Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 57

Thread: Hillary Signs Small Arms Treaty

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Covington, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    89

    Post imported post

    While you were watching the oil spill, the New York failed terrorist bombing and other critical crises, Hillary Clinton signed the small arms treaty with the UN.



    OBAMA FINDS LEGAL WAY AROUND THE 2ND AMENDMENT

    AND USES IT. IF THIS PASSES, THERE could BE WAR


    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 has happened in other countries, past and present!

    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


    Click on the link below for further acknowledgement…..

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

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Anywhere but here.
    Posts
    523

    Post imported post

    I was afraid of this. Hope everyone is stocked up.:X
    This site has been hijacked by leftists who attack opposition to further their own ends. Those who have never served this country and attack those who do are no longer worthy of my time or attention.

  3. #3
    State Researcher lockman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Elgin, Illinois, USA
    Posts
    1,202

    Post imported post

    Treaties approved by the senate become the law of the land. The supreme law of the land is the U.S. Constitution, including the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th and 14th amendments. SCOTUS has ruled the right to keep and bear arms as an individual one. Therefore, any treaty to the contrary is null and void against U.S. citizens within the jurisdiction of the United States.

    The biggest impact will most likely be more restrictions or prohibitions on the import and export of firearms and ammunition. So domestic manufactures better get ready. Maybe the Obama administration might use some stimulus money to subsidize the resulting increase in the price of firearms and ammunition if such restrictions indeed result.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    marrero, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    222

    Post imported post

    NO law, international or not, can override the constitution. the supremacy clause clearly states it is the supreme law of the land. don't worry, about that treaty. the easiest way for to ban guns is to put a500% tax on them, which is something they can do legally.

  5. #5
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,616

    Post imported post

    Treaties are not ratified until approved by the U.S Senate. This has not happened. Do not want to believe that even Webb and Warner in Va. would dare vote for passage of such.

    Yata hey
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Provo, Utah, USA
    Posts
    1,076

    Post imported post

    READ the constitution! Article VI Paragraph 2 states:

    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.
    If ratified by the Senate, it becomes the law of the land.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Prophet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    544

    Post imported post

    A resolution before the U.N. General Assembly is sponsored by seven nations including major arms exporter Britain. It calls for preparatory meetings in 2010 and 2011 for a conference to negotiate a treaty in 2012.
    I figure by 2012 a lot of things are gonna look different in America. The makeup of congress and the person living in the whitehouse to name a few.

    Besides, even if it would be brought up before Obama is ousted from office it would be political suicide for any remaining dems from anywhere but the bluest of blues to support something that smacks of tyranny against the constitution during an election year...especially after what expects to be a political bloodbath for them this year. Stay on guard...but I wouldn't be TOO worried about it.

  8. #8
    N.O. puke nazi
    Guest

    Post imported post

    Their trying to take our guns....if they want mine they will have to pry it out of my cold dead hand!!

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Carson City, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    120

    Post imported post

    marrero jeff wrote:
    NO law, international or not, can override the constitution. the supremacy clause clearly states it is the supreme law of the land. don't worry, about that treaty. the easiest way for to ban guns is to put a500% tax on them, which is something they can do legally.
    Do you think the Obama Admin cares about the U.S. Constitution? Look at what they are doing now, acting and proceeding as if there is no U.S. Constitution. They are doing what they want.

    Look at the health care bill. Think forcing Americans to buy something, just for breathing is constitutional? Don't worry? These are all signs and building blocks for "them" to take the next step in taking away our rights. After all, how can a government be held accountable if "We The People" do not have the means to do it?

    I say be very cautious and concerned! I know I am.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358

    Post imported post

    There should be a HUGE outcry from the CASS community over this. Most of the firearms used in that sport are made abroad--Uberti, Rossi, Beretta--and would ALL be subject to export restrictions from their country of manufacture, and import restrictions in designated countries of sale--of which the US is the primary market...

    Call your Senators and express your EXTREME DISAPPOINTMENT with the position taken by the State Department.

    Let them know, in no uncertain terms, that they will be collecting an unemployment check if they vote for this, if it ever makes it to the Senate for ratification...

    What part of "Shall not be infringed" do these people not understand?


    Next they'll be censoring the Internet through government-defined filters on the major search engines...
    Oh, wait a minute... They already do that...
    Well, next they'll be suggesting they can strip people of their citizenship, arrest them without warrants, and imprison them without charge, for unspecified reasons determined by the Executive Branch.
    Oh, wait a minute... They're trying to do that too, already...

    Well, perhaps the next thing they'll try is stealing everyone's IRAs and retirement pensions by forcing the investment firms to invest those funds in failed banks.
    Oops... They're already doing that too...
    OK, here's a way-out wacky thought. Maybe what they'll do next is force our military troops to guard the poppy fields in Afghanistan, and use private contractors airplanes to fly the opium and heroin to China and Russia, for sale on the black market to fund covert ops.
    What, Geraldo Rivera on Fox already covered that earlier this week?

    No, no, wait. This one would NEVER happen...Maybe what will happen is that the corrupt incumbents who are running against viable 3rd party candidates will ALSO be the Chairmen of their state election boards. Nah, they'd NEVER try something that brazenly criminal.
    Kentucky Senate race. Trey Grayson. Been there, doing that...
    Gee, maybe some of us who have been "hammering out a warning" on these topics for the last 5 years aren't complete nutters after all...


    "How many fingers am I holding up now, Winston?"


    It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression—and this is hogwash."
    --Barry Goldwater, 1964

  11. #11
    Regular Member jbone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    2,241

    Post imported post

    marrero jeff wrote:
    NO law, international or not, can override the constitution. the supremacy clause clearly states it is the supreme law of the land. don't worry, about that treaty. the easiest way for to ban guns is to put a500% tax on them, which is something they can do legally.
    They've already made health care law, showing usthey don't honor, respect or believe in the supreme law of the land.
    I’m proudly straight. I'm free to not support Legalization, GLBT, Illegal Aliens, or the Islamization of America.

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Post imported post

    The secretary of state signs a treaty???

    This may be an indication of where the president wants to go, but the US is in no way bound by this action.

    Make no mistake, we need to be clear that this treaty is unacceptable. But, the secretary "signing" something is no more than a trial balloon. Let's pop it.

  13. #13
    Regular Member KansasMustang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Herington, Kansas, USA
    Posts
    1,005

    Post imported post

    I have nothin' for Hillary except THIS Molon Labe
    ‘‘Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.’’ Thomas Jefferson

  14. #14
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    It doesn't matter what our Politicians sign.

    Our government can not infringe upon our rights unless we let them.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    shreveport
    Posts
    57

    Post imported post

    While you were watching the oil spill, the New York failed terrorist bombing and other critical crises, Hillary Clinton signed the small arms treaty with the UN.



    OBAMA FINDS LEGAL WAY AROUND THE 2ND AMENDMENT

    AND USES IT. IF THIS PASSES, THERE could BE WAR


    On Wednesday Obama Took the First Major Step in a

    Plan to Ban All Firearms in the United States Lot of DRAMA here don't you think? Did you read the story at all?I don't see where hillary signed ANYTHING.(sorry bout the CAPS nikki).

  16. #16
    Regular Member KansasMustang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Herington, Kansas, USA
    Posts
    1,005

    Post imported post

    That and if the nObama administration hasn't got the Constitution completely shredded by the time this comes to vote. It takes a two thirds majority of the Senate to make it law. And even after, then it's Molon Labe!!!
    ‘‘Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.’’ Thomas Jefferson

  17. #17
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,616

    Post imported post

    What exactly does the Sec'y of State have to do with "signing" a treaty? My understanding is that such requires the president's signature.

    Yata hey
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  18. #18
    State Researcher lockman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Elgin, Illinois, USA
    Posts
    1,202

    Post imported post

    READ the constitution! Article VI Paragraph 2 states: "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." If ratified by the Senate, it becomes the law of the land.
    Unless it contradicts any other "supreme law of the land". If your assertion is that once ratified by the senate it supersedes any other existing provision, amendment or law then if a majority party in the senate approves a treaty nullifying the constitution then we have no constitution?

