• 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.

LEGAL WAY AROUND THE 2ND AMENDMENT

armedman

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2010
Messages
58
Location
, ,
imported post

I haven't had a chance to see if this is legit or a bunch of crap. I just copied an email someone sent to me. Hopefully its just a bunch of BS...

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.
 

RockyAcres

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2009
Messages
35
Location
Tucson, Arizona, USA

Hollowpoint38

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
387
Location
A sandwich made of knuckles, Hoover, Alabama
imported post

How many people do you think would turn their weapons in? It would be a violation of massive proportion and the SECOND American Revolution would begin. Trust me, Obama can sign whatever "treaty" he wants and it won't fly. Chill out and don't worry about.
 

mrh2008

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2010
Messages
96
Location
Mesa, Arizona, USA
imported post

I read the post, read the comments, then scrolled up to reply. When i got to the top, i saw something that caught my eye.... the word "armedman" now i'm a bit weary to post... Legitimate post? or a troll post... you decide. :uhoh:
 

CA_Libertarian

State Researcher
Joined
Jul 18, 2007
Messages
2,585
Location
Stanislaus County, California, USA
imported post

Pistol-Packing-Preacher-in-PV wrote:
Remember, there is a difference between signing a treaty and having it ratified by the Senate.

That is where the major battle would take place.
Further, a treaty can't supersede the bill of rights. It will take a 2/3 majority vote, or an reversal of interpretation by the US Supreme Court, to nullify the 2nd Amendment.

I still believe we need to keep this on the radar, but when it comes down to physically taking guns from the law-abiding, I'm not any more worried after reading this.
 

mFonz77

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2009
Messages
265
Location
Sierra Vista, AZ
imported post

Old news, and plenty of case law. The Supreme court has already recognized that the Constitution supersedes any treaty.

"This [Supreme] Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty." - Reid v. Covert, October 1956, 354 U.S. 1, at pg 17.

"The treaty power as expressed in the Constitution, is in terms unlimited except by those restraints which are found in that instrument against the action of the government or of its departments and those arising from the nature of the government itself and of that of the States. It would not be contended that it extends so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids, or a change in the character of the government, or a change in the character of the States, or a cession of any portion of the territory of the latter without its consent." - Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258 at pg. 267
 

cloudcroft

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2007
Messages
1,908
Location
El Paso, TX (formerly Colorado Springs, CO)
imported post

"How many people do you think would turn their weapons in?" -- Hollowpoint38

LOTS of people would. The majority. Most Americans are so blindly 'law-abiding' they are scared to death of becoming 'outlaws' (criminals) if they refused. Unfortunately, that's one of the downsides to being so 'aw-abiding" -- even obeying bad/illegal laws -- and why I can't apply 'law-abiding'in that sense to myself.

Plus, most people are so timid, they would not actively resist any door-to-door visits made to confiscate any firearms on the premises, just passively turn them over.

Sorry, I have no such confidence in most Americans standing up en masse and getting out there in the streets protesting anything, let alone anti-gun laws, no matter how draconian.

-- John D.
 

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,946
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
imported post

Hollowpoint38 wrote:
How many people do you think would turn their weapons in? It would be a violation of massive proportion and the SECOND American Revolution would begin. Trust me, Obama can sign whatever "treaty" he wants and it won't fly. Chill out and don't worry about.

Have you ever seen a "Gun buy back?"

This is a very evil process that conditions ordinary citizens to turn in their firearms. Gun buy backs are sheeple conditioning. Don't think it cannot happen here.

Live free or Die,

Thundar
 

armedman

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2010
Messages
58
Location
, ,
imported post

mrh2008 wrote:
I read the post, read the comments, then scrolled up to reply. When i got to the top, i saw something that caught my eye.... the word "armedman" now i'm a bit weary to post... Legitimate post? or a troll post... you decide. :uhoh:
Your continual posts like this are troll posts. Drop it already.
 

mrh2008

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2010
Messages
96
Location
Mesa, Arizona, USA
imported post

armedman wrote:
mrh2008 wrote:
I read the post, read the comments, then scrolled up to reply. When i got to the top, i saw something that caught my eye.... the word "armedman" now i'm a bit weary to post... Legitimate post? or a troll post... you decide. :uhoh:
Your continual posts like this are troll posts. Drop it already.
Hey sir, my "continual posts like this are troll posts." How is that, and what do you mean by "continual"? That was the first time i mentioned troll, and the first time i have had a "troll concern" on this forum... i don't understand... you must have me confused with someone else... :lol:
 

armedman

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2010
Messages
58
Location
, ,
imported post

mrh2008 wrote:
armedman wrote:
mrh2008 wrote:
I read the post, read the comments, then scrolled up to reply. When i got to the top, i saw something that caught my eye.... the word "armedman" now i'm a bit weary to post... Legitimate post? or a troll post... you decide. :uhoh:
Your continual posts like this are troll posts. Drop it already.
Hey sir, my "continual posts like this are troll posts." How is that, and what do you mean by "continual"? That was the first time i mentioned troll, and the first time i have had a "troll concern" on this forum... i don't understand... you must have me confused with someone else... :lol:
First, figure out what a troll post is.
Now go back and read your posts on the topics I started. Your flinging crap around is trolling.
 

mFonz77

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2009
Messages
265
Location
Sierra Vista, AZ
imported post

This forum has way more bitching than any other gun forum I'm on. For people who are supposed to let logic trump emotion y'all sure can throw a hissy-fit.
 

armedman

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2010
Messages
58
Location
, ,
imported post

MarlboroLts5150 wrote:
DEBUNKED!!!

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=5843





Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the UN Arms Trade Treaty



Tuesday, May 25, 2010
[align=left]
Contrary to a widely circulated e-mail, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has not signed anyUN small arms treaty. She could not have done so, in fact, because no such treaty has yet been negotiated.
[/align][align=left]Cool.. thanks..
[/align]
 
Joined
Aug 20, 2008
Messages
200
Location
Prescott Valley, AZ
imported post

MarlboroLts5150 wrote:
DEBUNKED!!!

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=5843





Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the UN Arms Trade Treaty



Tuesday, May 25, 2010
[align=left]
Contrary to a widely circulated e-mail, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has not signed anyUN small arms treaty. She could not have done so, in fact, because no such treaty has yet been negotiated.
[/align][align=left]Not entirely debunked. But not correctly reported, either. The following link gives a very good overview of what's going on:[/align][align=left]
[/align][align=left]http://www.jonchristianryter.com/2010/100524.html
[/align]
 
Top