Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 36

Thread: Say What?

  1. #1
    Regular Member amzbrady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Marysville, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,522

    Say What?

    If you voted for Obama to prove you are not a racist...
    what will you do now to prove you are not stupid?

    "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of "liberalism," they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." - Norman Thomas

    "They who can who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve niether liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin

  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member Jim675's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Bellevue, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,037
    Dave W. added a comment to that article referring to one of his own:

    http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-i...ntrol-strategy

  3. #3
    Regular Member Schlepnier's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Yelm, Washington USA
    Posts
    419

    Exclamation

    Wow not only does he want to own the title of worst president in history......is he also going for being the driving force behind a second US civil war?
    +thought for the day+
    ++victory needs no explanation, defeat allows none++

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    This is old news, and Obama is not the first President to try and advance a treaty along these lines through the Senate.

    Why the sudden notice that your panties are all bunched up? Or did you just get around to reading the memo about this one?

    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

  5. #5
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Need to do a little "reading between the lines" here.

    Many of these great revelations come from SAF and the NRA at regular intervals. It is felt by many that they are keeping the fears alive on this "treaty" in order to maximize their fund raising efforts.

    Some forums have used the phrase "Let no crisis go without maximum exploitation", meaning use them to maximum advantage in order to raise funds.
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Bremerton, WA
    Posts
    8

    The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

    Unless 67 senators vote to approve it, the president can not sign any treaty.

    "He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;"

    US Constitution, Article II, Section 2
    http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/cha...ranscript.html

  7. #7
    Regular Member Metalhead47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    South Whidbey, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,812
    Oh geeze not this again. Talk about zombie threads, it's like a bad horror film, just when you think it's dead it pops its head back up for one more scare.

    Can't remember where I read it, but someone once made a very good response to this "treaty" BS, basic point of which is that a treaty would not, in fact, overrule the US Constitution and amendments. Gogo? Deanf maybe?
    It is very wise to not take a watermelon lightly.

  8. #8
    Regular Member carry for myself's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Maine
    Posts
    546
    will never happen. and if it does. they can pry my guns from my cold, dead, GSR laden fingertips........if they get that close.
    i would rather run out of blood, breath and life. and die fighting. than run out of ammo , and die with my pants down -Tom Scantas

  9. #9
    Regular Member Difdi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    996
    Quote Originally Posted by carry for myself View Post
    will never happen. and if it does. they can pry my guns from my cold, dead, GSR laden fingertips........if they get that close.
    Attempting to forcibly disarm a citizen is like trying to forcibly disarm a porcupine. Succeed or fail, you're going to end up in possession of more quills than you intended, mostly in unpleasant places.

  10. #10
    Regular Member amzbrady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Marysville, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,522
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    This is old news, and Obama is not the first President to try and advance a treaty along these lines through the Senate.

    Why the sudden notice that your panties are all bunched up? Or did you just get around to reading the memo about this one?

    stay safe.
    Quote Originally Posted by Metalhead47 View Post
    Oh geeze not this again. Talk about zombie threads, it's like a bad horror film, just when you think it's dead it pops its head back up for one more scare.

    Can't remember where I read it, but someone once made a very good response to this "treaty" BS, basic point of which is that a treaty would not, in fact, overrule the US Constitution and amendments. Gogo? Deanf maybe?
    I have not seen this before, and given the article was written on the 24th and I posted it on the 28th I dont see how this is so old news, esp since neither of you posted a link.

    Global gun control law pushed by Clinton

    Jim Kouri
    , Law Enforcement Examiner
    October 24, 2011
    If you voted for Obama to prove you are not a racist...
    what will you do now to prove you are not stupid?

    "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of "liberalism," they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." - Norman Thomas

    "They who can who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve niether liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin

  11. #11
    Regular Member Metalhead47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    South Whidbey, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,812
    Quote Originally Posted by amzbrady View Post
    I have not seen this before, and given the article was written on the 24th and I posted it on the 28th I dont see how this is so old news, esp since neither of you posted a link.

