Obama is trying to BAN GUNS RIGHT NOW!!!

icode · Oct 22, 2008

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"?

TheEggman · Oct 22, 2008

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.

Richard6218 · Oct 22, 2008

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?

.40 Cal · Oct 22, 2008

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...

Theseus · Oct 22, 2008

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.

Richard6218 · Oct 22, 2008

imported post

TheEggman wrote:

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.

Unless someone unlawfully gets control of the military you bet this could never happen. Reason: the doctrine of Posse Comitatus, a law enacted in 1878 to stop Federal troops from abusing citizens of the former Confederate states (18 USC 1385, June 16, 1878). Essentially it prohibits the Federal government from using the armed forces for civilian law enforcement purposes. It has been amended a couple times since its original enactment, mainly to add the Air Force, Marine Corps andNavy to the affected armed services, and an exception was ordered at the time of Katrina in the well-publicized arms confiscation that followed. That amendment, enacted in 2006 to allow involvement of the military in restoration oforder in the area affected by Katrina, was repealed in full this year. The Coast Guard is exempted from the Act except when it is militarized in time of war, as in WWII.

So, to reply specifically to EggMan's comment, the reason it happened in New Orleans was because of that suspension of the Posse Comitatus law. We can be thankful that the suspension has now been rescinded.

marshaul · Oct 22, 2008

imported post

deepdiver wrote:

Euromutt wrote:

*snip*
Why would any UN member state want to ban private firearms ownership in the US?

Click to expand...

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.

I basically agree with you, but I would add that our government poses a greater threat to our guns than our guns do to the UN. The battles we need to be fighting are here at home. The UN can kiss our ass.

Doug Huffman · Oct 22, 2008

imported post

Richard6218 wrote:

The Coast Guard is exempted from the Act except when it is militarized in time of war, as in WWII.

So now that the USCG is militarized in this time of the WOT it is still exempt - and falls under the Dept. of Homeland Severity. tyrant's teeth

marshaul · Oct 22, 2008

imported post

Theseus wrote:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

When was the last time an Iraqi insurgent used a buried jet to kill a few American soldiers?

icode · Oct 22, 2008

imported post

Richard6218 wrote:

TheEggman wrote:

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.

Click to expand...

Unless someone unlawfully gets control of the military you bet this could never happen. Reason: the doctrine of Posse Comitatus, a law enacted in 1878 to stop Federal troops from abusing citizens of the former Confederate states (18 USC 1385, June 16, 1878). Essentially it prohibits the Federal government from using the armed forces for civilian law enforcement purposes. It has been amended a couple times since its original enactment, mainly to add the Air Force, Marine Corps andNavy to the affected armed services, and an exception was ordered at the time of Katrina in the well-publicized arms confiscation that followed. That amendment, enacted in 2006 to allow involvement of the military in restoration oforder in the area affected by Katrina, was repealed in full this year. The Coast Guard is exempted from the Act except when it is militarized in time of war, as in WWII.

So, to reply specifically to EggMan's comment, the reason it happened in New Orleans was because of that suspension of the Posse Comitatus law. We can be thankful that the suspension has now been rescinded.

What is to stop the law from being suspended again, or a more sinister law from being enacted? The threat of revolution via force that we pose.

mdgary · Oct 22, 2008

imported post

If we must fight this is my letter to the sarge...

Dearsargent(Who ever that may be)

I will fight to the end to keep our guns. But sir,I will not be A suicide bomber!!!!

Richard6218 · Oct 22, 2008

imported post

icode wrote:

Richard6218 wrote:

TheEggman wrote:

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.

Click to expand...

Unless someone unlawfully gets control of the military you bet this could never happen. Reason: the doctrine of Posse Comitatus, a law enacted in 1878 to stop Federal troops from abusing citizens of the former Confederate states (18 USC 1385, June 16, 1878). Essentially it prohibits the Federal government from using the armed forces for civilian law enforcement purposes. It has been amended a couple times since its original enactment, mainly to add the Air Force, Marine Corps andNavy to the affected armed services, and an exception was ordered at the time of Katrina in the well-publicized arms confiscation that followed. That amendment, enacted in 2006 to allow involvement of the military in restoration oforder in the area affected by Katrina, was repealed in full this year. The Coast Guard is exempted from the Act except when it is militarized in time of war, as in WWII.

So, to reply specifically to EggMan's comment, the reason it happened in New Orleans was because of that suspension of the Posse Comitatus law. We can be thankful that the suspension has now been rescinded.

Click to expand...

What is to stop the law from being suspended again, or a more sinister law from being enacted? The threat of revolution via force that we pose.

If it's suspended again we will probably have cause to take up arms against the government.

No NAU · Oct 23, 2008

imported post

Posse Comitatus is dead for all intents and purposes.

It has been done away with by Public Law 109-364, or the "John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007" (H.R.5122) (2), which allows the President to declare a "public emergency" and station troops anywhere in America and take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of the governor or local authorities, in order to "suppress public disorder." The Military Commissions Act of 2006 and National Security Presidential Directive/NSPD 51 have helped destroy Posse as well. The later allows the president, current or future, to declare a national emergency for pretty much any reason and suspend the constitution and declare martial law while taking full control of the government.

HSPD 51 text:
www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.html

The 3rd ID is back from Iraq and patrolling our streets right now.

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/09/army_homeland_090708w/

"The 3rd Infantry Division’s 1st Brigade Combat Team has spent 35 of the last 60 months in Iraq patrolling in full battle rattle, helping restore essential services and escorting supply convoys.

Now they’re training for the same mission — with a twist — at home."

...

US agreements with Canada and Mexico allow their troops to be used in our country. Additionally all of NATO is available via UN agreements for troops to be deployed here should the "need" arise.

With most of our troops occupied in foreign lands it is not very far fetched that an event like a natural disaster, financial meltdown or a "generated event" during an Obama presidency such as Biden mentioned a few days ago, could lead to Mexican troops on our streets.

I see this as similar to the pork that got passed on the unconstitutional "bailout" with the wooden arrow tax being thrown in there along with the tons of other pork. As I mentioned before in this thread, when the question is presented as, "sign this treaty and children will not starve," many will simply miss or overlook the fact it carries gun bans with it.

JosephMingle · Oct 26, 2008

imported post

I am pleased to know the officers of our armed forces swear to "support and defend the Consitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic" and are not sworn to blindly obey orders.

Richard6218 · Oct 26, 2008

imported post

JosephMingle wrote:

I am pleased to know the officers of our armed forces swear to "support and defend the Consitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic" and are not sworn to blindly obey orders.

But you're leaving out an important next phrase, which is "to obey the lawful orders of the officers appointed over..." True, that excludes all unlawful orders, which goes back to the point you just made. Just something by way of clarification.

GreenDrake · Oct 26, 2008

imported post

The sky is falling over in Glock Talk, not much mention of international law but they are scared to death of Obama without much of an undertanding of our political process, let alone legal. No one is taking your guns or your right to own them, there is not suficient proof that it would be effective or necessary.

Task Force 16 · Oct 26, 2008

imported post

Hopefully, there will be enough individual states in this country that will balk at any notion of revising the US Constitution in such a way that would trample their citizens rights.

If it came right down to it, Governors could call to arms the gun owning civilian population to stand against Federal government that has become oppressive. I'm thinking that some of them won't have to call but once, while others might have to hide from their populus.

Richard6218 · Oct 26, 2008

imported post

Task Force 16 wrote:

Hopefully, there will be enough individual states in this country that will balk at any notion of revising the US Constitution in such a way that would trample their citizens rights.

If it came right down to it, Governors could call to arms the gun owning civilian population to stand against Federal government that has become oppressive. I'm thinking that some of them won't have to call but once, while others might have to hide from their populus.

I will paste the post I wrote on the thread Obama vs. the 2nd Ammendment (sic) on Oct 8.

[align=right]

Edit

Quote

Reply

I think it's a reasonable conclusion from all the evidence in BO's voting record and his public statements, many of which are presented in this thread that he secretly wants to [highlight= #ffff88]repeal[/highlight] the Second Amendment. What would this do for him? It would wipe away the clutter of all the lawsuits and state and local laws limiting this and prohibiting that that get in the way of his real objective, which is to ban all private ownership of guns.

Could he pull it off? He certainly has a lot of highly-charged support in the US Congress, and in the legislatures of some of the blue states like California. One such example is Dianne Feinstein, who shares much of Obama's sentiments on the subject. (Feinstein's views were undoubtedly shaped by the assasination in 1978 of Mayor George Moscone of San Francisco and Supervisor Harvey Milk in their offices in City Hall. That event undoubtedly traumatized her but it propelled her to the mayorship of San Francisco and subsequently to her seat in the Senate.) All that would be needed to get a [highlight= #ffff88]repeal[/highlight] bill started is an anti-guncampaign in the Senate and House. With both controlled by Democrats this may not be all that difficult for him. He would need 2/3 vote in both houses, a tough call but not beyond possibility in the current political environment. If he can get that far the next step would be to get3/4 of the state legislatures (38)to approve it, and he wins.* Then guess what: no more guns, no more gun rights.

This guy is hiding who he really is. He won't stop at just the Second Amendment. He will attack the First, and Fourth, and likely the Fifth as well. He will undertake a massive re-distribution of wealth through his already-stated economic policies and continue the massive nationalization of businesses that has already started with the financial industry. Let me be completely clear about this: he is more than a liberal Democrat, he is a socialist, plain and simple. Fidel Castro didn't announce that he was a Communist until his revolution was complete. The same will happen with Obama if the American people are so blind as to elect him.

* Source: US Constitution, Article V[/align]

marshaul · Oct 26, 2008

imported post

Look, I don't like Obama, but what actual evidence do you have that Obama's "ultimate objective" is to repeal the second amendment and ban all guns?

He's a politician, and politicians do things that make him popular. I don't know if you haven't noticed, but the Brady Bunch aren't exactly winning popularity awards these days. So why would Barack Obama take up their cause for them? So that he could become similarly unpopular?

like_the_roman · Oct 26, 2008

imported post

marshaul wrote:

Look, I don't like Obama, but what actual evidence do you have that Obama's "ultimate objective" is to repeal the second amendment and ban all guns?

1. During his time at the U of Chicago, Obama ran into John Lott. Lott asked if Obama would sit down and discuss the Second Amendment with him (Obama is a 'constitutional law' guy after all) and Obama smirks and says "I don't believe people should be able to own guns."

2. His pick of Biden as VP shows he is definitely in the anti-gun camp. He could have gun with a genuine pro-gun VP like Richardson or even a gun-neutral one like Webb. But no, he picked the guy who brags about writing the original AWB and thinks gun owners are mentally ill.

3. Despite backtracking on 90% of what he has said about guns, the Democratic Party platform still has a plank that wants a permanent AWB (the corresponding AWB bill in the Congress right now allows for the executive branch to ban whatever gun they feel does not have a "sporting purpose," which to Barack/Biden might be anything.)

He's a politician, and politicians do things that make him popular. I don't know if you haven't noticed, but the Brady Bunch aren't exactly winning popularity awards these days. So why would Barack Obama take up their cause for them? So that he could become similarly unpopular?

Whatever Barack wants to do with guns, he'll do by underhanded methods while everyone is distracted by some other crisis - just like FDR's Democrats passed the NFA while everyone was worried about the depression.

Obama is trying to BAN GUNS RIGHT NOW!!!

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

State Researcher

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Banned

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

mdgary

Guest

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member