U.N. Agreement Should Have All Gun Owners Up In Arms

[Guest]

The United Nations has proposed a global “Small Arms Treaty”, with the strong support of the Obama regime, that is premised to fight “terrorism”, “insurgency” and “international crime syndicates”. You can bet your bottom dollar that an even more insidious threat is being targeted, which is the Constitutional right for law-abiding citizens to own and bear arms.

It is being reported that Pres. Obama and Secretary Hillary Clinton will sign this treaty on July 27th, under the radar of the main stream media which are twiddling their thumbs.

The reported terms of this agreement which would have to be ratified by our Senate are:

"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 anti-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."

You probably have not heard (since our media doesn't report much negative Obama stories) that the Obama Administration is very supportive of this U.N. gambit to restrict private gun ownership on a global level.

"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."

Now, more than ever before, it’s imperative that we stick to our guns in demanding that all Constitutional rights be preserved. If we don't, we will surely lose both.

U.N. Agreement Should Have All Gun Owners Up In Arms - Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/06/07/u-n-agreement-should-have-all-gun-owners-up-in-arms/2/)

Dick Morris: Obama Set To Sign UN Gun Control Treaty, July 27 (Video) « Nice Deb (http://nicedeb.wordpress.com/2012/07/06/dick-morris-obama-set-to-sign-un-gun-control-treaty-july-27-video/)

Obama to Approve UN Gun Grab July 27 - By Stephani Scruggs with Unite In Action - Constitutional Emergency (http://patriotsforamerica.ning.com/forum/topics/obama-to-approve-un-gun-grab-july-27-by-stephani-scruggs-with-uni?commentId=2734278%3AComment%3A381220&xg_source=activity)

[Guest]

The United Nations has proposed a global “Small Arms Treaty”, with the strong support of the Obama regime, that is premised to fight “terrorism”, “insurgency” and “international crime syndicates”. You can bet your bottom dollar that an even more insidious threat is being targeted, which is the Constitutional right for law-abiding citizens to own and bear arms.

It is being reported that Pres. Obama and Secretary Hillary Clinton will sign this treaty on July 27th, under the radar of the main stream media which are twiddling their thumbs.

The reported terms of this agreement which would have to be ratified by our Senate are:

"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 anti-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."

You probably have not heard (since our media doesn't report much negative Obama stories) that the Obama Administration is very supportive of this U.N. gambit to restrict private gun ownership on a global level.

"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."

Now, more than ever before, it’s imperative that we stick to our guns in demanding that all Constitutional rights be preserved. If we don't, we will surely lose both.

U.N. Agreement Should Have All Gun Owners Up In Arms - Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/06/07/u-n-agreement-should-have-all-gun-owners-up-in-arms/2/)

Dick Morris: Obama Set To Sign UN Gun Control Treaty, July 27 (Video) « Nice Deb (http://nicedeb.wordpress.com/2012/07/06/dick-morris-obama-set-to-sign-un-gun-control-treaty-july-27-video/)

Obama to Approve UN Gun Grab July 27 - By Stephani Scruggs with Unite In Action - Constitutional Emergency (http://patriotsforamerica.ning.com/forum/topics/obama-to-approve-un-gun-grab-july-27-by-stephani-scruggs-with-uni?commentId=2734278%3AComment%3A381220&xg_source=activity)

The single biggest item on here, TO ME, is the loss of our national sovereignty which has a been a common theme thorough out this administration.

We are fast losing this country !

[Guest]

One it ain't gonna happen.

In the unlikely event it did does anybody think the gun owners of the world are gonna say here are mine?

Plus in the unlikely event it would pass we all know we can ignore the law with no penalty as exemplified by illegal immigration.

And do these so called worldly gun activists think for one second they will impact s that terrorists and the non law abiding folks have.

I believe the term is frivilous. Just another back door deal by the back door specialist Obama.

What he would lose for sure the gun owning democrats. I do believe they would be in line with the rest of us to not vote for Obama......it may be party first for some of you no matter what....but I would bet on the gun owning Dd to send the message for Obama to take a long overdue hike.

btk

[Guest]

One it ain't gonna happen.

In the unlikely event it did does anybody think the gun owners of the world are gonna say here are mine?

Plus in the unlikely event it would pass we all know we can ignore the law with no penalty as exemplified by illegal immigration.

And do these so called worldly gun activists think for one second they will impact s that terrorists and the non law abiding folks have.

I believe the term is frivilous. Just another back door deal by the back door specialist Obama.

What he would lose for sure the gun owning democrats. I do believe they would be in line with the rest of us to not vote for Obama......it may be party first for some of you no matter what....but I would bet on the gun owning Dd to send the message for Obama to take a long overdue hike.

btk

I was told by many learned people that the ObamaCare legislation would never pass as it is clearly unconstitutional. We know how that activist decision turned out. I'm having real doubts about any scheme of the Obama Regime really needing to pass constitutional muster.

[Guest]

I was told by many learned people that the ObamaCare legislation would never pass as it is clearly unconstitutional. We know how that activist decision turned out. I'm having real doubts about any scheme of the Obama Regime really needing to pass constitutional muster.

He sort of does what he wants doesnt he ? He didnt like the marriage act so he told Holder...dont enforce that law. He didnt like the Arizona law, so dont enforce that. He thought the law on immigration to be a political libality so lets not enforce that THIS YEAR...we did, but now we wont...it is reelection time.

Thought this was a government of laws and not men !

[Guest]

any treaty needs approval of 2/3 rds vote in the US senate. That's 67 votes needed for ratification. End of this non-story.

[Guest]

The single biggest item on here, TO ME, is the loss of our national sovereignty which has a been a common theme thorough out this administration.

We are fast losing this country !

Where has it gone? Gosh, I sure hope we can find it. :evil6:

[Guest]

any treaty needs approval of 2/3 rds vote in the US senate. That's 67 votes needed for ratification. End of this non-story.

It appears that this president seems to have the power to do whatever he wants regardless of the Houses.

I'm sure he has some scheme to appropriate the power to unilaterally do this if he wants. I'm not saying it will work, but he does seem to get what he wants regardless of the Houses, the Constitution or the basic rule of law.

[Guest]

HOW ABOUT THIS??

IRAN has been named as part of the "bureau" that will oversee the U.N. "Arms Treaty" that Hillary Clinton has vowed to sign, along with Obama.
Iran to Oversee U.N. Arms Treaty Conference; (http://cnsnews.com/news/article/iran-oversee-un-arms-treaty-conference-choosing-bernie-madoff-police-fraud)

[Guest]

Support for the UN Arms Treaty is a further indication of Obama's International agenda. Obama told you who he was long before he ran for office. Far too many people did not listen. A country like Iran would jump at the chance to latch on to a legal reason to stamp out their peoples revolution against them. Every murderous dictator must be jumping for glee to find this boondoggle drop into their laps. Team Obama not only sickens me Team Obama frightens the bejesus out of me. However what equally concerns me are the American people who continually are taken in by this enemy of these United States. I say "concerns me" because Obama continues to hit us over the head with the proverbial bat and these foks rejoice in joy. Just like the communist did in Easer Europe he applies the salaimi technique, taking freedoms away from us one slice at a time so some of us don't notice . I really can't take much more of this guybarf

[Guest]

The United Nations is a joke, but a dangerous joke. Just look at the countries that are on the Human Rights Commission. If you don't think that this can happen, might be time to get your head out of the sand and take a look around. But then who is going to enforce this treaty? Someone, including local, state and Federal agency will have to start going house to house to gather up all these evil guns. I know that I don't want to be on that team, could cut your chance to draw retirement really short.

