Obama , Gun control, UN Arms treaty

imported post

On Wednesday Obama Took the First Major Step in a Plan to Ban All Firearms in the United States
On Wednesday the Obama administration took its first major step in a plan to ban all firearms in the United States. The Obama administration intends to force gun control and a complete ban on all weapons for US citizens through the signing of international treaties with foreign nations. By signing international treaties on gun control, the Obama administration can use the US State Department to bypass the normal legislative process in Congress. Once the US Government signs these international treaties, all US citizens will be subject to those gun laws created by foreign governments. These are laws that have been developed and promoted by organizations such as the United Nations and individuals such as George Soros and Michael Bloomberg. The laws are designed and intended to lead to the complete ban and confiscation of all firearms.

The Obama administration is attempting to use tactics and methods of gun control that will inflict major damage to our 2nd Amendment before US citizens even understand what has happened. Obama can appear before the public and tell them that he does not intend to pursue any legislation (in the United States) that will lead to new gun control laws, while cloaked in secrecy, his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton is committing the US to international treaties and foreign gun control laws. Does that mean Obama is telling the truth? What it means is that there will be no publicized gun control debates in the media or votes in Congress. We will wake up one morning and find that the United States has signed a treaty that prohibits firearm and ammunition manufacturers from selling to the public. We will wake up another morning and find that the US has signed a treaty that prohibits any transfer of firearm ownership. And then, we will wake up yet another morning and find that the US has signed a treaty that requires US citizens to deliver any firearm they own to the local government collection and destruction center or face imprisonment.

This is not a joke nor a false warning. As sure as government health care will be forced on us by the Obama administration through whatever means necessary, so will gun control.

Read the Article

U.S. reverses stance on treaty to regulate arms trade

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States reversed policy on Wednesday and said it would back launching talks on a treaty to regulate arms sales as long as the talks operated by consensus, a stance critics said gave every nation a veto.

The decision, announced in a statement released by the U.S. State Department, overturns the position of former President George W. Bush's administration, which had opposed such a treaty on the grounds that national controls were better. View The Full Article Here http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE59E0Q920091015 14 Nov. 2009
<http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE59E0Q920091015>
Please forward this message to others who may be concerned about the direction in which our country is headed. This is a very serious matter!

Silence will lead us to Socialism!!!

imported post

GET US OUT OF UN
GET UN OUT OF US

http://www.google.com/search?q=cloaked+in+secrecy%2C+his+Secretary+of+State%2C+Hillary+Clinton+is+committing+the+US

Results of about 90,900,000 for "cloaked in secrecy, his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton is committing the US"

One of which included:

We’ve received many queries about this chain e-mail,...

Click to expand...

Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. damn the NRA and the Obamanation and their night-water carrying chamberlains.

Click to expand...

imported post

Treaties don't bypass Congress entirely. Before they become what The Constitution calls the "supreme Law of the Land," treaties require a 2/3 vote of the Senate.

Yes, we need to be careful that treaties don't give up U.S. sovereignty or the rights of her citizens. However, we also need to be careful that we don't imply that if President Obama signs a treaty, that's it. It isn't. If Obama signs a bad treaty, we need to heavily lobby the Senate to keep it from receiving Consent.

imported post

If Obama is goingto try tomake treaties with the U.N., AKA clubhouse for liars, thieves and dictators, he better do it before January 2011 when there will be fewer democrats in the Senate.

imported post

c45man wrote:

If Obama is goingto try tomake treaties with the U.N., AKA clubhouse for liars, thieves and dictators, he better do it before January 2011 when there will be fewer democrats in the Senate.

Click to expand...

He needs 67 to support any treaty he signs.

The Founders weren't dummies.

imported post

but, if that day ever came, when that type of treaty was signed & did become law of the land....I think, the sleeping sheep would wake up in a BIG HURRY....I also believe the next RESET would happen soon after......The gun owners in the country would not stand for it. You can only push people so far, until they push back. 100 Million plus people pushing back armed to the teeth. hmmmmmm, I wonder how that would play out.

imported post

Glock34 wrote:

100 Million plus people pushing back armed to the teeth.

Click to expand...

Empty hyperbole.

Only the mall ninja wannabes are "armed to the teeth" with the gallus-snappers and shotgun-chic. Vastly most of us have a gun or two.

Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA KMA$$ damn the Obamanation and its thugs.

Click to expand...

imported post

You guys do realize this particular treaty has been around since the beginning of the previous administration, right?

imported post

Yeah, that's why there are almost ONE HUNDRED MILLION hits on just discussion of this spammed e-mail alone.

imported post

If this president, or any president, were to sign a treaty like this and it somehow managed to get through the senate to become law, then not only would the president have committed treason, but so would the members of the senate who ratified the treaty. This treaty would not be enforceable because it would be the product of a treasonous event. And here's the proof.

It's called the oath of office. The president takes his as do the members of congress. In their oath, they promise to uphold and defend the Constitution. Therefore, any treaties into which they enter which nullify, circumvent, or trample ANY part of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights automatically makes their actions ones of treason.

imported post

SouthernBoy wrote:

If this president, or any president, were to sign a treaty like this and it somehow managed to get through the senate to become law, then not only would the president have committed treason, but so would the members of the senate who ratified the treaty. This treaty would not be enforceable because it would be the product of a treasonous event. And here's the proof.

It's called the oath of office. The president takes his as do the members of congress. In their oath, they promise to uphold and defend the Constitution. Therefore, any treaties into which they enter which nullify, circumvent, or trample ANY part of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights automatically makes their actions ones of treason.

Click to expand...

That is an interesting argument. I don't think it would fly in court. Since the process for ratifying a treaty is specified in the Constitution, without restriction to the content of treaties, and since the content of treaties is elevated by the Constitution, along with the Constitution, to being the "supreme Law of the Land," it is impossible for any treaty, no matter how much it changes the Constitution, to be unconstitutional. Even if a treaty could be unconstitutional, signing one would be no more treason than passing a law that the SCOTUS strikes down as unconstitutional.

That is the danger of treaties. That is why it takes 67 senators to ratify one. We need to be vigilant when a treaty that would restrict our rights is on the horizon.

imported post

eye95 wrote:

SouthernBoy wrote:

If this president, or any president, were to sign a treaty like this and it somehow managed to get through the senate to become law, then not only would the president have committed treason, but so would the members of the senate who ratified the treaty. This treaty would not be enforceable because it would be the product of a treasonous event. And here's the proof.

It's called the oath of office. The president takes his as do the members of congress. In their oath, they promise to uphold and defend the Constitution. Therefore, any treaties into which they enter which nullify, circumvent, or trample ANY part of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights automatically makes their actions ones of treason.

Click to expand...

That is an interesting argument. I don't think it would fly in court. Since the process for ratifying a treaty is specified in the Constitution, without restriction to the content of treaties, and since the content of treaties is elevated by the Constitution, along with the Constitution, to being the "supreme Law of the Land," it is impossible for any treaty, no matter how much it changes the Constitution, to be unconstitutional. Even if a treaty could be unconstitutional, signing one would be no more treason than passing a law that the SCOTUS strikes down as unconstitutional.

That is the danger of treaties. That is why it takes 67 senators to ratify one. We need to be vigilant when a treaty that would restrict our rights is on the horizon.

Click to expand...

The part which I have bolded is where we agree. The thing is, it's like discussing which came first; the chicken or the egg, though in this case we know that the Constitution came first.

My position in my post takes the more literal meaning of the oaths of office. For example, let's say a president takes office and swears his oath with a Constitution which states that only native born Americans can become president. Two years into office, he signs a treaty proposed by the United Nations which states that naturalized citizens can now hold this office. Such a treaty would be invalid because when he swore his oath, this restriction was in place and part of the Constitution to which he swore to uphold and defend.

Yes I know that this is a far fetched example. But no more so than a treaty which would cause the Second Amendment to be invalidated. In fact, it would be harder to invalidate the Second Amendment than to changed the naturalization clause since the Bill of Rights is cast in stone.

But alas, because of interpretation, I fear you're right that the supreme court would fail to uphold a president's oath to the Constitution to be sacrosanct.

imported post

The Constitution is not unchangeable. The act of changing it is not violating the oath to protect it. If so, every amendment has been a violation of oath by the members of Congress who had a part in it. The only question for the courts would be, "If a treaty specifically contradicts the Constitution, as it is currently amended, which prevails? The Constitution or the treaty?"

I fear they would go with the treaty, which is why we must be vigilant. We must lobby the Senate heavily anytime the president signs a treaty that might give up sovereignty or individual rights.

imported post

eye95 wrote:

The Constitution is not unchangeable. The act of changing it is not violating the oath to protect it. If so, every amendment has been a violation of oath by the members of Congress who had a part in it. The only question for the courts would be, "If a treaty specifically contradicts the Constitution, as it is currently amended, which prevails? The Constitution or the treaty?"

I fear they would go with the treaty, which is why we must be vigilant. We must lobby the Senate heavily anytime the president signs a treaty that might give up sovereignty or individual rights.

Click to expand...

I think you misunderstood me. The Constitution is subject to being amended providing the proposed change(s) go through the allowable process. I think all of us understand and agree that was the intent of the Founders. Otherwise they would never have included that provision in the document. It is the Bill of Rights which is unchangeable. My example was, as stated, far fetched in that I picked something which was contained within the document and that was capable of being altered by the Constitutional process, but not by some treaty agreement.

That's all I meant.

imported post

SouthernBoy wrote:

eye95 wrote:

The Constitution is not unchangeable. The act of changing it is not violating the oath to protect it. If so, every amendment has been a violation of oath by the members of Congress who had a part in it. The only question for the courts would be, "If a treaty specifically contradicts the Constitution, as it is currently amended, which prevails? The Constitution or the treaty?"

I fear they would go with the treaty, which is why we must be vigilant. We must lobby the Senate heavily anytime the president signs a treaty that might give up sovereignty or individual rights.

Click to expand...

I think you misunderstood me. The Constitution is subject to being amended providing the proposed change(s) go through the allowable process. I think all of us understand and agree that was the intent of the Founders. Otherwise they would never have included that provision in the document. It is the Bill of Rights which is unchangeable. My example was, as stated, far fetched in that I picked something which was contained within the document and that was capable of being altered by the Constitutional process, but not by some treaty agreement.

That's all I meant.

Click to expand...

I understand what you are saying. I just think you are horribly wrong.

The president, merely by signing a treaty, his constitutional power, is not violating his oath. That is simply your opinion, and not based in fact at all.

If he signs a treaty that gets ratified by the Senate that changes the provisions of the Constitution, the courts will address which takes precedence, the Constitution or the treaty. However, even if the courts say the Constitution prevails, and the president fails in his attempt to change it via treaty, he has done nothing worse than when he signs a bill into law that is later ruled unconstitutional.

Oh, and I don't kinow why people insist on repeating that bilge that somehow the BoR is unamendable. Nothing in the Constitution says so.

Anyway, tell me I am misunderstanding you again. I won't reply. I am done with this little sub-thread.

imported post

eye95 wrote:

SouthernBoy wrote:

eye95 wrote:

The Constitution is not unchangeable. The act of changing it is not violating the oath to protect it. If so, every amendment has been a violation of oath by the members of Congress who had a part in it. The only question for the courts would be, "If a treaty specifically contradicts the Constitution, as it is currently amended, which prevails? The Constitution or the treaty?"

I fear they would go with the treaty, which is why we must be vigilant. We must lobby the Senate heavily anytime the president signs a treaty that might give up sovereignty or individual rights.

Click to expand...

I think you misunderstood me. The Constitution is subject to being amended providing the proposed change(s) go through the allowable process. I think all of us understand and agree that was the intent of the Founders. Otherwise they would never have included that provision in the document. It is the Bill of Rights which is unchangeable. My example was, as stated, far fetched in that I picked something which was contained within the document and that was capable of being altered by the Constitutional process, but not by some treaty agreement.

That's all I meant.

Click to expand...

I understand what you are saying. I just think you are horribly wrong.

The president, merely by signing a treaty, his constitutional power, is not violating his oath. That is simply your opinion, and not based in fact at all.

If he signs a treaty that gets ratified by the Senate that changes the provisions of the Constitution, the courts will address which takes precedence, the Constitution or the treaty. However, even if the courts say the Constitution prevails, and the president fails in his attempt to change it via treaty, he has done nothing worse than when he signs a bill into law that is later ruled unconstitutional.

Oh, and I don't kinow why people insist on repeating that bilge that somehow the BoR is unamendable. Nothing in the Constitution says so.

Anyway, tell me I am misunderstanding you again. I won't reply. I am done with this little sub-thread.

Click to expand...

While I could counter with something like, "I don't give a rat's ass what you or anyone else thinks", I would never do that because I am a gentleman.

So perhaps we can agree to disagree - let's just do so with a measure of civility if you don't mind.

imported post

I am being civil--as civil as one can be when being accused of not understanding (an incivility in its own right).

I never "agree to disagree." That is a silly thing to do. I have stated that you are wrong and provided reasoning why. I stand by what I posted and do not "agree to disagree."

Finally, you have a lot of nerve making the post you just did, while making a hypocritical request for civility.

Feel free to continue to make this personal. As for me, I am moving on. I refuse to be dragged into Internet flaming contests any more.

imported post

eye95 wrote:

I am being civil--as civil as one can be when being accused of not understanding (an incivility in its own right).

I never "agree to disagree." That is a silly thing to do. I have stated that you are wrong and provided reasoning why. I stand by what I posted and do not "agree to disagree."

Finally, you have a lot of nerve making the post you just did, while making a hypocritical request for civility.

Feel free to continue to make this personal. As for me, I am moving on. I refuse to be dragged into Internet flaming contests any more.

Click to expand...

I virtually never try to make anything on websites personal because it gains no one anything in the end and just makes for bitter feelings all around. My comments about agreeing to disagree were made out of respect for your opinions - that was my intent and context.. nothing more.


May you have a Happy Easter.

imported post

This is for export of arms to other countries only, and has to be approved by Congress.

It would not affect laws within the United States

imported post

Does anyone have a link to the text of this treaty? A lot of claims are being made about what is or is not in this treaty. Let's read it for ourselves. After all, we all now know the consequence of letting our "leaders" inflict laws on us without anyone really knowing what the law says!