Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 54

Thread: Obama is trying to BAN GUNS RIGHT NOW!!!

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Bend, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    107

    Post imported post

    Obama is trying to ban guns right now. Call, email, snail mail your Senators.

    "Global Poverty Act" (S.2433)

    Full article:

    http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/cki...ck_0213p.shtml

    Salient points:

    The legislation would commit the U.S. to spending 0.7 percent of gross national product on foreign aid, which amounts to a phenomenal 13-year total of $845 billion over and above what the U.S. already spends.

    In addition to seeking to eradicate poverty, that declaration commits nations to banning "small arms and light weapons" and ratifying a series of treaties, including the International Criminal Court Treaty, the Kyoto Protocol (global warming treaty), the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Bend, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    107

    Post imported post

    Here is the UN document we would be forced to follow if this is passed. Excerpts below.

    http://www.un.org/millennium/declaration/ares552e.pdf

    Gun control:

    "To ensure the implementation, by States Parties, of treaties in areas such as arms control and disarmament and of international humanitarian law and human rights law, and call upon all States to consider signing and ratifying the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court."

    Giving our legal sovereignty to a world court:

    "To strengthen respect for the rule of law in international as in national affairs and, in particular, to ensure compliance:what: by Member States with the decisions of the International Court of Justice, in compliance with the Charter of the United Nations, in cases to which they are parties. "

    _______________

    So if I understand this, if this S.2433 is passed and we have to obey this Millennium document of the UN and the US refuses to implement gun control then we can be taken before a world court and forcibly disarmed? I know Obama already wants to ban guns but this is scary. ::shock:

  3. #3
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Lets not forget that the Constitution makes all treaties binding on these united States.

    Article. VI.

    All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

    This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. (emphasis mine)

    These united States are members of the UN by treaty.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  4. #4
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Troy, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    544

    Post imported post

    Forcibly disarmed by who?

    There is a reason the US hasn't already joined the ICC. Because we do not wish to relinquish that sort of sovereignty and there is no one powerful enough to coerce us to do so. That has not and will not change. This will never pass.

    It's a publicity stunt for Obama. "See, Look. I am supporting change! I am making things better! If you vote for me for President, I can do this uninhibited for 4 years!"


    REALISM:

      • The international system is anarchic. There is no authority above states capable of regulating their interactions; states must arrive at relations with other states on their own, rather than it being dictated to them by some higher controlling entity.
      • Sovereign states are the principal actors in the international system. International institutions, non-governmental organizations, multinational corporations, individuals and other sub-state or trans-state actors are viewed as having little independent influence.
      • States are rational unitary actors each moving towards their own national interest. There is a general distrust of long-term cooperation or alliance.
      • The overriding 'national interest' of each state is its national security and survival.
      • Relations between states are determined by their comparative level of power derived primarily from their military and economic capabilities.

    (quoted from Wiki article on "Political Realism")

    This basically covers the jist of Morgenthau's Six Principles of Political Realism.


  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Castle Rock, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    779

    Post imported post

    Forcibly "coerced" into disarming by the UN and the ICC? Heh....bring it.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Idaho, , USA
    Posts
    43

    Post imported post

    Evil Ernie wrote:
    Forcibly "coerced" into disarming by the UN and the ICC? Heh....bring it.
    They would not want to imagine what kind of war this kind of stunt would get them, heck, I don't even want to imagine such a thing.

  7. #7
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Troy, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    544

    Post imported post

    Can anyone say Civil War II?

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Lacey, Washington, USA
    Posts
    151

    Post imported post

    Read the "Millennium Goals" resolution again. Pay particular attention to item 9:
    To take concerted action to end illicit traffic in small arms and light weapons, especially by making arms transfers more transparent and supporting regional disarmament measures, taking account of all the recommendations of the forthcoming United Nations Conference on Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons.
    Italics mine.
    This is about trying to stop sales of arms to terrorists, drug cartels, and the like. How many of those types of organizations get their weaponry from the US? More like from the former Soviet Union, Serbia, China, Iran, Pakistan, etc. Why would any UN member state want to ban private firearms ownership in the US? Who else are they going to sell their AK-clones and surplus SKSs and Garands to?

