PDA

View Full Version : Firearms Confiscation Coming.



Sev
07-09-2012, 06:29 AM
Yah. The arsewipe and chief is not after out guns. Sure.
Obama is anti American and has no regard for our sovereignty.
If he signs this treaty he should be arrested and tried for treason. Then dispatched in a manner suitable to the crime.

<span style="color: #000000">http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybel...rs-up-in-arms/
<span style='font-size: 23pt'>U.N. Agreement Should Have All Gun Owners Up In Arms
</span>
It may not come as surprising news to many of you that the United Nations doesn’t approve of our Second Amendment. Not one bit. And they very much hope to do something about it with help from some powerful American friends. Under the guise of a proposed global “Small Arms Treaty” premised to fight “terrorism”, “insurgency” and “international crime syndicates” you can be quite certain that an even more insidious threat is being targeted – our Constitutional right for law-abiding citizens to own and bear arms.

What, exactly, does the intended agreement entail?

While the terms have yet to be made public, if passed by the U.N. and ratified by our Senate, it will almost certainly force the U.S. to:

1. Enact tougher licensing requirements, creating additional bureaucratic red tape for legal firearms ownership.
2. Confiscate and destroy all “unauthorized” civilian firearms (exempting those owned by our government of course).
3. Ban the trade, sale and private ownership of all semi-automatic weapons (any that have magazines even though they still operate in the same one trigger pull – one single “bang” manner as revolvers, a simple fact the ant-gun media never seem to grasp).
4. Create an international gun registry, clearly setting the stage for full-scale gun confiscation.
5. In short, overriding our national sovereignty, and in the process, providing license for the federal government to assert preemptive powers over state regulatory powers guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment in addition to our Second Amendment rights.

Have no doubt that this plan is very real, with strong Obama administration support. In January 2010 the U.S. joined 152 other countries in endorsing a U.N. Arms Treaty Resolution that will establish a 2012 conference to draft a blueprint for enactment. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has pledged to push for Senate ratification.

Former U.N. ambassador John Bolton has cautioned gun owners to take this initiative seriously, stating that the U.N. “is trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about international arms trade between nation states, but there is no doubt that the real agenda here is domestic firearms control.”

More from contributor Larry Bell

Although professing to support the Second Amendment during her presidential election bid, Hillary Clinton is not generally known as a gun rights enthusiast. She has been a long-time activist for federal firearms licensing and registration, and a vigorous opponent of state Right-to-Carry laws. As a New York senator she ranked among the National Rifle Association’s worst “F”-rated gun banners who voted to support the sort of gunpoint disarmament that marked New Orleans’ rogue police actions against law-abiding gun owners in the anarchistic aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

President Obama’s record on citizen gun rights doesn’t reflect much advocacy either. Consider for example his appointment of anti-gun rights former Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels as an alternate U.S. representative to the U.N., and his choice of Andrew Traver who has worked to terminate civilian ownership of so-called “assault rifles” (another prejudicially meaningless gun term) to head the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

Then, in a move unprecedented in American history, the Obama administration quietly banned the re-importation and sale of 850,000 collectable antique U.S.-manufactured M1 Garand and Carbine rifles that were left in South Korea following the Korean War. Developed in the 1930s, the venerable M1 Garand carried the U.S. through World War II, seeing action in every major battle.

As an Illinois state senator, Barack Obama was an aggressive advocate for expanding gun control laws, and even voted against legislation giving gun owners an affirmative defense when they use firearms to defend themselves and their families against home invaders and burglars. He also served on a 10-member board of directors of the radically activist anti-gun Joyce Foundation in Chicago during a period between 1998-2001when it contributed $18,326,183 in grants to anti-Second Amendment organizations.

If someone breaks into your home when you are there, which would you prefer to have close at hand: 1) a telephone to call 911, or 2) a loaded gun of respectable caliber? That’s a pretty easy question for me to answer. I am a long-time NRA member, concealed firearms license holder and a regular weekly recreational pistol shooter. And while I don’t ordinarily care to target anything that has a mother, will reluctantly make an exception should an urgent provocation arise. I also happen to enjoy the company of friends who hunt, as well as those, like myself, who share an abiding interest in American history and the firearms that influenced it.

There are many like me, and fewer of them would be alive today were it not for exercise of their gun rights. In fact law-abiding citizens in America used guns in self-defense 2.5 million times during 1993 (about 6,850 times per day), and actually shot and killed 2 1/2 times as many criminals as police did (1,527 to 606). Those civilian self-defense shootings resulted in less than 1/5th as many incidents as police where an innocent person was mistakenly identified as a criminal (2% versus 11%).

Just how effectively have gun bans worked to make citizens safer in other countries? Take the number of home break-ins while residents are present as an indication. In Canada and Britain, both with tough gun-control laws, nearly half of all burglaries occur when residents are present. But in the U.S. where many households are armed, only about 13% happen when someone is home.

Recognizing clear statistical benefit evidence, 41 states now allow competent, law-abiding adults to carry permitted or permit-exempt concealed handguns. As a result, crime rates in those states have typically fallen at least 10% in the year following enactment.

So the majority in our Senate is smart enough to realize that the U.N.’s gun-grab agenda is unconstitutional, politically suicidal for those who support it, and down-right idiotic—right? Let’s hope so, but not entirely count on it. While a few loyal Obama Democrats are truly “pro-gun”, many are loathe to vote against treaties that carry the president’s international prestige, causing him embarrassment.

Also, don’t forget that Senate confirmation of anti-gun Obama nominee Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Many within the few who voted against her did so only because of massive grassroots pressure from constituents who take their Constitutional protections very seriously.

Now, more than ever, it’s imperative to stick by our guns in demanding that all Constitutional rights be preserved. If not, we will surely lose both.</span>
__________________

Gayle in MD
07-09-2012, 08:21 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">1. Enact tougher licensing requirements, creating additional bureaucratic red tape for legal firearms ownership.
2. Confiscate and destroy all “unauthorized” civilian firearms (exempting those owned by our government of course).
3. Ban the trade, sale and private ownership of all semi-automatic weapons (any that have magazines even though they still operate in the same one trigger pull – one single “bang” manner as revolvers, a simple fact the ant-gun media never seem to grasp).
4. Create an international gun registry, clearly setting the stage for full-scale gun confiscation. <span style="color: #990000"><span style='font-size: 17pt'>An overreach, extrapolation, with no proof </span></span>


5. In short, overriding our national sovereignty, and in the process, providing license for the federal government to assert preemptive powers over state regulatory powers guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment in addition to our Second Amendment rights.

</div></div>

<span style="color: #990000">None of the assertions in this piece, are accompanied by any proof. And certainly, no proof is included about the President's opinions on any of it, although you are already accusing him of treason.

It's just another RW hit job.

What is being discussed, offically, addresses ILLEGAL beahvior. Are you for Illegal guns, loose everywhere, and easily acquired by thugs, terrorists, foreign and domestic, and easy access for the irrationally mentally ill?

We have far too many assault weapons on the loose. Anything that cracks down on thugs, terrorists, and crazy people getting hold of them, is fine with me.

G.

</span>

Soflasnapper
07-09-2012, 09:29 AM
It hasn't yet begun to be drafted, but the author somehow knows it will almost certainly force the US to do a list of things?

Sounds like guesswork dressed up as certainty, which isn't much of a recommendation for the accuracy of this claim in chief.

However, not to worry-- even should the president sign such a treaty, and it contained those provisions, and they all applied here, there is a supermajority requirement to ratify treaties in the Senate, per the COTUS.

Doesn't really matter what is signed, if it cannot be ratified.

Carter signed Salt II, and it wasn't ratified until GHW Bush's presidency, iirc.

eg8r
07-09-2012, 10:08 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">However, not to worry-- even should the president sign such a treaty, and it contained those provisions, and they all applied here, there is a supermajority requirement to ratify treaties in the Senate, per the COTUS.

Doesn't really matter what is signed, if it cannot be ratified.

Carter signed Salt II, and it wasn't ratified until GHW Bush's presidency, iirc. </div></div>It is funny to read your posts. The more you talk the more you contradict yourself.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
07-09-2012, 05:42 PM
Thanks!

You crack me up a lot as well!

Occasionally I find out something from checking why you're wrong, of course, so thank you for that as well.

Just found out the Senate does NOT ratify treaties!! The president does (who KNEW?), but only if the Senate consents at a 2/3rds super-majority level. If that doesn't take place, the president cannot ratify the treaty, and it has no force of law.