    If you believe that or in reality that is what becomes of this treaty then your revolution has already begun.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    4

    Post imported post

    Ive been saying for 20+ years now: That dumbbing down our schools, and children will do more harm than good!!

    I was attend Community College in Alameda, California, when Alameda County DHS was part of a trial to see what people appling for help from DHS would do, and tolerate.

    They found when told that as part of a new program all those signing up would recieve a flu shot, and pnuemonia vaccines, as well as be brought upto date on thier vaccines was not a problem. Those that were told that they were guinea pigs for a locator chip program to monitor thier where abouts and possible illeagal activity were refusing to comply.

    3 women with no ties to each other going to school trying to better thier lives and thier children were put on the flu shot program. Each of them had problems with where the flu shot was given. All women and children (3 single mothers) were having problems with thier grant money for DHS. Come to find out a computer chip had been implanted under thier skin. THese women when they went outside of thier assigned territory were dropped from the DHS grant w/o knowing that they had violated anything. Thier children's physicans of record found the chips with X-rays. 6x these physicans removed the chips 6x the DHS implanted them, finally the physicans filed charges on behalf of the mothers and children. They stopped thier program. A year later they were doing the same program in NY on the homeless. Till it went to the SUpreme Court. DHS tried to excuse thier behavior, but the justices didn't. THey are still trying to implement this program. We are no longer in a democracy, we have been for nearly 30 years now in a socialist regime!! The only people who dont know this are those who have turned a blind eye to this!!

  20. #20
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358

    Post imported post

    Grapeshot wrote:
    What exactly does the Sec'y of State have to do with "signing" a treaty? My understanding is that such requires the president's signature.

    Yata hey
    Grape, it's a convoluted process. Hillary, (or any other Sec.State) didn't "sign" any treaty. She has "committed to support" this treaty in the UN. In other words, she, as representative of the US Government has promised that we will support the implementation, enforcement, and application of this treaty, should it get adopted by the UN, and should our own government formal ratify our participation in it.

    The Sec.State is for all intents and purposes, much more powerful than the President, at least when it comes to foreign policy. Much like the Electoral College, there is NO legal requirement that the Sec.State represent his/her constituents, and truth be told, the Sec.State has, more often than not in the last several decades, gone exactly 180 degrees to the US Public's opinions with regards to international trade treaties (NAFTA), treaties addressing the militarization of space, and treaties that deal with military policy...

    The president DOES sign treaties--on that you're right. But he does not and CAN NOT do that until the Senate ratifies it with the required 2/3 majority.

    Whether or not our Senate would ratify a treaty that potentially would nullify the 2A remains to be seen. They sure as hell didn't have any problem passing the Health Care bill, despite polls that were showing close to 75% of the American people were against it. And they sure as hell haven't had any difficulty selling our great-great grandchildren into usurious slavery to the Federal Reserve and the International Banking Cartels to fund what is now a nearly $23 TRILLION (and growing) bailout for their bankster buddies. So I really don't see how something as trifling as erasing the Second Amendment would even be a blip on th escreen of most of the sociopaths sitting on the Hill...

    The scary thing about this is that when I called my Senators in December, and again in March regarding their position on these various UN Small-Arms Treaties (one is a frothing leftist, the other is a pretty staunch 2A supporter) neither of them (actually, their staffers) had even HEARD of these treaties, and had to call me back to give me their position. BOTH TIMES. I'd called them in December, they researched it and called me back. Then three months later I called again to get their positions, and their staffers couldn't remember their positions and had to go look them up and get back to me.

    I'll be calling again Monday morning. Maybe this time, it will be a little closer to their "front burner"...
    It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression—and this is hogwash."
    --Barry Goldwater, 1964

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,605

    Post imported post

    Treaty or no such Treaty..., they [The Federal Government] will NEVER get our Firearms!

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Eastern Prince William Co. VA, ,
    Posts
    306

    Post imported post

    My $0.02:

    This "Treaty" has been around a long time, just like the Climate Control (Kyoto) Treaty; which we never signed onto because the Senate never ratified it. In fact, they rejected Kyoto on a 98 - 0 vote.

