# VERY, VERY SERIOUS WARNING



## duckmander (Aug 25, 2008)

Subject: VERY, VERY SERIOUS WARNING

> >
> >
> > While you were watching the oil spill, the New York failed terrorist
> > bombing and other critical crises, Hillary Clinton signed the small arms
> > treaty with the UN.
> >
> >
> >
> > OBAMA FINDS LEGAL WAY AROUND THE 2ND AMENDMENT
> >
> > AND USES IT. IF THIS PASSES, THERE could BE WAR
> >
> > On Wednesday Obama Took the First Major Step in a
> >
> > Plan to Ban All Firearms in the United States
> >
> > On Wednesday the Obama administration took its first major step in a plan
> > to ban all firearms in the United States . The Obama administration intends
> > to force gun control and a complete ban on all weapons for US citizens
> > through the signing of international treaties with foreign nations. By
> > signing international treaties on gun control, the Obama administration can
> > use the US State Department to bypass the normal legislative process in
> > Congress. Once the US Government signs these international treaties, all US
> > citizens will be subject to those gun laws created by foreign governments.
> > These are laws that have been developed and promoted by organizations such
> > as the United Nations and individuals such as George Soros and Michael
> > Bloomberg. The laws are
> > designed and intended to lead to the complete ban and confiscation of all
> > firearms. The Obama administration is attempting to use tactics and methods
> > of gun control that will inflict major damage to our 2nd Amendment before US
> > citizens even understand what has happened.
> >
> > Obama can appear before the public and tell them that he does not intend
> > to pursue any legislation (in the United States) that will lead to new gun
> > control laws, while cloaked in secrecy, his Secretary of State, Hillary
> > Clinton is committing the US to international treaties and foreign gun
> > control laws. Does that mean Obama is telling the truth? What it means is
> > that there will be no publicized gun control debates in the media or votes
> > in Congress. We will wake up one morning and find that the
> > United States has signed a treaty that prohibits firearm and ammunition
> > manufacturers from selling to the public. We will wake up another morning
> > and find that the US has signed a treaty that prohibits any transfer of
> > firearm ownership. And then, we will wake up yet another morning and find
> > that the US has signed a treaty that requires US citizens to deliver any
> > firearm they own to the local government collection and destruction center
> > or face imprisonment. This has happened in other countries, past and
> > present!
> >
> > THIS IS NOT A JOKE NOR A FALSE WARNING.
> >
> > As sure as government health care will be forced on us by the Obama
> > administration through whatever means necessary, so will gun control. Read
> > the Article U.S. reverses stance on treaty to regulate arms trade WASHINGTON
> > (Reuters) - The United States reversed policy on Wednesday and said it would
> > back launching talks on a treaty to regulate arms sales as long as the talks
> > operated by consensus, a stance critics said gave every nation a veto. The
> > decision, announced in a statement released by the U.S. State Department,
> > overturns the position of former President George W. Bush's administration,
> > which had opposed such a treaty on the grounds that national controls were
> > better. View The Full Article Here
> >
> > Click on the link below for further acknowledgement&#8230;..
> >
> > http://www.reuters.com/article/politics ... Q920091015
> >


----------



## jacobsol80 (Aug 12, 2008)

Treaties must be ratified by two thirds majority vote of the US Senate. I don't think they have the votes. Not that I would put anything past this bunch though.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

jacobsol80 said:


> Treaties must be ratified by two thirds majority vote of the US Senate. I don't think they have the votes. Not that I would put anything past this bunch though.


I think you are wrong. As stated in the article by going through the State Department he can avoid legislation. Unfortunately what will be required to pull this off is people believing we are still safe because he needs a vote.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

Treaties have to be ratified by the Senate Plainsman, no legislation. Even with this group they don't have to votes in the Senate to do it. The Senators from Montana and ND would prevent it. There is no going around it, the Supreme Court would intervene. This article was on the NRA's site and ESPN last year. It didn't happen the other day, as the article shows.

