Results 1 to 23 of 23

Thread: U.N. threatens Second and First Amendments. One-worlders are going after your guns.

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    U.N. threatens Second and First Amendments. One-worlders are going after your guns.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...st-amendments/

    Quote Originally Posted by THE WASHINGTON TIMES
    A lot of baloney is floating in Turtle Bay. Gun registration is being promoted despite evidence that the costly bureaucratic system has been a complete failure in solving any crimes or stopping criminals from getting access to guns everywhere it's been tried. "None of these treaties have a relationship to reality," Mr. Bromund explains. "Terrorists are still going to have access to guns because governments give them guns, and they are still going to be able to give them guns." As an example, he pointed out, "The FARC fighting in Colombia get their guns from Venezuela."
    Administrator, before posting this article excerpt I searched for a unique keyword to ensure that the post was not a duplication. Unless titles/headlines are left intact and descriptive, that's the only way. I predict that we'll see this URL appear in many state forums.
    Last edited by Doug Huffman; 07-28-2010 at 07:21 AM.

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    1,128
    Quote Originally Posted by Mudjack View Post
    The Globalists are indeed coming after the guns. They have tried so long and hard in America to get them out of our hands without success, they needed to find another way to do it. Gradualism, incrementalism is the way to global domination, so our elite masters have discovered. The steady stream of Mestizo invaders, illegal drugs, random violence, the destruction of the currency and the ecomony, the endless ball games, beer and lousy television programming, the lousy food loaded with dangerous chemicals and the perpetual state of war have all served them well and have brought America literally to her begging knees and revealed her true colors. But getting the guns out of the hands of the American people has proved to be an impossible task. So... now they will try a new way of doing it: by signing international treaties with other nations and coming to take all the guns through the back door instead of the front. Hillary Clinton has already signed the Small Arms Treaty with the United Nations. There are a lot of arguments as to what that actually means, but make no mistake about it, it is the guns they're after and it is the guns they are going to get. The gloves are off, kids. Better get ready, 'cos here they come.

    Here is one of the main culprits leading the way in the global disarmament effort. Meet Barabara Frey, a globalist ***** straight from hell, helping the United Nations to get a better grip on us. http://igs.cla.umn.edu/faculty/profile.php?UID=freyx001

    Just a couple of tidbits worth keeping an eye on.
    So Hillary Clinton and her cronys are responsible for "endless ball games, beer and lousy television programming?"

    Well, two out of three ain't bad . . .

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    215
    What your seeing is TREASON at the highest levels of the Federal Corporation.
    Treaties must be signed pursuant to the Constitution if not they are void.
    The Government of the United States of America was never given the Authority
    to violate the Constitution, Usurpation gives no authority.
    The amazing thing is people still vote and support these idiots, who should be
    prosecuted for Treason and shot.
    Life is tough, its tougher when your stupid.

    http://www.itsnotthelaw.com

    Feds: U.C.C. 1-308, State: U.C.C. 1-207, Both: U.C.C. 1-103.6

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    L.A. County, California, USA
    Posts
    149
    I live in California. For the most part, to carry a handgun in CA, it must be registered (I know, there are exceptions, but for a newbie, going out to buy their first handgun to carry - it's likely to be required to be registered).

    Disclaimers aside, what if this "registration" list is made public and made available to other nations? If it isn't already, it likely will be. So, if many nations sign this treaty and/or otherwise make ownership of a firearm a crime, can they arrest you if you visit their country (with or without your firearm) based simply on their knowledge of your firearm ownership? It wouldn't surprise me that some nations might try this as a way to deter firearms ownership by those U.S. citizens who like to travel.

    Just askin'.

  5. #5
    Founder's Club Member PrayingForWar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    The Real World.
    Posts
    1,705
    Quote Originally Posted by Mudjack View Post
    The Globalists are indeed coming after the guns. They have tried so long and hard in America to get them out of our hands without success, they needed to find another way to do it. Gradualism, incrementalism is the way to global domination, so our elite masters have discovered. The steady stream of Mestizo invaders, illegal drugs, random violence, the destruction of the currency and the ecomony, the endless ball games, beer and lousy television programming, the lousy food loaded with dangerous chemicals and the perpetual state of war have all served them well and have brought America literally to her begging knees and revealed her true colors. But getting the guns out of the hands of the American people has proved to be an impossible task. So... now they will try a new way of doing it: by signing international treaties with other nations and coming to take all the guns through the back door instead of the front. Hillary Clinton has already signed the Small Arms Treaty with the United Nations. There are a lot of arguments as to what that actually means, but make no mistake about it, it is the guns they're after and it is the guns they are going to get. The gloves are off, kids. Better get ready, 'cos here they come.

    Here is one of the main culprits leading the way in the global disarmament effort. Meet Barabara Frey, a globalist ***** straight from hell, helping the United Nations to get a better grip on us. http://igs.cla.umn.edu/faculty/profile.php?UID=freyx001

    Just a couple of tidbits worth keeping an eye on.
    The treaty hasn't been drafted yet, so Hitlary could not have signed it. Though we know she will. They have been incrementally trying to take our guns, but we have pushed them back, and we can incrementally get our rights fully restored if we don't fall prey to hysterical fears. This treaty is an attempt to gain ground for sure, they've lost a lot in the past several years. I noticed the statement;

    "It took herculean efforts by George W. Bush's administration to thwart this U.N. power grab a few years ago."