[Guest]

The United Nations is a joke, but a dangerous joke. Just look at the countries that are on the Human Rights Commission. If you don't think that this can happen, might be time to get your head out of the sand and take a look around. But then who is going to enforce this treaty? Someone, including local, state and Federal agency will have to start going house to house to gather up all these evil guns. I know that I don't want to be on that team, could cut your chance to draw retirement really short.

figmo bochica: The fact is the UN is an enemy of the United States, worthless and as a taxpayer I am sick of supporting them. Now I wait to hear the liberals tell me that my infantile mentality is what creates problems
Is the US ever going to get back to "maning up"? I am not saying hot headedness. I long for the Truman's and Reagan's type leadership. all we have now is an apologist

[Guest]

My apologies to all clear thinking people.

[Guest]

some of us look forward to you actually addressing an issue without the terse, meaningful only to you one liners.

Might suggest a lack of knowledge, but an over riding need to respond....hence the sometimes smart a$$ inflection to many responses.

btk

[Guest]

some of us look forward to you actually addressing an issue without the terse, meaningful only to you one liners.

Might suggest a lack of knowledge, but an over riding need to respond....hence the sometimes smart a$$ inflection to many responses.

btk

It's best not to comment on those kinds of posts which say nothing.

It's can be perceived as a "personal comment" which will probably be reported to the Admin by the same "saying nothing" person you're talking to, or by an ally, who will profess hurt feelings.

Just glance over your shoulder and let it go the same way you would if someone was walking down the street talking to themselves.

Best overall policy I've found.

[Guest]

67 votes needed....end of story

[Guest]

67 votes needed....end of story

With this President, the constitutional protections don't always protect. Not "the end of the story" by a long shot.

[Guest]

With this President, the constitutional protections don't always protect. Not "the end of the story" by a long shot.

We might have to take a few long shots to get this treaty dropped. :shrug:

[Guest]

We might have to take a few long shots to get this treaty dropped. :shrug:

I hear you, and understand your concern.

[Guest]

Rich and fig you continue to rant and rave it seems just to rant and rave and that's your right but it takes 67 votes to ratify a treaty simple as that. What makes you think this congress that has passed nothing of significance in 2 years will all of a sudden muster enough votes to pass a treaty? I doubt you think that so it must be that you view this as another opportunity to be critical of the President.

[Guest]

I think that all the current crop politicans should be replaced. Not one of them has done anything for the country. They only think of themselves and are not concerned about anything else. If it would put money in their pockets there would be no problem with getting the 67 votes to rarify any treaty. Money talks, BS walks. As long as money is filling their pockets they will vote for anything and that goes for both parties. There is no, repreat no, difference between the Rs and and Ds. Neither have done right for WE THE POEPLE in anything that they have done.

So yes, I am critical of the President, the same goes for the senate and the house.

[Guest]

It's best not to comment on those kinds of posts which say nothing.

It's can be perceived as a "personal comment" which will probably be reported to the Admin by the same "saying nothing" person you're talking to, or by an ally, who will profess hurt feelings.

Just glance over your shoulder and let it go the same way you would if someone was walking down the street talking to themselves.

Best overall policy I've found.

Good advice but for the record, can a third party actually report another poster ??????

I ask because they do seem, at times, to post, etc in groups !

Why do people like that even come to political ? So many obviously do not have any idea of what they are talking about..what is the point and I DO NOT MEAN ABOUT POINTS MADE THAT I DISAGREE WITH...I am speaking of those who NEVER EVER discuss an issue in any way. One or two sentences to entertain themselves or send a tweet type sentence !

[Guest]

67 votes needed....end of story

Yea but remember the leadership of Iran, North Korea and the members of UN Foreign Council don't count

[Guest]

Rich and fig you continue to rant and rave it seems just to rant and rave and that's your right but it takes 67 votes to ratify a treaty simple as that. What makes you think this congress that has passed nothing of significance in 2 years will all of a sudden muster enough votes to pass a treaty? I doubt you think that so it must be that you view this as another opportunity to be critical of the President.