    Global gun control law pushed by Clinton

    Jim Kouri
    , Law Enforcement Examiner
    October 24, 2011
    Dude, this "treaty" in various forms has been wandering around the net since at least '08. Like someone else said, every time the NRA or some other group wants to scare up some donations it makes its rounds. There's no "link" to post, any more than there's a link to post to that guy in Kenya who just HAS to give you some money.
    It is very wise to not take a watermelon lightly.

  12. #12
    Regular Member massivedesign's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Olympia, Washington, USA
    Posts
    866
    www.WaGuns.org

    Currently mapping locations of Shooting Areas as well as Gun Stores - Let me know what is missing!

  13. #13
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953

    Consider for a moment

    Putting aside all the Constitutional prohibitions against such a Treaty going into effect here, if it did consider this.

    Potentially all Gun Owners would have to present their "arms" at designated collection points. Anyone want to wager how many would be bringing their loaded firearms to these collection points and "expressing their displeasure"?

    Who would they get to enforce such a ban? The Military, many of which enjoy private ownership of firearms? Ditto for the Police Departments, considering that the "silent majority" there also enjoy their private firearms? There just might be a shortage of "enforcers", especially after the smoke clears.
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  14. #14
    Founder's Club Member Jim675's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Bellevue, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,037
    Quote Originally Posted by amlevin View Post
    Putting aside all the Constitutional prohibitions against such a Treaty going into effect here, if it did consider this.

    Potentially all Gun Owners would have to present their "arms" at designated collection points. Anyone want to wager how many would be bringing their loaded firearms to these collection points and "expressing their displeasure"?

    Who would they get to enforce such a ban? The Military, many of which enjoy private ownership of firearms? Ditto for the Police Departments, considering that the "silent majority" there also enjoy their private firearms? There just might be a shortage of "enforcers", especially after the smoke clears.
    It would be enforced by people doing their job.

    Perhaps unfortunately, lawful gun owner is lawful. The overwhelming majority would go just as peacefully as our friends in the UK, Australia, and so many others have.

    If a law passes then by definition there will have been a massive public demonization campaign.
    Holdouts would be pariahs. "Sensible" hunters will support your handguns being confiscated. It has worked elsewhere, over and over.

  15. #15
    Regular Member Difdi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    996
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim675 View Post
    It would be enforced by people doing their job.
    Just like at the Nuremburg trials, "just following orders" is not a valid defense for violating human rights. It's not a valid defense to oathbreaking or violating the Constitution either.

  16. #16
    Regular Member Freedom First's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Kennewick, Wa.
    Posts
    850
    Regardless of when this farce came to a specific person's notice, it is still a clear indication of specifically what those wicked few who believe they rule over this free people wish to do to us.

    Sheeple notwithstanding, there will be a percentage of people who will resist, even to the point of using the firearms in question. I.e. 3%ers

    LE and our military will have a Weimar decision to make on that day. Support their Oath or submit to tyrannical authority and fight to enslave their neighbor...

    This is the reason I support a more friendly approach to my local peace officers. In their minds, I want to appear as a sincere and honest man who happens to OC and knows and stands in his Rights, not an agent provocateur set on entrapping him for fame or financial gain.

    I have no doubt that in my lifetime they will try to disarm the American people. An free, armed and knowledgeable man stands in direct opposition to the good "citizen" of the world they wish to rule over and will have to be dealt with.

    "Nor does it alter the fact that even when the struggle seems to be drifting definitely towards a world social democracy, there may still be very great delays and disappointments before it becomes an efficient and beneficent world system. Countless people, from maharajas to millionaires and from pukkha sahibs to pretty ladies, will hate the new world order, be rendered unhappy by frustration of their passions and ambitions through its advent and will die protesting against it. When we attempt to estimate its promise we have to bear in mind the distress of a generation or so of malcontents, many of them quite gallant and graceful-looking people." HG Wells, New World Order, 1940

    They have had a openly published plan for nearly 80 years. We are merely reacting to it.
    Freedom can never be lost, only given away by ignorance, by choice, or at the point of a gun. Here in America we can still choose.

    Freedom First 1775

    "I aim to misbehave..." Malcolm Reynolds

  17. #17
    Founder's Club Member Jim675's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Bellevue, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,037
    Quote Originally Posted by Difdi View Post
    Just like at the Nuremburg trials, "just following orders" is not a valid defense for violating human rights. It's not a valid defense to oathbreaking or violating the Constitution either.
    Again unfortunately, law has little to do with governmental action. Not when elections are at stake. Or careers in the justice system.

    That is why everyone must OC whenever possible. Our only path to liberty is to make the claims of those who would use tyranny for personal gain is to make their claims laughable to the public.

  18. #18
    Regular Member Metalhead47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    South Whidbey, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,812
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim675 View Post
    It would be enforced by people doing their job.

    Perhaps unfortunately, lawful gun owner is lawful. The overwhelming majority would go just as peacefully as our friends in the UK, Australia, and so many others have.

    If a law passes then by definition there will have been a massive public demonization campaign.
    Holdouts would be pariahs. "Sensible" hunters will support your handguns being confiscated. It has worked elsewhere, over and over.
    In the US there are something like 80 million gun owners, that number is probably alot higher now actually. If just 10% of that number decided to stand up and say "hell no!" that's an army eight million strong. That's about double the four million active & reserve military, federal, state, & local police. IF all of them chose to obey the unlawful order to disarm peaceful citizens, which I think is unlikely. And most of those eight million would be the best trained and best equipped of the 80 million. It would be an unpleasant clustermug all the way around. But revolutions have been started over much less, and won with much less.

    There IS a precedent, after all, for a bunch of farmers with rifles facing down the most powerful military on earth... and winning.
    It is very wise to not take a watermelon lightly.

  19. #19
    Regular Member Difdi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    996
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom First View Post
    LE and our military will have a Weimar decision to make on that day. Support their Oath or submit to tyrannical authority and fight to enslave their neighbor...
    And suddenly it makes sense that organizations like the Oathkeepers get placed on domestic terrorism watch lists, for nothing more than the affirmation that they will not break the law if ordered to do so.

  20. #20
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Metalhead47 View Post
    In the US there are something like 80 million gun owners, that number is probably alot higher now actually. If just 10% of that number decided to stand up and say "hell no!" that's an army eight million strong. That's about double the four million active & reserve military, federal, state, & local police. IF all of them chose to obey the unlawful order to disarm peaceful citizens, which I think is unlikely. And most of those eight million would be the best trained and best equipped of the 80 million. It would be an unpleasant clustermug all the way around. But revolutions have been started over much less, and won with much less.

    There IS a precedent, after all, for a bunch of farmers with rifles facing down the most powerful military on earth... and winning.
    It won't be enforced with military it would be enforced locally with State, County and City cops, lets not forget since the unconstitutional patriot act they all are considered "first responders".

    Also, they will shoot first and ask questions later if you decide not to follow "the law", many here will just capitulate period. Some here will be given a pass and allowed to carry and those will probably help the "law enforcers" because after all, it is "the law". They are ex cops, Jail guards, military who have proven themselves loyal to the state and not fundamental rights, the countless growing number of "civil" and "public" employees, etc.

    We are spread out, they will use their unconstitutional standing army with their helicopters, Bradly's and tanks, SWAT teams etc, to take us out before we can organize. Yep and people wonder why I am for limiting and reducing the powers of our already police state.

    All hypothetical of course on the unlikely assumption this Bill Passes.

    Southern Boy might be the poster you are looking for who has pointed out very succinctly the unconstitutional, illegal, treasonous aspects of a bill like this.
    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)

  21. #21
    Regular Member Metalhead47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    South Whidbey, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,812
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    It won't be enforced with military it would be enforced locally with State, County and City cops, lets not forget since the unconstitutional patriot act they all are considered "first responders".

    Also, they will shoot first and ask questions later if you decide not to follow "the law", many here will just capitulate period. Some here will be given a pass and allowed to carry and those will probably help the "law enforcers" because after all, it is "the law". They are ex cops, Jail guards, military who have proven themselves loyal to the state and not fundamental rights, the countless growing number of "civil" and "public" employees, etc.

    We are spread out, they will use their unconstitutional standing army with their helicopters, Bradly's and tanks, SWAT teams etc, to take us out before we can organize. Yep and people wonder why I am for limiting and reducing the powers of our already police state.

    All hypothetical of course on the unlikely assumption this Bill Passes.

    Southern Boy might be the poster you are looking for who has pointed out very succinctly the unconstitutional, illegal, treasonous aspects of a bill like this.
    Y'know, for someone who's basic political philosophy is based on the idea that people, if left alone, will generally do right, you sure don't have much faith in your fellow man.

    I think LE compliance and civilian collaboration would be highly regional. NY, Chicago, PRK, yeah they're all toast... but not much to collect there any way. Personally, I don't see Sheriff Joe down in Maricopa ordering his deputies to confiscate weapons. Or that feller in Oregon who's almost handing out their CHL's. Or the guy down in Georgia who's encouraging women to pack heat to protect themselves. You're right that the military wouldn't have anything to do with it. On the other hand, we do have a few governors in this union who at least try to uphold the Constitution. I can see one or two of them maybe calling up the national guard to protect the citizens. Either way, there'd be enough action from the real good guys to buy us that time to organize.

    Yes, helicopters & tanks are bad... but certain recent events have demonstrated the effectiveness of "non-conventional" tactics against just such things.
    It is very wise to not take a watermelon lightly.

  22. #22
    Founder's Club Member Jim675's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Bellevue, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,037
    People are people are people. Tanks and choppers weren't needed for other countries who also had our same common law rights to arms (UK, Australia), nor armies.

    Your neighbors are plenty. Just add ignorance, intolerance, and a dash of servile boot-licking. It abounds on this very forum.

    Governments accrue power. Revolutions almost always replace the bad with other bad.

    Don't let the laws become established. We're winning (mostly) on the 2A front but all liberties need to be protected. Government's appetite for power in insatiable. All effort to protect individual liberty is similar to building a sand castle in the middle of a wide beach. Danger will come from all directions with each lifting of the tide.
    Last edited by Jim675; 11-03-2011 at 03:24 PM.

  23. #23
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Metalhead47 View Post
    Y'know, for someone who's basic political philosophy is based on the idea that people, if left alone, will generally do right, you sure don't have much faith in your fellow man.

    I think LE compliance and civilian collaboration would be highly regional. NY, Chicago, PRK, yeah they're all toast... but not much to collect there any way. Personally, I don't see Sheriff Joe down in Maricopa ordering his deputies to confiscate weapons. Or that feller in Oregon who's almost handing out their CHL's. Or the guy down in Georgia who's encouraging women to pack heat to protect themselves. You're right that the military wouldn't have anything to do with it. On the other hand, we do have a few governors in this union who at least try to uphold the Constitution. I can see one or two of them maybe calling up the national guard to protect the citizens. Either way, there'd be enough action from the real good guys to buy us that time to organize.

    Yes, helicopters & tanks are bad... but certain recent events have demonstrated the effectiveness of "non-conventional" tactics against just such things.
    Agreed, that's why I said it will come down locally. It was more a hypothesis of what could happen. Let's not forget that many cops are no longer "locals". Even in places like Bellingham.

    I have faith in my fellow man to do what is right by themselves, many will not when threatened by force from the government. Unless you live in an area where all your neighbors are armed and willing to fight, it would be tough.

    But you bring up so good points. Sheriff Mack would probably organize his deputies and the people against the feds and others. And the sacrifice of the first few may give others time to organize. It would be a Red Dawn against our Occupiers....lol. (before anybody gets but hurt, this is just hypothetical, conjecture on our part).

    Thanks for the compliment on what my basic political philosophy is. That does pretty much describe me.
    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)

  24. #24
    Regular Member Dave_pro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,227
    ....
    Last edited by Dave_pro2a; 11-04-2011 at 12:26 PM.

  25. #25
    Regular Member MilProGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Mississippi
    Posts
    1,228
    "Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is pushing for the United States to become a party to a global gun control law proposed by the United Nations. And President Barack Obama appears to be sympathetic to such an international power-grab and he's already displayed a propensity for bypassing the legislative process."

    Wake up, America!
    Proud Veteran ~ U.S. Army / Army Reserve

    Mississippi State Guard ~ Honorably Retired


Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •