• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

This is a very serious warning!

J.Gleason

Banned
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
3,481
Location
Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

While you were watching the oil spill, the New York failed terrorist bombing and other critical crises, Hillary Clintonsignedthe small arms treaty with the UN.
OBAMA FINDS LEGAL WAY AROUND THE 2ND AMENDMENT
[align=center]AND USES IT. IF THIS PASSES, THEREcould BE WAR [/align]
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 Clintonis 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

Copy and paste
the link below for further acknowledgement…..
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE59E0Q920091015

They have been planning this for a long time the first article was back in October. It is now being set into motion.



U.S. reverses stance on treaty to regulate arms trade Arshad Mohammed WASHINGTON Wed Oct 14, 2009 11:56pm EDT addImpression("10036173_Related News"); removeImpression(); addImpression("10036174_Related News (Auto)");
addImpression("10036179_Related Video"); addImpression("12391142_Related Interactive"); 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.
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the United States would support the talks as long as the negotiating forum, the so-called Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty, "operates under the rules of consensus decision-making."
"Consensus is needed to ensure the widest possible support for the Treaty and to avoid loopholes in the Treaty that can be exploited by those wishing to export arms irresponsibly," Clinton said in a written statement.
While praising the Obama administration's decision to overturn the Bush-era policy and to proceed with negotiations to regulate conventional arms sales, some groups criticized the U.S. insistence that decisions on the treaty be unanimous.
"The shift in position by the world's biggest arms exporter is a major breakthrough in launching formal negotiations at the United Nations in order to prevent irresponsible arms transfers," Amnesty International and Oxfam International said in a joint statement.
However, they said insisting that decisions on the treaty be made by consensus "could fatally weaken a final deal."
"Governments must resist US demands to give any single state the power to veto the treaty as this could hold the process hostage during the course of negotiations. We call on all governments to reject such a veto clause," said Oxfam International's policy adviser Debbie Hillier.
The proposed legally binding treaty would tighten regulation of, and set international standards for, the import, export and transfer of conventional weapons.
Supporters say it would give worldwide coverage to close gaps in existing regional and national arms export control systems that allow weapons to pass onto the illicit market.
Nations would remain in charge of their arms export control arrangements but would be legally obliged to assess each export against criteria agreed under the treaty. Governments would have to authorize transfers in writing and in advance.
The main opponent of the treaty in the past was the U.S. Bush administration, which said national controls were better. Last year, the United States accounted for more than two-thirds of some $55.2 billion in global arms transfer deals.
Arms exporters China, Russia and Israel abstained last year in a U.N. vote on the issue.
The proposed treaty is opposed by conservative U.S. think tanks like the Heritage Foundation, which said last month that it would not restrict the access of "dictators and terrorists" to arms but would be used to reduce the ability of democracies such as Israel to defend their people.
The U.S. lobbying group the National Rifle Association has also opposed the treaty.
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.

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!!!
 

Spartacus

Banned
Joined
Dec 13, 2009
Messages
1,185
Location
La Crosse, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

You sound like Chicken Little warning us that the sky is falling. In actuality the sky has been falling on our gun rights since the bullsiht 1939 National Firearms Act.

Even though the UN may be able to somewhat affect the intercontinental sales of arms and ammo, there is absolutely nothing they can do on our sovereign soil.

Can you imagine the outcry if the government tried to shut down Colt or S&W? There is no way in hell that is going to happen, UN or no UN.
 

rcawdor57

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 18, 2009
Messages
1,643
Location
Wisconsin, USA
imported post

It could happen if the Senate gives in and passes this treaty. It would be a battle between the Bill of Rights and the Constitutional power given to treaties authorized by our own government as well as a battle between the Federal government, State governments and this insane treaty. As soon as Obama creates his "National Police Force" as he mentioned in his campaign then we will have Federal Police that outnumber all other police combined and his collection of firearms could soon become reality.

I can see a lot of good people dying when and if this happens.

Either way it isn't a good thing and that is why the Bush administration, ie....John Bolton told the U.N. we would never sign such a treaty. Now that we have a "new" government running the show any kind of nightmare can happen.
 

rcawdor57

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 18, 2009
Messages
1,643
Location
Wisconsin, USA
imported post

Did ya ever notice that 2/3rds of the 100 members of the Senate always equals 60? The Constitution states 2/3rds.....that means at least 66 members of the Senate have to vote for it.
 

KansasKraut

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2010
Messages
116
Location
Verona, WI
imported post

Even though I despise it, the Obama administration is smarter than this. Moving to take away guns from American citizens would lead to blood in the streets and a second civil war. Most importantly, from their perspective, it would bring about the loss of a Democratic majority in Congress. :?
 

AaronS

Regular Member
Joined
May 2, 2009
Messages
1,497
Location
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

J.Gleason wrote:
All I can say is MOLON LABE! Bring on the Revolution!

I am sure the people that work for, and print the news love to read this stuff.

I think this is the real reason people (could) give me a hard time for my OC. This kind of public talk is what the anti's are looking for. "Bring on the revolution? This has to be a joke...? Do you not understand what you just posted? Is your goal in life to hurt people? I can't tell...

As for me, the day people even try to "bring down" my government, is the day I become a felon. I will do everything in my power to stop you. Force will never work. Just look at our past. America has built-in ways to make change. Revolution is the last one. I pray to God, we never need to "use" the 2A. If we do, I fear that we all will have been lost, before the "war" even starts.

Go outside, live your life, and rock the VOTE!
 

J.Gleason

Banned
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
3,481
Location
Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

And why is it you automatically think a Revolution has to be Violent?

Bring down your Government? If you think this is "your" government you are delusional.

This government isn't even a government for the people by the people anymore.
It is a tyrannical government and nothing more.

I can't believe Aaron that you simply cannot and will not admit that this stuff is going on even when it is placed in front of you in black and white.

Although it has nothing to do with the fact that you voted for Obama, you make every effort to ensure that it does. Just because you voted for someone doesn't mean they can't become a different person after they are in office. It doesn't mean that maybe you weren't misled in the campaign and now his hidden agenda is coming out from under the covers. Notice he didn't get directly involved in the U.N. issue he had Hillary do it for him.

It is people such as yourself who absolutely refuse to believe that "OUR" government would do anything against us that allow the government to do just that.

it is you who should read your own statement and stand in front of the mirror afterward and see that you are starting to look like a sheep. ( In theory I mean I don't really think you are all furry or anything and if you are I don't want to know the details).

We must all understand what is happening here and if you can't open your eyes then you are just part of the problem.

As far as you standing up with the government against me should a real and violent revolution ever take place. That is fine you have chosen your side and I don't see how anyone here could ever take that any different.

It amounts to nothing more than the Jews who sided with the Nazi's figuring they were going to be exempt from Nazi tyranny. They chose their side as well and their own people never forgave the traders.

I swore an oath to defend the U.S. Constitution and I intend to uphold that oath.

Molon Labe!
 

Landose_theghost

Regular Member
Joined
May 17, 2009
Messages
512
Location
Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

KansasKraut wrote:
Even though I despise it, the Obama administration is smarter than this. Moving to take away guns from American citizens would lead to blood in the streets and a second civil war. Most importantly, from their perspective, it would bring about the loss of a Democratic majority in Congress. :?

Maybe that's the idea? Bring about the second civil war,label gun owners as "Terrorists" and the liberal sheeple will beg for congress to do somthing,anything. Order through choas my friend...

But on a side note, as I've said before,I DARE you to try and take any of my guns...
 

hardballer

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2009
Messages
925
Location
West Coast of Wisconsin
imported post

This real. It is serious. It is happening. This will make the OC movement a moot point. Ignore this warning at your peril. molon labe

And as the late Mr. Heston said; "From my cold dead hands"!
 

BROKENSPROKET

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2010
Messages
2,199
Location
Trempealeau County
imported post

We will be portrayed as "Militant Extremists" and charge us with "Terrorism".

:cuss:


The Republicans are complicit. Compare the attempt to impeach Clinton for a sex scandal with no call to impeach a Kenyan born president shredding the Bill of Rights and Constitution.
:banghead:


--Edited--
--Rules Violation--
 

johnny amish

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2010
Messages
1,024
Location
High altitude of Vernon County, ,
imported post

J.Gleason wrote:
Read your reply. That is exactly why something like this could happen. People like you who sit back and say "this could never happen to me!"
I have to agree. Who knows what could happen when other countries try to push their influence upon us. We have to be ready to stand upagainst any attack on our rights no matter how small they might seem. We are seeing some of this from Mexico right now.
 

Shotgun

Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
Joined
Aug 23, 2006
Messages
2,668
Location
Madison, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

rcawdor57 wrote:
Did ya ever notice that 2/3rds of the 100 members of the Senate always equals 60?
No, I never noticed it because it isn't true. You're confusing 2/3 with 3/5. Three fifths of the Senate (60) are needed to end a filibuster. Two-thirds of the Senate are required to ratify a treaty. Also, two-thirds of both houses of Congress are required to pass a bill that has been vetoed by the President.
 

Shotgun

Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
Joined
Aug 23, 2006
Messages
2,668
Location
Madison, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

J.Gleason wrote:
While you were watching the oil spill, the New York failed terrorist bombing and other critical crises, Hillary Clintonsignedthe small arms treaty with the UN.
Simply untrue. Nobody can sign a treaty that hasn't been passed by the Senate. Secondly, how can a treaty that doesn't even exist be signed? Somebody find the text of this treaty. As far as I can tell, the only accomplishment has been to get countries to agree to work on a treaty. Until now, only the U.S. has said no.

Finally, nothing in a treaty would have an effect on the gun ownership in the United States. U.N. resolutions have stated this: "Acknowledging also the right of States to regulate internal transfers of arms and national ownership, including through national constitutional protections on private ownership, exclusively within their territory." Unless you're wanting to ship some guns to Somalia or other such location, there won't be anything in the treaty that will have any effect on you whatsoever. It's about moving weapons from one country to another, nothing about what happens internally in a country.
 
Top