I just hear Barack Obama saying "Senate vote??; we doan need no Senate vote"

We just had an unconstitutional health care bill forced on us. What's different about this?........not much.

[Guest]

again the rant...whether you like it or not the healthcare law is the law of the land 5-4. It is constitutional. Your current posts seem to lead me to believe that you think Obama is a king with no checks and balances. Just not true. The repubs have done a great job checking most of the things he wants done.

[Guest]

again the rant...whether you like it or not the healthcare law is the law of the land 5-4. It is constitutional. Your current posts seem to lead me to believe that you think Obama is a king with no checks and balances. Just not true. The repubs have done a great job checking most of the things he wants done.

Senator Harry Reid has done more to check Obama than any of the Repubs. His own, very own, in his pocket, leader of the senate.

BTW, the SCOTUS is not the final word and final law of the land. That belongs to the Constitution.

[Guest]

once again there are immigration laws that are the law of the land....and we all know how effectively that is not enforced. So why would a supporter get excited about this one. Those of us with the guns prefer it not to happen and it most likely will not.

However it is no threat to gun ownership (those that have them) what so ever.

Law of the land has come to mean nothing under the current administration. In addition to illegal immigration just review all the laws broken by our illustrious members of congress. They continue to laugh all the way to the bank as do the illigal immigrants collecting benefits paid by all of us.

btk

[Guest]

Rant on , dudes. Rave on. :evil6:

[Guest]

again the rant...whether you like it or not the healthcare law is the law of the land 5-4. It is constitutional. Your current posts seem to lead me to believe that you think Obama is a king with no checks and balances. Just not true. The repubs have done a great job checking most of the things he wants done.

The bill is not now and never was constitutional. That's just a fact, and InJustice Roberts rewriting the intent of the bill to simulate constitutionality doesn't change that.

This treaty will be seen as something it's not as long as the effects are the same. Obama will do something unconstitutional and the SCOTUS will validate it and you'll agree with it because you are a total Obama sycophant, as well as a devoted disciple.

After ObamaCare, I believe he can get away with murder and you'll defend him.

[Guest]

The bill is not now and never was constitutional. That's just a fact, and InJustice Roberts rewriting the intent of the bill to simulate constitutionality doesn't change that.

This treaty will be seen as something it's not as long as the effects are the same. Obama will do something unconstitutional and the SCOTUS will validate it and you'll agree with it because you are a total Obama sycophant, as well as a devoted disciple.

After ObamaCare, I believe he can get away with murder and you'll defend him.

Richie, Richie, Richie. I didn't know you were a consitutional law expert. The SCOTUS determines what is constitutional and what is not. At this point the ACA is constitutional. That could potentially change, but until and unless it does......get over it. :laugh:

[Guest]

The bill is not now and never was constitutional. That's just a fact, and InJustice Roberts rewriting the intent of the bill to simulate constitutionality doesn't change that.

This treaty will be seen as something it's not as long as the effects are the same. Obama will do something unconstitutional and the SCOTUS will validate it and you'll agree with it because you are a total Obama sycophant, as well as a devoted disciple.

After ObamaCare, I believe he can get away with murder and you'll defend him.

Richie, my misinformed friend, once again you have called The Affordable Care Act a "bill" instead of "the law". Once the President signs a bill it becomes a law. Basic civics class, Richie. The law remains a law until either the Supreme Court says it is unconstitutional or it is repealed. Neither happened. It is a LAW.

You would be crowing about the great John Roberts IF he had decided the ACA was unconstitutional. That did not happen. Remember, Richie, he has a lot more judicial experience than you do.

[Guest]

The Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision ruled the individual mandate constitutional and that since the mandate was a tax it was constitutionally upheld to level such a tax. It means that if an individual refuses to buy insurance then by some manner, probably using the IRS, an individual will pay a penalty. Fair enough.

So let's assume that some powerful people in Washington agree with the premise that every American has an obligation to serve in the military and are doing so because the voluntary aspect has become an abject failure. So under the constitutionality of the individual mandate these politicians can now say everyone has an obligation to serve in the military for four years. If you refuse to sign up well then we will penalize you financially until you fulfill your obligation. This as opposed to a two year draft that as of this writing is very unpopular and only holds an individual for two years.

I am certain many of you can provide better examples but the point is that this decision is going to have a very negative effect on the US Constitution.

Justice Roberts took the cowards way out because as I had written in another thread even if the majority ruled the mandate a tax they had an obligation to return the issue to Congress because it could no longer be argued until after the implementation of said tax.

I am just blowin waway by the liberals over joy concerning ObamaCare when it is obviously bad policy

[Guest]

bad policy or good policy it does not matter...it is the LAW of the land. Until the surpreme court revisits it or congress repeals it it is the law. What you think of it is a different issue. I am against the court ruling that made corpoations people,I think it will have a far more negative impact on the USA than healthcare but for now it is the law of the land.

[Guest]

We might have to take a few long shots to get this treaty dropped. :shrug:

I would certainly not post like that on a public forum. It could be taken with different meanings depending who (?) might be be reading the public forums.

[Guest]

Richie, my misinformed friend, once again you have called The Affordable Care Act a "bill" instead of "the law". Once the President signs a bill it becomes a law. Basic civics class, Richie. The law remains a law until either the Supreme Court says it is unconstitutional or it is repealed. Neither happened. It is a LAW.

You would be crowing about the great John Roberts IF he had decided the ACA was unconstitutional. That did not happen. Remember, Richie, he has a lot more judicial experience than you do.

I'm stilling calling this unconstitutional piece of garbage a bill. Keep your semantics to yourself. The bill became law by an unscrupulous judge, but it's still a bill.

Of course if he called a spade a spade the bill would have been declared unconstitutional as it should have been. Why wouldn't I acknowledge the rightness of that. Unfortunately, InJustice Roberts betrayed his trust.

This is the biggest abuse of the Constitution since Roe v. Wade. Only this bill is going to go a long way to bankrupting the American people.

Socialists make me ill.

[Guest]

by the way Fig it is the surpreme court that determines if a law is or is not constitutional...thats in the constitution.

[Guest]

The Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision ruled the individual mandate constitutional and that since the mandate was a tax it was constitutionally upheld to level such a tax. It means that if an individual refuses to buy insurance then by some manner, probably using the IRS, an individual will pay a penalty. Fair enough.

So let's assume that some powerful people in Washington agree with the premise that every American has an obligation to serve in the military and are doing so because the voluntary aspect has become an abject failure. So under the constitutionality of the individual mandate these politicians can now say everyone has an obligation to serve in the military for four years. If you refuse to sign up well then we will penalize you financially until you fulfill your obligation. This as opposed to a two year draft that as of this writing is very unpopular and only holds an individual for two years.

I am certain many of you can provide better examples but the point is that this decision is going to have a very negative effect on the US Constitution.

Justice Roberts took the cowards way out because as I had written in another thread even if the majority ruled the mandate a tax they had an obligation to return the issue to Congress because it could no longer be argued until after the implementation of said tax.

I am just blowin waway by the liberals over joy concerning ObamaCare when it is obviously bad policy

I am not going to play your "let's assume" game. I take only what has happened and not "what if's". People can always find "what if's" to their own way of thinking but I stick with reality.

The ACA will benefit many millions of people. It is not bad policy but is very good policy.

The Chief Justice was appointed by George W. Bush and was introduced as a strict conservative and a constitutional expert. He wrote his opinion, upheld the ACA and it is LAW. I guess he knows more about the Constitution than you or I since he is Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court - and we are just happy golfers in The Villages.

[Guest]

by the way Fig it is the surpreme court that determines if a law is or is not constitutional...thats in the constitution.

The Supreme Court just demonstrated why it should not be revered. They're as corrupt as any other government "agency".

Justice Roberts should be impeached for this breaching of the public trust.

[Guest]

I'm stilling calling this unconstitutional piece of garbage a bill. Keep your semantics to yourself. The bill became law by an unscrupulous judge, but it's still a bill.

Of course if he called a spade a spade the bill would have been declared unconstitutional as it should have been. Why wouldn't I acknowledge the rightness of that. Unfortunately, InJustice Roberts betrayed his trust.

This is the biggest abuse of the Constitution since Roe v. Wade. Only this bill is going to go a long way to bankrupting the American people.

Socialists make me ill.

Hope you have a barf bag handy or are close to the bathroom. barf

[Guest]

by the way Fig it is the surpreme court that determines if a law is or is not constitutional...thats in the constitution.

Fig should know that....he is a big backer of the constitution.

[Guest]

The Supreme Court just demonstrated why it should not be revered. They're as corrupt as any other government "agency".

Justice Roberts should be impeached for this breaching of the public trust.

Chief Justice Roberts actually made the right call. He played the empire as he is supposed to do between the Republican and Democrat blocks fighting over the Affordable Health Care Act.

Still think he is playing chess so to speak by creating an argument to overrule Roe vs. Wade on the basis of that decision's overreaching. The Republicans have a much better argument against Roe v. Wade and its making law rather than ruling on the Constitutionality of law.

[Guest]

DaleMN, no the SCOTUS only imterupts the law as THEY think it applies to the Constitution. The 5-4 McDonald v DC is an example of 4 being wrong about one of the Bill of Rights, and then good ole lady Ginsburg tells a country don't look at the US Constitution as an example to use. She should have been impeached for saying that.

[Guest]

I am not going to play your "let's assume" game. I take only what has happened and not "what if's". People can always find "what if's" to their own way of thinking but I stick with reality.

The ACA will benefit many millions of people. It is not bad policy but is very good policy.

The Chief Justice was appointed by George W. Bush and was introduced as a strict conservative and a constitutional expert. He wrote his opinion, upheld the ACA and it is LAW. I guess he knows more about the Constitution than you or I since he is Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court - and we are just happy golfers in The Villages.

bugyone: You won't play "what if's" because the potential of "what if" scare the bejesus out of you.

As to the ACA helping millions I didn't realize there were that many people holding poltical office in Washington DC

As to Chief Justice Roberts he may have been appointed by G. W. and he may be conservative but he was a coward here, he created bad law and he sanctioned a bad policy that will damage this country badly. Again if he felt the individual mandate was a tax then he had to send the case back because nothing could have been decided until the tax was being implemented and that won't occur until 2014....and you can't use an adjective such as "happy" with me in connection with golf because the game is driving me crazy and i beginning to think the ball is doing it on purpose

[Guest]

Chief Justice Roberts actually made the right call. He played the empire as he is supposed to do between the Republican and Democrat blocks fighting over the Affordable Health Care Act.

Still think he is playing chess so to speak by creating an argument to overrule Roe vs. Wade on the basis of that decision's overreaching. The Republicans have a much better argument against Roe v. Wade and its making law rather than ruling on the Constitutionality of law.

He's not supposed to straddle the political parties, or be an umpire, he's supposed to rule on constitutionality. He failed as miserably in performing his duty, as you are in analyzing his decision in regard to his role in U.S. government.

[Guest]

The Supreme Court just demonstrated why it should not be revered. They're as corrupt as any other government "agency".

Justice Roberts should be impeached for this breaching of the public trust.

In my opinion he was paid off, and don't say that couldn't happen. Were talking about Chicago politicians after all.

[Guest]

I agree with you, Shimpy. I think he woke up one morning and there was a horse's head on the next pillow.

[Guest]

Delusions can be so soothing....:laugh:

[Guest]

Delusions can be so soothing....:laugh:

You're our living example of that :laugh:

[Guest]

You're our living example of that :laugh:

Aw shucks. I'm flattered. :laugh: