• 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.

Say What?

Schlepnier

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2011
Messages
420
Location
Yelm, Washington USA
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?
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
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.
 

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
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.
 

Metalhead47

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2009
Messages
2,800
Location
South Whidbey, Washington, USA
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?
 

carry for myself

Regular Member
Joined
May 1, 2011
Messages
544
Location
Maine
will never happen. and if it does. they can pry my guns from my cold, dead, GSR laden fingertips........if they get that close.
 

Difdi

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2010
Messages
987
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA
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.
 

amzbrady

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2009
Messages
3,521
Location
Marysville, Washington, USA
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.

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.

[h=1]Global gun control law pushed by Clinton[/h]Jim Kouri
, Law Enforcement Examiner
October 24, 2011
 

Metalhead47

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2009
Messages
2,800
Location
South Whidbey, Washington, USA
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.
 

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
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.
 

Jim675

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2007
Messages
1,023
Location
Bellevue, Washington, USA
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.
 

Freedom First

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2010
Messages
845
Location
Kennewick, Wa.
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.
 

Jim675

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2007
Messages
1,023
Location
Bellevue, Washington, USA
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.
 

Metalhead47

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2009
Messages
2,800
Location
South Whidbey, Washington, USA
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.
 

Difdi

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2010
Messages
987
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA
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.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
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.
 
Top