So, as I mentioned, whatever PBO does or does not do with that treaty which has not yet been DRAFTED for voting in the UN, a simple 1/3rd of the Senate can block it by refusing to agree.

Even crazy Democrats wouldn't suppose the GOP will have less than 33 US Senators for the next 4-1/2 years.

cushioncrawler
07-09-2012, 07:26 PM
Rayguns dont vaporize martians.
Martians vaporize martians.
mac.

Qtec
07-10-2012, 04:07 AM
The UN agreement is about selling arms to OTHER countries than your own.

The USA is flooding Mexico with guns. 70% of the weapons they can identify come from the USA. Mexico should go to the World Court and sue for 5 Trillion.

The NRA have a lot to answer for.

Q

LWW
07-10-2012, 04:31 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Even crazy Democrats wouldn't suppose the GOP will have less than 33 US Senators for the next 4-1/2 years. </div></div>

and tere you have the confession ... the only shot we have at defending liberty and the COTUS is to stop the demokrooks from gaining sufficient power to destroy the republic.

Sev
07-10-2012, 05:39 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The UN agreement is about selling arms to OTHER countries than your own.

The USA is flooding Mexico with guns. 70% of the weapons they can identify come from the USA. Mexico should go to the World Court and sue for 5 Trillion.

The NRA have a lot to answer for.

Q </div></div>

The world court can quite easily be taken out by a small nuke.
Nobody infringes on out sovereignty.

eg8r
07-10-2012, 07:44 AM
LOL, I bet if you keep checking you will continue to find yourself wrong, but that is only history proving itself to be true, right?

I wasn't wrong about anything though. You started out vehemently denying this would ever mean anything. You then chose an example of why it wouldn't go anywhere only to keep talking and tell us it was actually ratified. Hilarious indeed. So if we were to take your example and apply it, you are telling Sev that this means nothing because it would take a miracle to be ratified. Only to be trumped by the next guy, or probably the second President, coming in and getting that job done.

eg8r
07-10-2012, 07:46 AM
LOL, isn't funny. The more he talks the more partisan he gets. At least he admits it is only the Democrats that would be willing to sign or approve something as horrible as this.

eg8r

LWW
07-10-2012, 07:48 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LOL, isn't funny. The more he talks the more partisan he gets. At least he admits it is only the Democrats that would be willing to sign or approve something as horrible as this.

eg8r </div></div>

I've always said that if you keep a leftist talking they will always let the truth slip out sooner or later.

Soflasnapper
07-10-2012, 11:02 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Even crazy Democrats wouldn't suppose the GOP will have less than 33 US Senators for the next 4-1/2 years. </div></div>

and tere you have the confession ... the only shot we have at defending liberty and the COTUS is to stop the demokrooks from gaining sufficient power to destroy the republic. </div></div>

No, it's arguing in the alternatives, which please see.

That is, I do not agree this piece is telling us facts. I do not buy what it says. I believe it is false.

However, if YOU DO, and you are wetting your bed, in that case I'm mentioning the role of the Senate, and how 1/3rd of it can block ratification. Also, if you tremble in fear that only Republicans vote for gun rights, I've given you the reason to calm the hell down on that score as well.

High 80%s and higher NRA-rated senators include Democrats*, if you didn't know that. Just as they exist in the House.

The 17 members of the Democratic House caucus who voted for contempt on Holder did so out of NRA fealty, after the NRA said they would score that vote on their pro-gun/anti-gun scale.

*From a May 2010 patriots' site, here. (http://www.pinellaspatriots.org/messages/boards/thread/9086028?thread=9086028) :

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I spoke with Kaelan Jones at the NRA. Below is his statement (taken from notes during conversation)

Harry Reid and the NRA were at a ribbon cutting ceremony for a shooting park in Clark County, Nevada (Clark County Shooting Sports Park) in April. Reid has always been pro gun and DID play an important role in securing the opening of the park. Reid has always been pro 2nd Amendment and the NRA has always given credit where credit is deserved (a good thing.) The NRA grades all politicians on their voting record and they graded Reid a "B" in 2004 and "A" since then. </div></div>

I seem to remember that Reid is fairly high up in the Senate. So high up, in fact, that he personally controls the agenda completely, since he is the Majority Leader.