    One of the biggest reasons we're now subjected to the insane governance of leftist sociopaths, is because of the constant brow beating, second guessing and just plain slander of GWB. People wanted what they percieved to be the opposite of GWB. Well you've lost your hope, now here's your change, thank you.

    The biggest complaint people have is the war. I can't understatnd how going overseas, and setting up camp in the front yards of the same flea bitten bearded perverts who have created a cult (Wahabism) with millions of followers and have vowed the destruction of western civilization could possibly be a bad thing. Unless you're going to then elect leadership that seems content to lose the battle. I fully supported this endeavor, and backed up my support by sacrificing years of my life in an effort to make it succeed. Meanwhile here at home "patriots" chipped away at our resolve to win and helped usher in the worst government we may have ever had. Now they're all bent out of shape because they helped the leftwing globalists, and they don't even know it.
    Last edited by PrayingForWar; 07-30-2010 at 10:45 AM.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Renton, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,201
    Quote Originally Posted by Mudjack View Post
    And also says Article VI of the Constitution that no law can ever be above it.

    Ya gotta love those Founding Fathers. Had they not drawn up that fine document, yes, even in spite of it's errors, we would have been toast long ago.
    You might want to read Article VI again, especially (2). It says that: 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.
    Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world; it's the only thing that ever does.- Margaret Mead


    Those who will not fight for justice today will fight for their lives in the future,

    Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote. Benjamin Franklin

  7. #7
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    Quote Originally Posted by Ruby View Post
    You might want to read Article VI again, especially (2). It says that: 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.
    The key phrase here is, "under the Authority of the United States". Couple this with the fact that the president MUST "preserve, protect and defend" the Constitution and what do you get? The authority of the United States is loaned to the nation by the People and the Constitution is a trust which outlines that which the government is allowed to do. Therefore, any treaty which countermands the Constitution is not even a consideration. And if the president were to sign such a treaty which violated any part of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, his actions would be illegal and he would be committing treason.
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Renton, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,201
    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernBoy View Post
    The key phrase here is, "under the Authority of the United States". Couple this with the fact that the president MUST "preserve, protect and defend" the Constitution and what do you get? The authority of the United States is loaned to the nation by the People and the Constitution is a trust which outlines that which the government is allowed to do. Therefore, any treaty which countermands the Constitution is not even a consideration. And if the president were to sign such a treaty which violated any part of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, his actions would be illegal and he would be committing treason.
    I like your interpretation of it, but that's not what it says. We "loaned" our authority when we elected the President and Congress to act on our behave. I think that if this were ever signed and passed by Congress it would end up before the Supreme Court. I sincerely hope that never happens. I am not a Constitutional scholar so I really can't say, and even they disagree on what various parts of the Constitution mean. It certainly would not be in the spirit of the Constitution; I don't think that the Founding Fathers intended that this country ever be subject to foreign laws. That's why they came to this country to begin with, to get away from a repressive government. I think we are in for some interesting times.
    Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world; it's the only thing that ever does.- Margaret Mead


    Those who will not fight for justice today will fight for their lives in the future,

    Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote. Benjamin Franklin

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    , , Kernersville NC
    Posts
    783
    yea thats all fine and good, and I respectfully agree, but, those jackasses we have in there now (with some exeptions of course) dont give a rats #SS about our constitution nor do they plan to keep it.They are liars, anti Americans, Marxists,socialists,communists. And we put them into office. May God help us.

  10. #10
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    Quote Originally Posted by Ruby View Post
    I like your interpretation of it, but that's not what it says.
    I must respectfully disagree with you on this and I base this on the fact that all of our elected public official, military, and I suspect all state and local police forces are required to take an oath swearing their allegiance and faith to the Constitution. This clearly means that any laws, regulations, restrictions, treaties, etc. which are not specifically allowed under the Constitution are by definition illegal. Me thinks there has been a multitude of illegal activity going on for some time by these maggots. But that does not make it either legal or right. A treaty cannot violate the Constitution or the Bill of Rights by law.
    Last edited by SouthernBoy; 08-03-2010 at 08:45 AM.
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Bunkie, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    216

    SCOTUS precedent on treaties

    Nothing overrides the Constitution!

    In the Reid v. Covert case, it was an executive agreement (not a
    treaty) between the United States and Great Britain that was in
    question. However, in Part II, we find:
    “MR. JUSTICE BLACK announced the judgment of the Court and
    delivered an opinion, in which THE CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE
    DOUGLAS, and MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN join.”

    Significant excerpts include:
    “At the time of Mrs. Covert's alleged offense, an executive agreement
    was in effect between the United States and Great Britain which
    permitted United States' military courts to exercise exclusive
    jurisdiction over offenses committed in Great Britain by American
    servicemen or their dependents.”

    “It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who
    created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for
    the Bill of Rights -- let alone alien to our entire constitutional history
    and tradition -- to construe Article VI as permitting the United States
    to exercise power under an international agreement without
    observing constitutional prohibitions. ... In effect, such construction
    would permit amendment of that document in a manner not
    sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were
    designed to apply to all branches of the National Government, and
    they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and the
    Senate combined.”

    “There is nothing new or unique about what we say here. This Court
    has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the
    Constitution over a treaty. ... For example, in Geofroy v. Riggs, 133
    U.S. 258, 267, it declared: 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 [p*18] government, or in
    that of one of the States, or a cession of any portion of the territory
    of the latter, without its consent.”

    “This Court has also repeatedly taken the position that an Act of
    Congress, which must comply with the Constitution, is on a full parity
    with a treaty, and that, when a statute which is subsequent in time is
    inconsistent with a treaty, the statute to the extent of conflict renders
    the treaty null. ... It would be completely anomalous to say that a
    treaty need not comply with the Constitution when such an
    agreement can be overridden by a statute that must conform to that
    instrument.”

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Renton, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,201
    Thank you, HunterDave, that definitely clarifies it. I am very happy that that is the case!
    Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world; it's the only thing that ever does.- Margaret Mead


    Those who will not fight for justice today will fight for their lives in the future,

    Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote. Benjamin Franklin

  13. #13
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    Quote Originally Posted by wethepeople View Post
    yea thats all fine and good, and I respectfully agree, but, those jackasses we have in there now (with some exeptions of course) dont give a rats #SS about our constitution nor do they plan to keep it.They are liars, anti Americans, Marxists,socialists,communists. And we put them into office. May God help us.
    There have been jackasses in both houses and the white house many, many times since the founding of the republic. And there will continue to be long after we're dead, should the republic survive. The real insidious evil is the undermining of our traditions, our institutions, our culture, our heritage, and our history as each generation fails to pass all of this on to subsequent generations without first a bit of twisting, turning, and editing. What we have now is a far cry from what the Founders envisioned for us to have. "A republic, if they can keep it" is what Franklin said and he darned well knew of which he spoke.
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  14. #14
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    Quote Originally Posted by Ruby View Post
    Thank you, HunterDave, that definitely clarifies it. I am very happy that that is the case!
    I second the Thank you.
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Alabama, ,
    Posts
    1,338
    Would not the SALT treaty violate the 2A? How can you deny a country the right to bear arms, when the liberal side claims it is a collective right of the government to have arms?
    But maybe that is the real charge of those three hikers in Iran, they violated local gun laws by having a gun in the US. BHO doesn't want a public trial that would expose him letting Iran know they had the guns in his secret enforcement of UN BS, so they are held in isolation till people forget they are there.

  16. #16

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    1,128
    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernBoy View Post
    I second the Thank you.
    And don't forget the "liberal" majority on the Warren Court who decided Reid v. Covert.

  17. #17
    Founder's Club Member PrayingForWar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    The Real World.
    Posts
    1,705
    Quote Originally Posted by The Donkey View Post
    And don't forget the "liberal" majority on the Warren Court who decided Reid v. Covert.

    Good point, but it should be mentioned that many "liberals" during that time were not openly hostile towards the constitution.

  18. #18
    Activist Member DoubleAgentMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    LA County, CA
    Posts
    64
    Quote Originally Posted by 4armed Architect View Post
    I live in California. For the most part, to carry a handgun in CA, it must be registered (I know, there are exceptions, but for a newbie, going out to buy their first handgun to carry - it's likely to be required to be registered).

    Disclaimers aside, what if this "registration" list is made public and made available to other nations? If it isn't already, it likely will be. So, if many nations sign this treaty and/or otherwise make ownership of a firearm a crime, can they arrest you if you visit their country (with or without your firearm) based simply on their knowledge of your firearm ownership? It wouldn't surprise me that some nations might try this as a way to deter firearms ownership by those U.S. citizens who like to travel.

    Just askin'.

    There is a discussion right now in Nevada on something similar , the CCW permit holders list may be published to the public because of a scandal regarding our former governor.

  19. #19
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Butch00 View Post
    What your seeing is TREASON at the highest levels of the Federal Corporation.
    Treaties must be signed pursuant to the Constitution if not they are void.
    The Government of the United States of America was never given the Authority
    to violate the Constitution, Usurpation gives no authority.
    The amazing thing is people still vote and support these idiots, who should be
    prosecuted for Treason and shot.
    The U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 3, defines "treason" as follows: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court."

    The key word here is "only," and to the best of my knowledge, Clinton has not levied war against the United States, has not adhered to our enemies, nor given them aid and comfort. The latter two do not include medical attention or basic provisions for sustaining.

    I do not support what she does, and if the U.N. attempts to take away my Constitutional Rights, I will support and defend my Constitution, and my country, to the death, if necessary (preferrably theirs).

    I might add that the U.N. is not currently considered our "enemy." That takes a formal declaration by Congress.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  20. #20
    Regular Member Bob Warden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    192

    Baseless Fearmongering

    Obama is conspiring with evil boogie men from Mars to convert all firearms into clean burning coal!! Look out behind you!!!
    Meet the new boss; same as the old boss. -The Who

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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