Bersa.380
Regular Member
Maybe this has been talked about before .... sorry if I missed it ... anyone care to respond to this artical ?
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=38103
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=38103
The article authors name is listed right there at the conclusion of said article....if you'd read the whole thing.
''Jennifer Kendall is a graduate of Arizona State University and preparing to attend the Annenberg School of Communication at USC.''
I'm assuming you're being flippant about your desire to have Ms Kendall shot. I think she is to be commended. She appears to be a pro-gun, pro-rights writer for crying out loud, friendly fire!
To the OP, do a search of the forum to see if the topic has already been posted. In this case, several times. That being said, how is reminding folks of the inherent desire of the UN to disarm citizens such a bad thing to keep in circulation? Directly relevant to Open Carry, no less. No guns, no OC.
Tired of seeing it posted on the forum? Don't read it, read one of the many Off Topic posts instead.
The UN is the most dangerous organization in the world.I can't imagine any American condoning our participation in it..We as Americans asnswer to no one, Especially some toilet african pigstye that they think the American tax payer should be helping .We owe no one any apologies .I take these articles with a grain of salt but never condone the UN .Nor should we ever trust anyone involved in it.
The UN is the most dangerous organization in the world.I can't imagine any American condoning our participation in it..We as Americans asnswer to no one, Especially some toilet african pigstye that they think the American tax payer should be helping .We owe no one any apologies .I take these articles with a grain of salt but never condone the UN .Nor should we ever trust anyone involved in it.
This letter/article is not fictitious its a bit misleading but not fictitious. The treaty is very real and supported by much of the League Of Na.... oops er I mean the U.N. and I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if Obama supports and signs it. However even if Obama signs the treaty, it will still need a two thirds
The UN is the most dangerous organization in the world.
OK, I will bite.
I want you to show me what Obama has done with regards to the 2nd Amendment in the past two year in office that would lead me or anyone else to believe that Obama intends to sign this document. I stated that I think he would support and sign it, that was an opinion not a fact. I based my opinion on his record in the senate, on speeches/interviews where he said he would support a new assault weapons ban, speeches/interviews where he said he would support gun registration and speeches/interviews where he supported the dc gun ban and the Chicago gun ban Also, I would like for you to show me some hard numbers in congress of congress-people that would actually vote for this UN garbage, remember, it takes 2/3 majority. I know it takes two thirds and I said that in my post. I also said that they WILL NOT have enough votes In addition, I would like for you to show me in the Constitution or a SCOTUS case where the UN supersedes the US Constitution. This is a straw man argument I never said it did.
I await evidence to back up your assertion. Good luck in proving your argument. my argument was that IF Obama signed it then it still wouldnt go into effect because it would require the approval of 2/3rds of the senate I proved this argument with my citation. You have my full attention.
My post was not an attack on you it seems you took it personally. My main point was that the treaty exists so that the article is not completely false it is just misleading.
here is a one example of a video of Obama supporting a treaty to register all firearms (its at about .24) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUCdygBmiQE
I dont need to post more because we all know how to use google.
I promise I did not take your comment personally. President Obama can wish for anything he wants, it does not mean he is going to get it. The chances of him getting what he wishes for with regards to firearms, even with a Democrat majority in the House and Senate, he will not have a snowball chance in hell.
1:52, 2/3 majority, but we both know that and hopefully you know that even with Democrat majorities there is no chance that Obama would win such a battle, if he pushed it. The "assault weapons ban" talk is a waste of time to talk about because it WILL NOT happen, guaranteed, especially a treaty ban.
I am more concerned if we have a double dip, the US descends into chaos and their is Marshal Law imposed, that is more likely that anything. Theoretically, Obama can impose Marshal Law right this second, and ban firearms, if he was hell bent on doing it, why hasn't he? Because he is political and knows firearm bans are a losing battle.
Treaties are international in scope and govern how we deal with other nations. No treaty can in any way impact 2nd Amendment rights within the borders of the USA. The cited article has been circulating in one form or another for months, and it is plainly and simply inaccurate.
I agree that what he may want to do is a lot worse then what he will try to do or what he can get away with. I suspect that if a vote on this treaty took place on the senate floor the treaty would have a very hard time getting a simple majority let alone two thirds. I think only a small handful of senators would vote in favor.
"Martial law" or not I dont think the government has any legitimate authority to ban or collect guns.
I have always wondered. Where does the notion of "martial law" even come from? I cant find it any where in the constitution. If a power is not in the constitution then the federal government does not have it. I doubt very much that the framers intended to give that much power to one branch of government let alone one person.
Congress would have to approve FWIU...but it is Constitutional.
Article I Section IX.
"The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." The suspension Habeas Corpus is not martial law
The Federal Government runs the military--hence, the Federal Government can do whatever it wants.Realistically yes, but do they have any "legitimate" authority to do so? I know that people do not want to believe that this is the case, but it is. Would the Federal Government take such a step...regardless of the Administration, if the Federal Government feels that it might be compromised, it will take appropriate action to survive, and that includes killing Americans. The US government is like all other governments in that it will dispose of "enemies of the state" in order to maintain and exert power over "the people."
Congress would have to approve FWIU...but it is Constitutional.
Article I Section IX.
"The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."
The Federal Government runs the military--hence, the Federal Government can do whatever it wants. I know that people do not want to believe that this is the case, but it is. Would the Federal Government take such a step...regardless of the Administration, if the Federal Government feels that it might be compromised, it will take appropriate action to survive, and that includes killing Americans. The US government is like all other governments in that it will dispose of "enemies of the state" in order to maintain and exert power over "the people."