When this first surfaced last year I posted a link that shows the process.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

ironic, after I closed this site and went to my email this popped up from the NRA


> NRA-ILA GRASSROOTS ALERT
> Vol. 17, No. 23 06/11/10
> The Biennial Meeting Of States, And The Arms Trade Treaty
> 
> ...


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Senate vote, legislation, whatever, my thoughts are these guys will look for ways around it. They pushed health care against the majority, they certainly will not care about what the American people think. Obama is out to bring this nation under the rule of a one world order and without weapons to resist.


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

he will get his *** impeached over this one.... :beer:


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

I agree, there would be a war. From reading what I read and posted hear last year reconciliation would not work on a treaty. The constitution is clear and the Supreme Court would shut it down immediately. It has to be a 2/3 Senate vote and nothing less. Of course I am not a constitutional lawyer who has spent a lifetime trying to find ways to circumvent the framers and the public.

Impeachment would be the minimum, this would bring out real troubles. Like we haven't seen for nearly 150 years. He is already losing Southern democrats over his horrible mishandling of the oil spill and the obvious (so obvious even the media can't hide it) back scratching of BP. All the dems who have said no one is trying to take your guns would be left with their pants down.


----------



## ImpalaSSpeed96 (Aug 25, 2008)

Serious question here, as I do not know. So say Obama and his cohorts pass this legislation. What is to keep a republican, or anyone else for that matter, from coming in next term and overturning it back to the way it was?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

ImpalaSSpeed96 said:


> Serious question here, as I do not know. So say Obama and his cohorts pass this legislation. What is to keep a republican, or anyone else for that matter, from coming in next term and overturning it back to the way it was?


Oh, I don't know, maybe Chinese soldiers under United Nations authority. Sounds crazy to me too, but then a year ago I would have said where we are now ---------- no wait, I did see this coming. I think I mentioned something about pastor Wright not being Christian and questioning why he thinks Louis Farrakhan is so wonderful. I asked why he and Farrakhan went to visit Moammar Kadafi. Did I mention that Bill Ayers theory was that the American economy had to be driven into the dirt then socialism offered as the only way out of depression? Oh, yup, I did mention that. Then there was the question of citizenship. Wow did I get laughed at then. Are we all still laughing?

I think I also mentioned that Obama would be for gun control. I was met with a statement that because the supreme court had struck down the D C gun ban that no one could ever again endanger our rights. I am sure that's what the people who wrote the constitution thought when they added the second amendment, and where are we now? Who among us knows the workings of our government well enough to know there are no back door threats? Since our resident genius isn't around to enlighten us I guess the task is left to us peons.


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

Not everyone laughed, Plainsman. And the ones who were apparently laughed so hard they lost consciousnous...'cause they aint sayin much now :wink:


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

On a more serious note, I read up on this topic while Bush was still in. The treaties in question are not new treaties. They're previously signed treaties who's interpretation is somewhat discretionary. I don't know if "discretionary" is the best word there, but the scope of the treaties in question is tempered by the current power in Washington. The Bush/Rice interpretation was much different than the one that will most certainly be projected now. This shift of position has also allowed Mexico to step up their efforts to blame the US for their murderous drug trafficking, as I doubt Clinton will take the stance Rice did with Mexico and staunchly defend our second amendment to the Mexicans when questioned. It's been awhile so I'd have to brush up on details, but based on what I've read we do have reason to be concerned.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

> I think I also mentioned that Obama would be for gun control. I was met with a statement that because the supreme court had struck down the D C gun ban that no one could ever again endanger our rights.


Almost every ruling in the last few years has gone the way of the 2nd Amendment. There simply is no support for gun bans in this country and it would get mighty violent if they tried. They know that. I see the wonderful Star and Tribune has yet another anti-gun article on the front page, people need to get after their local media. The media and a few liberals want to take guns, that is it. Most politicians and most judges have no desire to put themselves in the way of the 2nd Amendment. 