    Do you really think the Senate is going to ratify this treaty? Maybe, but I kind of doubt it. They realize that the gun rights issue is a political hot potato.

    Clinton just signed a statement saying that this Administration supports the concept, as I would expect, but I doubt it is going any further than that.

    Not that we should stop keeping an eye on what they are doing, but I am not going to worry about it.

  23. #23
    Regular Member okboomer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Oklahoma, USA
    Posts
    1,164

    Post imported post

    nashota wrote:
    Ive been saying for 20+ years now: That dumbbing down our schools, and children will do more harm than good!!

    I was attend Community College in Alameda, California, when Alameda County DHS was part of a trial to see what people appling for help from DHS would do, and tolerate.

    They found when told that as part of a new program all those signing up would recieve a flu shot, and pnuemonia vaccines, as well as be brought upto date on thier vaccines was not a problem. Those that were told that they were guinea pigs for a locator chip program to monitor thier where abouts and possible illeagal activity were refusing to comply.

    3 women with no ties to each other going to school trying to better thier lives and thier children were put on the flu shot program. Each of them had problems with where the flu shot was given. All women and children (3 single mothers) were having problems with thier grant money for DHS. Come to find out a computer chip had been implanted under thier skin. THese women when they went outside of thier assigned territory were dropped from the DHS grant w/o knowing that they had violated anything. Thier children's physicans of record found the chips with X-rays. 6x these physicans removed the chips 6x the DHS implanted them, finally the physicans filed charges on behalf of the mothers and children. They stopped thier program. A year later they were doing the same program in NY on the homeless. Till it went to the SUpreme Court. DHS tried to excuse thier behavior, but the justices didn't. THey are still trying to implement this program. We are no longer in a democracy, we have been for nearly 30 years now in a socialist regime!! The only people who dont know this are those who have turned a blind eye to this!!
    Hi Nashota, Welcome to the forum.

    I would like to point you to the forum rules and ask that you supply direct citations to support your claims of implanting tracking chips in American Citizens. This is extremely disturbing and I would like to see your sources for myself to make my own determination on whether this is something I need to watch ...

    In support of this claim, I would like to direct folks to the recent defeat of HB 2569 RFID chips in DL'swhich shows that the push is on to 'tag' the American public for government monitoring ala Huxley's 1984.
    cheers - okboomer
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Lead, follow, or get out of the way

    Exercising my 2A Rights does NOT make me a CRIMINAL! Infringing on the exercise of those rights makes YOU one!

  24. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Post imported post

    We must be careful about using terms like RFID and REAL ID. When talking RFID, it is important whether they can be passively read or have to be actively read. I have no problem with active reading. Such an RFID would be functionally equivalent to a mag strip.

    Also, REAL ID is basically a standard for what must be on an ID card and what documentation must be presented to get one. The idea is to create strong enough IDs to be acceptable for federal purposes. There is a requirement for machine-readability in the REAL ID act, but that requirement doesn't demand that it be RFID or that it be able to be passively read.

    The only problem I have with REAL ID is that the Department of Homeland Security would determine what information goes into the machine readable portion of the card. I don't think the courts would allow them to require States to go beyond the items of information that would already be available in plain-text on a REAL ID.

    Anyway, the federal government is not forcing the States to issue REAL IDs. The feds are merely saying that they will not be bound to accept State IDs in the future that do not meet REAL ID standards.

    I am for a minimum standard being adopted for IDs. (It is unreasonable that someone can vote using an electric bill.) I am for machine readable devices as long as they can only be read by active means, can be read by their owners, and contain only the information laid out in the REAL ID act. I am for minimum levels of documentation being required before a State ID is issued.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    4

    Post imported post

    My sources are: The 3 women that went to the same school I did. Different classes, different days. Only thing we all had in common was we were at school and had children. The Oakland Tribune did do a couple of stories on it, but not until one of the other ladies physican called and made the report. It was in the AP out of NY. This was back in 1988-1990.

    Not everything that is worth knowing is documented. Unfortunately getting the media to pay attention is often harder than getting teeth pulled w/o novicaine!!

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
  •