Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: This does concern Va. OC and CC.

  1. #1
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580

    Post imported post

    I just talked to Cantors office and they didn't know much and really weren't concerned unless they get a lot of emails or calls.

    Here's the email I got and it has the link to Reuters.
    .................................................. .................................................. .............


    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
    Click on the link below for further acknowledgement….. http://www.reuters.com/article/polit...59E0Q920091015


  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Prince William Co, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    105

    Post imported post

    Secretary of State and/or President can sign anything they want. Unless it's ratified by the Senate, it's paper suitable for use as a bar napkin. I wouldn't worry too much over it. Not saying there's no reason to keep an eye on them, but since Marbury v. Madison established the Constitution as the "supreme law of the land," any treaty would still have to take a backseat to it. Constitution/Second Amendment trumps a treaty.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    700

    Post imported post

    I can't express much about the stupidity of all that are for this type of crap without violating the rules here.



    How's that gun ban working out for your city's murder and crime rate, Bloomberg? Daley?

    Not to mention... Daley just threatened to sodomize (with a gun) and shoot a reporter in order to prove that his gun ban works... ? So clearly they are seeing that it does nothing and getting frustrated, but they have gone so long in an exercise of futility and idiocy that they must not want to back away from it for fear of looking like quitters. And by the time they realize they're wrong it'll be too late.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010...eporters-butt/

  4. #4
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580

    Post imported post

    What really concerns me i the very polite ...so what, I got from Cantor's office.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Repeater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,519

    Post imported post

    peter nap wrote:
    What really concerns me i the very polite ...so what, I got from Cantor's office.
    Eric will have his annual 'Birthday Party' Advisory council meeting in June at the Virginia Science Museum.

    From previous posts, it appears that carry at the SMV is no problem.

    Perhaps some concerned Virginians could advise him personally on this, and other, important issues.

  6. #6
    Regular Member kennys's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Ruther Glen Va
    Posts
    508

    Post imported post

    I sent out my letter.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    700

    Post imported post

    peter nap wrote:
    What really concerns me i the very polite ...so what, I got from Cantor's office.
    Maybe they're still peeved about the Republican Roundup protest. Or maybe they really just truly aren't friends of the 2nd Amendment and the individuals right to keep and bear arms.

  8. #8
    Regular Member gis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    264

    Post imported post

    I also read that in addition to the approval by the senate/congress supermajority, adoption of an international trary cannot take place if it violats the U.S. Constitution. Since this will clearly violate the Second Amendment and latest Supreme Court interpretations (e.g. Heller), I can't see how this could be done unless Obama suspends the Constitution and becomes the next Chavez. Let's just hope that he is voted out of office before he can stack the Supreme Court with socialist left-wingers.

  9. #9
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    AIC869 wrote:
    Secretary of State and/or President can sign anything they want. Unless it's ratified by the Senate, it's paper suitable for use as a bar napkin. I wouldn't worry too much over it. Not saying there's no reason to keep an eye on them, but since Marbury v. Madison established the Constitution as the "supreme law of the land," any treaty would still have to take a backseat to it. Constitution/Second Amendment trumps a treaty.
    +1

    The treatyalone is not going to lose us our arms. Imported guns like AK's and such might become unobtainable.

    I think the bigger problem is the distraction it creates.

    While we are all fussing about gun-rights, bigger and more damaging activity is and has beenunderway.

    The 2A doesn't exist for the sake of everybody having a gun. What is the point in having a gun if we let the elites otherwise economically enslave or tyrannize us?

    The real dangers, I believe, lie in incrementalism. The elites know they cannot take our guns without provoking a running fight. But, they are also smart enough to know that as long asthey let us keep our guns, they can getaway with quite alot.

    The ball to keep an eye on is notreally gun rights.Gun rights are important, yes. But even more important is money.You know the old saying, "follow the money." Whoever controls the creation and distribution of money itself, controls directly or indirectly pretty much everything else. All trade (except barter)--basically an entire economy or economies. Even political power comes under the sway of whoever creates and issues the money, because even the king needs money.

    The world of highfinance is arcane to me, too. But,I'm not talking about high finance. I am talking about thecreationand issue/distribution of money---the thing that has tohappen before high finance can play with the money.

    Become reasonably well informedon the creation and distribution of money. Otherwise, you end up one morning discovering you are economically tyrannized or enslaved, but you still have your gun.

    In fact, you already are. If eight (?) men--the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve and its Chairman--can dictate financial policy such that you find yourself out of work one morning from a horrendous recession bordering ona Depression, then you are economically tyrannized.

    I am emphatically not saying to startinsurrections. I am sayingto learn more about the creation and issuance of money so you have some idea of what the heck is going on. Or, to put it another way. Learn which ball to keep an eye on, and then keep an eye on that ball. No matter what other sneaky tricks or scares the elites throw at your gun rights.

    Heck, it might even make a cohesive picture where the attempted or accomplished gun infringements seem coordinated with money machinations. But, we can't recognize any coordination, unless we are also looking beyond gun rights.

    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Shovelhead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    NO VA, ,
    Posts
    355

    Post imported post

    This has been "circling the drain' of the internet for several months...........

    http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/int...un-ban-treaty/


    Assault Weapon (N) “Any firearm whose design disturbs the sleep of progressive politicians.”.

  11. #11
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580

    Post imported post

    Shovelhead wrote:
    This has been "circling the drain' of the internet for several months...........

    http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/int...un-ban-treaty/

    Oh well....at least I don't have to worry about it tonight

  12. #12
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682

    Post imported post

    I just talked to Cantors office and they didn't know much and really weren't concerned unless they get a lot of emails or calls.
    And even if they got buried in letters, calls and emails there is nothing Cantor or his flunkies could do. The "Gentlemen" of the House of Representatives have an understanding with the "Gentlemen" of the Senate that neither shall interfere with the goings-on of the other house.

    Of course that agreement is more honored in the breach than by strict observance.

    I do often wonder why so much energy trying to accomplish something is spent in the wrong places. With Warner not looking at reelection until 2012 and Webb not until 2014 neither one feels much pressure at the moment to consider their constituents' desiresrather than followingthe party line.

    Don't get me wrong - it is still absolutely necessary to contact them and let them know how you feel and want them to vote. But your energy and money may be better spent in contacting and supporting known opponents of the treaty and those who are facing reelection/election who could be influenced in our direction.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  13. #13
    Regular Member Whitney's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Poulsbo, Kitsap County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    449

    Post imported post

    Here is some quick reading on the subject.

    http://www.iansa.org/un/index.htm
    http://www.controlarms.org/en
    The problem with America is stupidity.
    I'm not saying there should be capital punishment for stupidity, but why don't we just take the safety labels off of everything and let the problem solve itself?

  14. #14
    Regular Member richarcm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    1,182

    Post imported post

    AIC869 wrote:
    Secretary of State and/or President can sign anything they want. Unless it's ratified by the Senate, it's paper suitable for use as a bar napkin. I wouldn't worry too much over it. Not saying there's no reason to keep an eye on them, but since Marbury v. Madison established the Constitution as the "supreme law of the land," any treaty would still have to take a backseat to it. Constitution/Second Amendment trumps a treaty.
    HA. That is to assume that they give 2 craps about what you think the purpose of the Constitution is.....they can fabricate/claim some "global crisis" that requires global governance/alliance, reason to the people that they will not be safe from this "global crisis" unless a treaty is signed that allows foreign troops/law enforcement to be able to assist local military/law enforcement stabilize the "global crisis" and then start sending UN troops stopping you on the street or knocking on your doors suggesting that because you might have guns that you COULD be a suspect. What are you going to do? Sue the feds? Sue the UN?

    It may be "just a piece of paper"....but it's one that can enslave you pretty quickly if you think it will amount to nothing more than just that....paper. Our reps dont care about our Constitution. What makes you think that 'piece of paper' is anymore powerful than the treaty?

    In a day and age when leaders all over the world, including our own, are desperately seeking ways to form a stronger global government via the UN......you better believe that Obama would sign this and you better believe that they are going to crank up that propaganda machine to 100% to convince the people that if you resist then you are likely an anarchist, extremist, potential terrorist and that people WILL fall in line and allow it to happen.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •