 2/3 vote is inconceivable.
    It all comes under the concept of "checks and balances" operant in government.
    Note, as well, that the President does not have authority to vacate the 2nd, or any other, Amendment to the Constitution.
    To make a change to the Constitution of the United States, such as adding a new or changing an existing amendment,
    would involve a Constitutional Convention, and the proposed measure would require a vote to adopt from 2/3 of the American States.
    Once again, you have red states and blue, pretty much in some sort of balance.

    Blessings,
    M-Taliesin
    Sorry to bring up this sore spot, but I did do some digging on this. First let me sat this. Snopes is at best hit or miss. They are NOT legal advise and they can be wrong. Especially when it comes to legal matters. Snopes is great about telling you if Microsoft is really going to give that dying cancer stricken 12 yr old a dime for every forwarded e-mail. But when it comes to interpreting the effects of legislation, they are a blind toddler throwing darts at a dart board.

    Recently SEVERAL major news outlets have started sounding the alarm about this "innocuous" arms treaty. Independent Journal review, Forbes and more.

    http://www.ijreview.com/2012/07/1006...trol-may-pass/

    The problem I have is this:

    -Enact tougher licensing requirements, creating additional bureaucratic red tape for legal firearms ownership.

    -Confiscate and destroy all “unauthorized” civilian firearms (exempting those owned by our government of course).

    -Ban the trade, sale and private ownership of all semi-automatic weapons (any that have magazines even though they still operate in the same one trigger pull – one single “bang” manner as revolvers, a simple fact the anti-gun media never seem to grasp).

    -Create an international gun registry, clearly setting the stage for full-scale gun confiscation.

    -In short, overriding our national sovereignty, and in the process, providing license for the federal government to assert preemptive powers over state regulatory powers guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment in addition to our Second Amendment rights.
    Now, you mentioned that in order to change 2A, a 2/3 vote would have to occur. But remember, signing a treaty does not directly change 2A. The most insidious part is that no one part of the treaty has any outright issues. It's only when you add them all together that you see the above list. They are The Small Arms Treaty, the Law of the Sea Treaty, and the Arms Trade Treaty according to IJR.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybel...rs-up-in-arms/

    Former U.N. ambassador John Bolton has cautioned gun owners to take this initiative seriously, stating that the U.N. “is trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about international arms trade between nation states, but there is no doubt that the real agenda here is domestic firearms control.
    Here's the thing. Snopes is stuck in 2009. You read through the information you linked and it all relates to 2009 events. This is 2012 and the threat appears to be real.

    I know that it would be difficult to legally ignore 2A. But we're dealing with people in Washington who have shown no problem ignoring laws and doing things illegally. At the very least, as responsible gun owners, we should be standing up against this further invasion into our rights as a sign of solidarity to those who don't even have the right. The UN should NOT be telling any one what they can or can't do. We need to do our best to be sure this treaty is NOT ratified by the Senate, because it will be signed by Obama. He has already said he would.

    EDIT: One more for the fun of it:

    http://www.nraila.org/legislation/fe...-underway.aspx

    It appears that the difference now is that the treaty now includes civilian arms rather than just "military" arms. That's kind of a big deal. BTW, 57 Senators have signed a letter to Obama saying that they will not vote to ratify the treaty if civilian arms are included. But as we saw with the health care farce, people can be bought off. It's still a fight.
    Last edited by mobiushky; 07-10-2012 at 10:10 AM.

  8. #33
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    5,652
    Quote Originally Posted by M-Taliesin View Post
    First, you can find all the information about the Hillary and the U.N. Small Arms Treaty myth here:
    http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp
    M, it's not a myth. IT'S VERY REAL.

    1. "a group of anti-gun members of the U.S. House of Representatives, led by U.S. Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.), went so far as to circulate a letter last week to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, in which they “strongly urge the United States to take a leadership role in pushing for a strong, verifiable Arms Trade Treaty.” - SOURCE

    2. Forbes: "Have no doubt that this plan is very real, with strong Obama administration support. In January 2010 the U.S. joined 152 other countries in endorsing a U.N. Arms Treaty Resolution that will establish a 2012 conference to draft a blueprint for enactment. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has pledged to push for Senate ratification. Former U.N. ambassador John Bolton has cautioned gun owners to take this initiative seriously, stating that the U.N. “is trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about international arms trade between nation states, but there is no doubt that the real agenda here is domestic firearms control.”" - SOURCE

    3. CNSNEWS: "Iran has been chosen as a member of the “bureau” overseeing a month-long United Nations conference in New York aimed at finalizing a controversial global “arms trade treaty.”" - SOURCE


    If you're thinking the Senate won't ratify it, think again:


    "So the majority in our Senate is smart enough to realize that the U.N.’s gun-grab agenda is unconstitutional, politically suicidal for those who support it, and down-right idiotic—right? Let’s hope so, but not entirely count on it. While a few loyal Obama Democrats are truly “pro-gun”, many are loathe to vote against treaties that carry the president’s international prestige, causing him embarrassment.

    Also, don’t forget that Senate confirmation of anti-gun Obama nominee Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Many within the few who voted against her did so only because of massive grassroots pressure from constituents who take their Constitutional protections very seriously."
    - SOURCE


    Mobiushky is correct: When it comes to key liberal political issues, SNOPES is not merely incorrect -- it's deliberately misleading.
    Last edited by since9; 07-11-2012 at 01:54 AM.
    Haven't been a member of the NRA since 1991. Get a clue.

    "One of the best things about our Republic is that we're as free to have our own opinions as we are from having the opinions of others forced upon us."

  9. #34
    Regular Member M-Taliesin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Aurora, Colorado
    Posts
    1,490
    Howdy Folks!
    I ain't often that I find myself mistaken on something like this, but I'm man enough to admit when I completely mistook what's happening per 2a rights.

    This thread leaped to mind (or more appropriately, pounced on it) when I heard Coast to Coast on the radio last night, and they were talking about the U.N. Treaty.
    Now I find this article from Fox News. Now I ain't much for Fox News, because those two words stuck together like that is frequently oxymoronic. But, it appears legit.

    http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/07...s-say-critics/

    So, with all due humility (a rarity I'll admit) I acknowledge I may have been badly mistaken in my previous assessments of the situation.

    That being said, it would still be a tough row to hoe for such a treaty to be ratified by the U.S. Senate. Even if they did, I'm pretty darn sure that the majority of states would rise a heckuva cry against it. Certainly gun owners wouldn't take this sort of thing laying down!

    Carry on!
    Blessings,
    M-Taliesin

  10. #35
    Regular Member Bellum_Intus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Rush, Colorado
    Posts
    540
    Quote Originally Posted by M-Taliesin View Post
    That being said, it would still be a tough row to hoe for such a treaty to be ratified by the U.S. Senate. Even if they did, I'm pretty darn sure that the majority of states would rise a heckuva cry against it. Certainly gun owners wouldn't take this sort of thing laying down!

    Carry on!
    Blessings,
    M-Taliesin
    If only the general population knew this was happening..

    --Rob
    Kenaz Tactical Group

    "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

    "Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They [socialists] always run out of other people's money. It's quite a characteristic of them."
    --Margaret Thatcher

  11. #36
    Regular Member mobiushky's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Alaska (ex-Colorado)
    Posts
    779
    The problem is, it's a scatter gun attack. They are attacking every step of the gun owners process from multiple angles. Both Hillary Clinton and Obama have openly stated they will sign on to this treaty. I know that means little, but it should at least scare people into realizing what these creeps are willing to do to our individual rights. Any of our rights. If they are willing to sell out 2A for non-US interests, what else will they sell out?

    This is a scary time people. It really is.

  12. #37
    Regular Member mobiushky's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Alaska (ex-Colorado)
    Posts
    779
    I appears that one of the 3 treaties has failed in Congress so far. The Law of the Sea Treaty has enough opposition that they will not get the required 67 votes in the Senate to ratify. Most places are regarding it as a dead end for the treaty. However, things like this have a tendency to sneak up every few years.

    While this one treaty itself is not directly related to gun control, it does subjugate US authority to foreign courts in matters of maritime dispute. Meaning that US based commercial vessels could be sued or deemed criminal by a non-US court. Not good. This to me was one way that the UN is trying to gain more jurisdiction over US interests including importation of goods (including firearms). If this were ratified and the small arms treaty ratified, any US vessel importing banned firearms (pretty much everyone you own except a revolver or single shot rifle) would be subject not to US trials, but to foreign law. That should never happen.

  13. #38
    Regular Member OldCurlyWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    893
    Quote Originally Posted by M-Taliesin View Post
    Howdy Folks!
    I ain't often that I find myself mistaken on something like this, but I'm man enough to admit when I completely mistook what's happening per 2a rights.

    This thread leaped to mind (or more appropriately, pounced on it) when I heard Coast to Coast on the radio last night, and they were talking about the U.N. Treaty.
    Now I find this article from Fox News. Now I ain't much for Fox News, because those two words stuck together like that is frequently oxymoronic. But, it appears legit.

    http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/07...s-say-critics/

    So, with all due humility (a rarity I'll admit) I acknowledge I may have been badly mistaken in my previous assessments of the situation.

    That being said, it would still be a tough row to hoe for such a treaty to be ratified by the U.S. Senate. Even if they did, I'm pretty darn sure that the majority of states would rise a heckuva cry against it. Certainly gun owners wouldn't take this sort of thing laying down!

    Carry on!
    Blessings,
    M-Taliesin
    I will say this. They seem to be better than any incarnation of NBC, CBS, ABC, PBS or NPR when it comes to being honest. Those formerly admirable news organizations have descended to depths lower than the Yellow Journalism of the 1800's.

    One of the new catch phrases is becoming:

    When can you tell when a newsperson is lying? Their lips are moving.

    I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do those things to other people and I require the same of them.

    Politicians should serve two terms, one in office and one in prison.(borrowed from RioKid)

  14. #39
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    5,652
    Quote Originally Posted by M-Taliesin View Post
    Howdy Folks!
    I ain't often that I find myself mistaken on something like this, but I'm man enough to admit when I completely mistook what's happening per 2a rights.

    This thread leaped to mind (or more appropriately, pounced on it) when I heard Coast to Coast on the radio last night, and they were talking about the U.N. Treaty.
    Now I find this article from Fox News. Now I ain't much for Fox News, because those two words stuck together like that is frequently oxymoronic. But, it appears legit.

    http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/07...s-say-critics/

    So, with all due humility (a rarity I'll admit) I acknowledge I may have been badly mistaken in my previous assessments of the situation.
    Thanks, Buddy. I'll admit that when people have a heart-felt invested interest in something controversial, there's a lot of conspiratorial talk, sometimes so much it's difficult to separate the chaff from the wheat! At least now we can get down to fighting it.

    That being said, it would still be a tough row to hoe for such a treaty to be ratified by the U.S. Senate. Even if they did, I'm pretty darn sure that the majority of states would rise a heckuva cry against it. Certainly gun owners wouldn't take this sort of thing laying down!
    U.S. Constitution Article II, Section 2, Clause 2: "[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur..." That seems clear, but...

    The problem are congressional-executive agreements, which are made by either the President, Congress, or both. While they're un-Constitutional on the face of it, our Stupreme Court has upheld them as valid. Then there are sole executive agreements are made by the president alone. Finally, there are the Constitutional treaties requiring a supermajority. Although international law in most nations considers all three of the above agreements as treaties, because our Constitution specifically addresses treaties, Congress can legally modify or repeal treaties afterwards.

    Personally (and getting into conspiratorial waters), I think the boojums in black hats backing Obama have some powerful leverage over most of Congress, else why would they hesitate to impeach the most impeachable president our country has ever known? Thus, I suspect we'll see this either fail as expected, or sail through Congress with disturbingly little resistance.

    If that happens, I'll know beyond a reasonable doubt that all three branches of our government have been corrupted by our nation's enemies.
    Haven't been a member of the NRA since 1991. Get a clue.

    "One of the best things about our Republic is that we're as free to have our own opinions as we are from having the opinions of others forced upon us."

  15. #40
    Regular Member mobiushky's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Alaska (ex-Colorado)
    Posts
    779
    Foxnews has a follow-up editorial today:

    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/...ally-supports/

    Makes some really interesting points. One being that even though it will have a tough time making it through the Senate, it will expose the administrations true intentions and honest feelings about gun control, which he fully supports according to his record and his own words as a state senator. It will also cause so indirect ramifications globally as other countries are forced into the treaty putting even more pressure on the US. But also I would bet you will see some countries who currently export to the US stop making some firearms. I can't even venture to guess what or who. But it's a consequence I'm sure we'll see later. Maybe 4-5 years from now we'll be saying, "Hey why can't you find _____ guns anymore?" Do we stop seeing Russian ammo? Does Wolf and Tulammo disappear? Interesting side effects.

  16. #41
    Regular Member Jay Jacobs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Canton, GA
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by Bellum_Intus View Post
    ...Personally I'm not worried about it unless our current administration continues past November.. Even then, I do not think this would pass Supreme Court muster.
    You're probably right, although admittedly I thought the Supreme Court would strike down the mandate in Obama Care too.

  17. #42
    Regular Member rushcreek2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs. CO
    Posts
    870
    I've e-mailed both Senator Udall, and Bennett on this U.N. Small Arms Treaty.

    Bennett replied almost immediately with a comprehensive response citing all of his "pro2A votes" thus far. That's an indication he's been receiving a lot of mail on the subject. Bottom line he said he would "keep my views in mind" whenever the Treaty comes before the Senate.

    Udall hasn't replied yet.

    If they vote for this treaty they will be unemployed after next re-election day.

  18. #43
    Regular Member mobiushky's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Alaska (ex-Colorado)
    Posts
    779
    Quote Originally Posted by rushcreek2 View Post
    I've e-mailed both Senator Udall, and Bennett on this U.N. Small Arms Treaty.

    Bennett replied almost immediately with a comprehensive response citing all of his "pro2A votes" thus far. That's an indication he's been receiving a lot of mail on the subject. Bottom line he said he would "keep my views in mind" whenever the Treaty comes before the Senate.

    Udall hasn't replied yet.

    If they vote for this treaty they will be unemployed after next re-election day.
    I hold little faith in either Udall or Bennett. Both are pretty much lap dogs for Obama. If he really does plan to sign the treaty, he's telling all his people what they are supposed to do. They may say they are pro2A, but I've read several articles that say when it comes to something of this profile, senators (especially those of the same party of a president) tend to not want to embarrass a sitting president in front of the world.

    But having said that, i do find it difficult to think that they will get 67 votes to ratify something so heinous. Honestly, this might explain the shortages I'm reading and hearing about in firearms. Had a guy just tell me yesterday, he can't get Remington 870 shotguns right now.

    BTW, Hillary Clinton did announce that "the US supports talks to ratify the treaty." In essence that is the Obama administration telling the world his intent is to sign it.

    OH, and, you might how would a pro2A senator sign for ratification? Remember, despite all the facts being out there, the left is starting to beat the drum that this treaty will not affect US citizens 2A rights. Even though we know it will. There is an effort starting to try to convince us that the US could ratify the treaty and nothing would change.
    Last edited by mobiushky; 07-18-2012 at 06:40 PM.

  19. #44
    Regular Member Bellum_Intus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Rush, Colorado
    Posts
    540
    Damnit.. I want to buy a Benelli M5!! .. >.< (i've been saving pennies for a year lol .. will have the cash in about 6 months haha)

    I wrote them both too.. twice now (once a few months ago) .. same canned replies on both letters! hah..

    We'll see what happens..
    as far as ammo, I reload Hornady VMax and Zmax as well as XTP for pistol.. so I'm not so concerned about TulAmmo (that stuff will not TOUCH my firearms anyway)
    Kenaz Tactical Group

    "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

    "Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They [socialists] always run out of other people's money. It's quite a characteristic of them."
    --Margaret Thatcher

  20. #45
    Regular Member mobiushky's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Alaska (ex-Colorado)
    Posts
    779
    Quote Originally Posted by Bellum_Intus View Post
    Damnit.. I want to buy a Benelli M5!! .. >.< (i've been saving pennies for a year lol .. will have the cash in about 6 months haha)

    I wrote them both too.. twice now (once a few months ago) .. same canned replies on both letters! hah..

    We'll see what happens..
    as far as ammo, I reload Hornady VMax and Zmax as well as XTP for pistol.. so I'm not so concerned about TulAmmo (that stuff will not TOUCH my firearms anyway)
    I don't blame you about Tulammo. But, they do keep prices down. It's hard to charge $20 for 50 rounds when they only charge $10.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

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