> So say Obama and his cohorts pass this legislation. What is to keep a republican, or anyone else for that matter, from coming in next term and overturning it back to the way it was?


It is not legislation, it is only done in the Senate, the House (thank God) has no say in a treaty, in order for the US to enter any treaty it has to be ratified, not passed. There is no back door here. 


> Treaties
> The Constitution gives the Senate the power to approve, by a two-thirds vote, treaties made by the executive branch.
> The Senate has rejected relatively few of the hundreds of treaties it has considered in its history. Many others, however, have died in committee or been withdrawn by the president rather than face defeat.
> Some presidents have found it helpful to include senators in negotiating treaties in order to help pave the way for later Senate approval.
> ...


What alarms people is the executive agreement. If obama entered into an executive agreement on this it would not be a treaty, it could be broken by the next president, and I do think that obama would almost have to be impeached if he entered into a gun ban agreement.


> On a number of occasions, the Senate has exercised its role in the treatymaking process in such a way that treaties never entered into force. Of the many treaties approved by the Senate with amendments, reservations, understandings, or interpretations, forty-three never entered into force because the reservations or amendments were not acceptable either to the president or to the other country or countries party to the treaty.





> Treaty Termination
> The Constitution is silent about how treaties might be terminated. The breaking off of two treaties during the Jimmy Carter administration stirred controversy. In 1978, the president terminated the U.S. defense treaty with Taiwan, in order to facilitate the establishment of diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China. Also in 1978, the new Panama Canal treaties replaced three previous treaties with Panama. In one case, the president acted unilaterally; in the second, he terminated treaties in accordance with actions taken by Congress. But clearly it seems that the right to terminate belongs to the executive, the sole branch of government that communicates with foreign governments. Only once has Congress terminated a treaty by a joint resolution; that was a mutual defense treaty with France, from which, in 1798, Congress declared the United States "freed and exonerated." In that case, breaking the treaty almost amounted to an act of war; indeed, two days later Congress authorized hostilities against France, which were only narrowly averted.
> Status as Law
> By virtue of the Constitution's supremacy clause (Article VI, clause 2) a treaty that is concluded compatibly with applicable constitutional requirements may have status as the "supreme law of the land," along with federal statutes and the Constitution itself. A treaty does not become effective as U.S. domestic law automatically, however, upon its entry into force on the international level. Instead, this occurs only where the instrument is "self-executing" and operates without any necessity for implementing legislation.
> ...


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

Here is an article that basically sums it up. Personally I don't agree with all of it but it is a good summation.

There is a reason why the NRA isn't all over this thing and running national ads, for now it is not on the radar. The focus, in my opinion needs to be on promoting guns, getting more kids into shooting, getting after our elected officials starting at the state and local levels to insure gun rights and maybe even repeal gun/ammo taxes, hounding the media every time they print biased BS garbage, and support groups like the NRA. I frequently call or email elected officials and I almost always get a response. Cannot say the same about Forum Communications but since Von Pinnon took over as the editor of the Forum it is turning into a liberal rag. Sitting here complaining on the internet only goes so far. :sniper:



> Fact Check: Your guns are safe from treaties
> FACT: Laws of other countries cannot be put into effect here.
> Posted: June 13, 2010 - 1:14am
> 
> ...


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> There is a reason why the NRA isn't all over this


Think again I received an alert from the NRA yesterday. Do you belong to the NRA?


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

> Personally I don't agree with all of it


Agreed!

I believe factcheck.org about as much as I believe the politicians they speak about.

I'm going to get back into this later. I think I have several of the treaties, in detail, saved here on the computer but don't have time to get into it right now.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

Plainsman said:


> > There is a reason why the NRA isn't all over this
> 
> 
> Think again I received an alert from the NRA yesterday. Do you belong to the NRA?


you know I do, I got the same "alert" you did, it wasn't an alert, just the weekly stuff. If this was a big problem there would be ads on TV and other media campaigns. None yet.