    Note, incidentally, that the ICC can only claim jurisdiction over a suspected war criminal when the suspect's country of origin cannot or will not prosecute him itself, unless a case is referred to it by the UN Security Council. But since the US wields a veto on the Council, that's never going to happen to any American serviceman.

    Bear in mind that the UN still operates on the principle of national sovereignty. A country's internal affairs are in principle its own business. The international community generally only has justification to get involved when those internal affairs cause results that affect other countries (e.g. when refugees come streaming across the border and place a burden on neighboring countries, or if the terrorists who are being harbored by the government carry out operations elsewhere).

  9. #9
    Regular Member ChinChin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Loudoun County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    683

    Post imported post

    vmathis12019 wrote:
    Can anyone say Civil War II?
    Our side will refer to it as the War of Liberal Agression.
    The problem with the internet is nobody can really tell when you’re serious and when you’re being sarcastic. –Abraham Lincoln

  10. #10
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Troy, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    544

    Post imported post

    Cpl. Andrew Mathis. 1st Alabama Infantry E Company.

    See you boys on the field!

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    466

    Post imported post

    Molon Labe

  12. #12
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    Euromutt wrote:
    *snip*
    Why would any UN member state want to ban private firearms ownership in the US?
    Well, let's see: 240,000,000+ firearms in the hands of some 80,000,000 American citizens, the vast majority of whom believe strongly in freedom, liberty, individualism, the US Constitution and the ideals espoused in the Declaration of Independence, nearly all of which are anathema to the UN's socialistic/communistic goals. As long as we are armed and believe in those founding documents, there is no nation or combination of nations that can defeat this nation, steal our resources, or turn us from citizens to subjects. The very existence of the 2nd Amendment and our exercising of it is a continual threat to the UN and most of it's membership.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    , Virginia, USA
    Posts
    174

    Post imported post

    Armed forces going door-to-door, confiscating defensive firearms from law-abiding US Citizens. It could NEVER happen here.

    Just like it could never happen in New Orleans.


    While the 'worst' of the scenarios outlined in this thread would probably never occur, it's only borderline tin-foil hat thinking.

    Disarm felons, then those under TPO's, then those involuntarily committed, followed by those VOLUNTARILY treated for any number of emotional illnesses, then drunk drivers, followed by those convicted of minor misdemeanors and those guilty of 'thought' crime.

    Add to this the expansion of 'defense free crime zones', persecution of gun dealers, useless pablum feel good and very expensive measures such as microstamping and the eventual bankruptcy of firearms manufacturers.

    Add to that the liberal brainwashing of our youth by eveyone from the schools to the media, demonization of hunting, the militarization of our police forces and gradually, a bit and bite at a time 'THEY' (who are really supposed to be us) won't have to go door-to-door, because all of the 'good' people will have been disarmed and left at the mercy of the armed criminals. And, as in N.O. a not insignificant number of those criminals will be our own 'government' troops.

    I don't fear for myself, I fear for my grandchildren who will grow up never having tasted true liberty.



    --

    The Eggman, DmAt, MSI
    NRA, GOA, VSSF, GSSF, AFIO, VCDL
    www.the-eggman.com

    "If you can't be free, at least be irritating"
    "Never pick a fight with an old spy. If he doesn't feel like fighting he'll just kill you."

    T.S. Eggleston, DmAt, MSI - aka The Eggman
    www.TheEggman.com
    www.TheEgglestonGroup.com

    "If You Can't Be Free, At Leat Be Irritating"

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Bend, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    107

    Post imported post

    Euromutt wrote:
    Read the "Millennium Goals" resolution again. Pay particular attention to item 9:
    To take concerted action to end illicit traffic in small arms and light weapons, especially by making arms transfers more transparent and supporting regional disarmament measures, taking account of all the recommendations of the forthcoming United Nations Conference on Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons.
    Italics mine.
    This is about trying to stop sales of arms to terrorists, drug cartels, and the like. How many of those types of organizations get their weaponry from the US? More like from the former Soviet Union, Serbia, China, Iran, Pakistan, etc. Why would any UN member state want to ban private firearms ownership in the US? Who else are they going to sell their AK-clones and surplus SKSs and Garands to?

    snip...
    This is from another bullet point. The bullet point I quoted was about all guns.

    The biggest thing holding the UN back right now is our guns and does not mention illicit trade..

    They can't outright come and take our guns so we see all the maneuvering over decades.

    I don't trust the NRA anymore but check this article out from 2006.

    http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=50671

    NRA warns of U.N. gun control
    U.S. participating in upcoming small-arms conference
    Posted: June 16, 2006
    1:00 am Eastern

    Wayne LaPierre (NRA) An American delegation will participate in a controversial United Nations small-arms conference criticized by Second Amendment advocates as a threat to U.S. gun ownership.
    The U.N. Small Arms Review Conference will meet in New York City June 26 to July 7 to discuss illegal trafficking in arms, "ineffective national controls" and related issues.

    The U.N.'s disarmament effort features a program in which it buys back weapons in nations torn by civil strife. But National Rifle Association Vice President Wayne LaPierre insists the U.N. is concerned about more than illicit arms in African hot spots. He says the global body wants the firearms of American citizens and much more.

    "So, after we are disarmed, the U.N. wants us demobilized and reintegrated," says the NRA's executive vice president, Wayne LaPierre, according to the Economist magazine. "I can hear it now: 'Step right this way for your reprogramming, sir. Once we confiscate your guns, we can demobilize your aggressive instincts and reintegrate you into civil society.' No thanks."

    LaPierre sees the U.N. as a club of governments, some of which want to "strip opposition forces of the means to challenge their authority."

    Noting that during the 20th century, governments murdered 169 million people in various parts of the world, the NRA leader says individual gun ownership is the "ultimate protection against tyranny."

    Although an effort by the U.N. to control Americans' guns seems far-fetched and improbable to some, as WorldNetDaily has reported in a major investigation, that plan has its roots in the early 1960s with a 20-page State Department pamphlet titled "Freedom From War: The United States Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World."

    LaPierre, in his book "The Global War on Your Guns: Inside the UN Plan to Destroy the Bill of Rights," claims a 1997 land-mine treaty molded the U.N.'s new anti-gun strategy; that the U.N. funnels Americans' tax dollars to anti-gun member nations; that U.S. gun-control advocates are investing in the U.N.'s activities; and that even the most extreme U.N. gun laws can be enforced on Americans, without the benefit of a new treaty.

    snip...

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Bend, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    107

    Post imported post

    My other concern with this type scenario is that the legislation could be pushed through without being read by senators on a quick voice vote.

    It sounds nice on the surface right? Eliminating poverty doesn't sound bad.

    I fear it could be pushed through on a voice only, non-recorded, vote like the mental health/veterans/NICS bill HR 2640 was. We don't even know who voted what on that one and it got rammed through.

    "Everyone who wants children to have enough food to eat say 'aye'."

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    Better stock up on ammo...

    :celebrate




    On a related note, I saw an auction on GunBroker a few days ago for a pallet of 100,000 rounds of .223. For $26K, granted...

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1

    Post imported post

    I know that this thread is an old one, but I'm new here, only just registered, as I found the thread while searching for info on the Rome Statute International Criminal Court after reading about The Global Poverty Act, a legal mechanism to sublimate the US to the MDG's, and it's amendments, many of which include the RSICC.

    It's been said here that there's no way the UN could implement a ban on small weapons,that's simply not true. If you remember last year, hearing that the Bush administration gave the Canadian and Mexican armies the ability to cross our borders and assume authority. Many of our US troops, and the US National Guard are stationed out of the country. Bush has brought one group of the army home to take charge of the Northern Command, but by and large, we would be invaded by foreign troops from Canada and Mexico, and the UN forces would be then brought in.

    Obama would commit us to the MDGs/RSICC, McCain probably would as well, because despite the fact that the NRA has demanded he bring up Obama's sponsering S2433, the Global Poverty Act, specifically to impose UN control on the US, McCain has refused to do so thus far.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    107

    Post imported post

    Famous Quotes
    "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind
    every blade of grass." - Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto (Japanese Navy) ...

    How soon they forget...

  19. #19
    State Researcher .40 Cal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    COTEP FOREVER!, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    1,379

    Post imported post

    In the words of Pastor Neimoller:

    First they came for the Communists,
    - but I was not a communist so I did not speak out.
    Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists,
    - but I was neither, so I did not speak out.
    Then they came for the Jews,
    - but I was not a Jew so I did not speak out.
    And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me.

    Adapt to our situation.

  20. #20
    Regular Member Deanimator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Rocky River, OH, U.S.A.
    Posts
    2,086

    Post imported post

    da7f2q8 wrote:
    Famous Quotes
    "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind
    every blade of grass." - Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto (Japanese Navy) ...

    How soon they forget...
    Anybody who thinks that ALL gun owners would hand over their guns if ordered to do so should rent the movie "Michael Collins" and imagine themselves wearing the uniform of the "Black & Tans". If ONLY 1% of gun owners resisted, the wouldbe confiscators would be obliterated as thoroughly as Custer at Little Big Horn or the British at Isandlhwana.
    --- Gun control: The theory that 110lb. women have the "right" to fistfight with 210lb. rapists.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Henderson, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    275

    Post imported post

    Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957), is a landmark case in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution supersedes international treaties ratified by the United States Senate. According to the decision, "this Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty," although the case itself was with regard to an executive agreement and the treaty has never been ruled unconstitutional.

    The Court found that "no agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or on any other branch of Government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution."



    Does this ruling not make us reasonably safe from this "treaty"?

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    , Virginia, USA
    Posts
    174

    Post imported post

    If they 'come to get the guns' ...

    There are some who say "what chance does a bunch of yahoos with rifles and shotguns have against the U.S. Army?

    Considering that a bunch of comparatively poorly armed but determined militants, with home built bombs and IEDs managed to put a severe hurt on the the Russians in Afghanistan and later the U.S. Military in Iraq, that may not be true.

    Determination, resourcefulness and sheer will count for a lot, and American gun owners are, by and large, resourceful and determined to not be disarmed.


    "Never pick a fight with an old spy. If he doesn't feel like fighting he'll just kill you."

    T.S. Eggleston, DmAt, MSI - aka The Eggman
    www.TheEggman.com
    www.TheEgglestonGroup.com

    "If You Can't Be Free, At Leat Be Irritating"

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    LaConner, Washington, USA
    Posts
    649

    Post imported post

    da7f2q8 wrote:
    Famous Quotes
    "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind
    every blade of grass." - Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto (Japanese Navy) ...

    How soon they forget...
    Yamamoto may have been on the wrong side but he's one of my favorite characters of history. Another of his quotes, said after the Pearl Harbor attack that he engineered: "I fear that all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and instilled him a fearful resolve." Where is our "fearful resolve" now?

  24. #24
    State Researcher .40 Cal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    COTEP FOREVER!, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    1,379

    Post imported post

    I gotta tell you, many of us have the same firepower that our military has. Only big difference is that they can spray and pray in FA, while we take single precision shots. I would hate to face off with our American soldiers, but I wouldn't hesitate to face off with the new world order. Not to mention that many of us practice live fire more often than most national guardsmen and most non combat arms units. Let's just say that having qualified expert in basic might not cut it...

  25. #25
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lamma Island, HK
    Posts
    964

    Post imported post

    TheEggman wrote:
    If they 'come to get the guns' ...

    There are some who say "what chance does a bunch of yahoos with rifles and shotguns have against the U.S. Army?

    Considering that a bunch of comparatively poorly armed but determined militants, with home built bombs and IEDs managed to put a severe hurt on the the Russians in Afghanistan and later the U.S. Military in Iraq, that may not be true.

    Determination, resourcefulness and sheer will count for a lot, and American gun owners are, by and large, resourceful and determined to not be disarmed.

    I would remind you that Iraq was well armed prior to us going in. There were jets buried in the ground for christs sake! Weapons and equipment just strewn on the ground laying around for anyone to take. We don't have access to those kinds of weapons and equipment.

    Realistically our only real hope would be that our men and women in uniform would never accept such an order to disarm and kill if need be Americans. I hope that the trust isn't misguided or nieve, but I think it might be. When it comes to a paycheck many are willing to do about anything.

Page 1 of 3 123 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
  •