> I believe factcheck.org about as much as I believe the politicians they speak about.


the only factcheck info on there is the court ruling, the rest is the article. They have had their troubles.

Notice the article says Fact Check, not factcheck. The article is from the Jacksonville, FL newspaper.


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

Thanks for the clarification, TK. I didn't notice the difference. Gues that's what I get for being in a hurry 

I'm a little surprised to see you think factcheck has "had their troubles". I believe it's entire existence is troublesome. One would have to have their head into the sand well below the water table not to notice their slanted "facts", but far too many consider their's the final answer.

Maybe I haven't read enough, but everything I do read about Annenberg and Brooks Jackson keeps adding to the reasons to be skeptical of them.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

TK, glad you belong to the NRA. :thumb:


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

It depends on what your looking at factcheck for. For anything apolitical (which isn't a lot) they are fine. If it gets into views, opinions, or interpretations yes they have a slight slant :rollin:

I re-joined the NRA not too long after obama took over. Call it buyers remorse for my vote.


----------



## duckmander (Aug 25, 2008)

hunter9494 said:


> he will get his a$$ impeached over this one.... :beer:


That should have been done the first time he had a press conferance without the american flags behind him.


----------



## duckmander (Aug 25, 2008)

ImpalaSSpeed96 said:


> Serious question here, as I do not know. So say Obama and his cohorts pass this legislation. What is to keep a republican, or anyone else for that matter, from coming in next term and overturning it back to the way it was?


once it has been removed. no one ever has the cahonas to put it back into place.

So if it is ever taken away it is dead and burried. never to return.


----------



## takethekids (Oct 13, 2008)

duckmander said:


> hunter9494 said:
> 
> 
> > he will get his a$$ impeached over this one.... :beer:
> ...


It won't though b/c we're all just going to sit around and complain about these things on internet forums. The man will run all over us until someone has the intestinal fortitude to rally the citizens and get something done. I'm not the type that could rally enough influential people to get something done. I'm on standby waiting for someone to tell me how high I need to jump to really make a difference. I have an overwhelming feeling of powerlessness (is that word?). We are at the mercy of these clowns until someone rounds up the people that care enough to truly do something about it. :sniper:

It seems to me there are some very scary things going on and we're all just spectators. Someone please say something to make me feel better about sitting behind my computer instead of being out there "sticking it to the man".

I don't think there are as many folks that would be willing to die for our country as I once thought. Sure, everyone says the soldiers are willing, but most of them that I know are just doing the soldier deal to pay for college or b/c they didn't know what they wanted to do when they got out of high school. I for one would load my gear, kiss my kids goodbye, and take to the streets to defend my flag IF I had a leader and a group of people on our side. The disrespect this man has shown to our flag should be enough. I truly believe that 3 generations ago, the MEN of this country would've cried for a revolution if we had a president that didn't support the flag or our second ammendment. We're just going to sit and cry though :eyeroll:


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

> We are at the mercy of these clowns until someone rounds up the people that care enough to truly do something about it.


Hopefully that will happen in November, so don't let anyone forget how pizzed they are now that the dems forced a healthcare bill down our throats that they KNEW most Americans hated and didn't want. It's my opinion they're counting on cover fire from the press and short memories by the voters to keep their jobs. It's our job to make sure neither happens.



> If it gets into views, opinions, or interpretations yes they have a slight slant


Glad you added the :rollin: , TK. I knew you were too smart to actually give factcheck any political credence :beer:


----------



## takethekids (Oct 13, 2008)

Good point Csquared. I guess keeping this fresh in the minds of voters is more sensible than trying to take our country back by force. Let's hope the small group of folks posting on here are part of a voting majority come election time. Thanks for your post.


----------

