Obama = A gun free US (must read)

[m57jager]

Obama Finds Legal Way Around The 2nd. Amendment and Uses It.

If This Passes, There Will Be WAR!

Wed Oct 14, 2009 11:56pm EDT Reuters News Service

The Full Article Herehttp://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE59E0Q920091015

Subject: Obama Takes First Step in Banning All Firearms
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 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.

The Full Article

http://www.reuters.com/article/polit...59E0Q920091015

I've got to think this would cause a civil war. Atleast I hope we'd stand up against any and all that would attempt this. This country is turning anti freedom and it scares me.

[Bottom_Feeder]

"From My Cold Dead Hands" about says it for me.

[Common Sense]

Obama must do something, after all look what happened at Ft. Hood.



The great Democrat Franklin Roosevelt would be pursuing other means to protect Americans. I think if FDR was president today, after 9/11 & Ft. Hood, Muslims in this country would be rounded up. As wrong as that sounds, it may be the right thing to do. But of course President Obama is cautioning all of us not to rush to judgement on the motive of the shooter.

[DirtyDave]

Originally Posted by Common Sense

Obama must do something, after all look what happened at Ft. Hood.

Must do something? More gun control wont fix anything. Gun control ONLY controls law abiding citizens and takes away rights from good people/hunters/recreational shooters etc.
Criminals, and in Fort Hood's case, Disgruntled Military Muslims will still be able to obtain guns. Guns will always be available, maybe not legally, but criminals do not have registered guns and dont care if it is illegal to possess any certain kind of gun.

If guns were completely banned in the US, I bet a person could still get their hands on one and go and shoot a bunch of people in a public place if they really wanted to.

[airgun hunter]

A law means nothing to a determined criminal. Yes I do believe if this is true we will see CWII.

[QWAAKKILLR]

They pull this and cnn will have to petetion websters dictionary to make a new definition for right wing extremists

[Common Sense]

Originally Posted by DirtyDave

Must do something? More gun control wont fix anything. Gun control ONLY controls law abiding citizens and takes away rights from good people/hunters/recreational shooters etc.
Criminals, and in Fort Hood's case, Disgruntled Military Muslims will still be able to obtain guns. Guns will always be available, maybe not legally, but criminals do not have registered guns and dont care if it is illegal to possess any certain kind of gun.

If guns were completely banned in the US, I bet a person could still get their hands on one and go and shoot a bunch of people in a public place if they really wanted to.

Hey DirtyDave, you and me may not be the sharpest pencils in the box; but we both know everything you said is true. Trouble is, Mr. Obama ain't as smart as we are, he hasn't figured out what you just said is true. And since he is the messiah bringing us happiness and change; he must do something. I fear he will punish law abiding citizens instead of attacking the real problem.

[Fugaloo]

It's the people. Gun control is a wedge issue. WE all know it is reactionary, and doesn't really take guns out of the hands of criminals. But too many people who do not live with firearms, think it is perfectly reasonable that we should too. Because reactionary laws always try to work as a blanket, but end up hurting the majority, while still allowing the original target his means. They almost always come in the form of "protection", but most often it is just so that when it comes time for reelection, your candidate can say he "took a tough stance on crime" and "took guns out of the hands of criminals". Look at the Brady bill, what a waste of time and money. Think of all the commerce that was stopped on account of that piece of junk.
I live in the Bay Area, and a while back a parolee killed several Oakland cops. While people from the neighborhood held a vigil for this convicted child rapist, the feel gooders were busy writing letters to their officials and the local newspapers calling for stricter gun control. COMPLETELY IGNORING the fact that this was a totally illegal gun probably smuggled in through our southern border from lawless Mexico.
This is why it's the people's fault. (Not you or me of course) But because it is EASY to feel good about fixing this problem with a law. There are already several Federal and State laws that should have prevented this in the first place. People are lazy, and don't want to look at the real reasons there is so much violence in this country. It will take more than just taking away OUR guns to stop the criminals from shooting people.
Here's the other reason reactionary laws are so useless. They always come after freak events. "Oh how will we prevent a tragedy like this from happening again". How many people die from psycho meltdowns per decade? 1000, 10,000. How many people are killed by drunk driving in a decade? Every thirty seconds somebody is killed in an alcohol related incident. Where is the outrage. We need to ban cars because SOME people will use them in an unsafe matter. WE need to ban Alcohol because SOME people will drive drunk. Oh wait, we tried that already. There is no mechanical restriction that will stop a determined killer from killing. Gun, Knife, Axe, Pipe, Rope, Soap, Gas, Water. Pillow....Taking away the vehicle of death does not address the desire to kill.

Addressing a why a community embraces a child raping cop killer is a much better idea than going back to stricter gun control. What does that say when the people identify more with the animal, than the brave soul who volunteers to protect them. It says they are as dangerous as the animal himself. Now if you want to fix the violence problem that's where you start. I don't know the answer, but if you think taking my guns is going to prevent any more crime, well...you probably would be reading a different web site right now.

The End

[Common Sense]

Originally Posted by Fugaloo

I don't know the answer, but if you think taking my guns is going to prevent any more crime, well...you probably would be reading a different web site right now.

[Tominator]

Originally Posted by Common Sense

Obama must do something, after all look what happened at Ft. Hood.



The great Democrat Franklin Roosevelt would be pursuing other means to protect Americans. I think if FDR was president today, after 9/11 & Ft. Hood, Muslims in this country would be rounded up. As wrong as that sounds, it may be the right thing to do. But of course President Obama is cautioning all of us not to rush to judgement on the motive of the shooter.

You need to go look at my "well would you lookie here" thread...the shooter was on Obama's transition team....

[Sodhunter]

Originally Posted by Tominator

You need to go look at my "well would you lookie here" thread...the shooter was on Obama's transition team....

Yea, Obama has really shown his ability to pick quality players on his team. He is either the stupidest President yet, or he actually agrees with all these radicals he is appointing control to. You do the math.

[jindydiver]

Smells like horse droppings to me

Since when can an international agreement be considered "law" without first being codified and ratified by the legislative process? The agreement has to be written into law and approved by congress before it is law. It is the same in every country. The citizens of individual democratic countries are not bound by "laws" written and signed by their leader, the citizens are only bound by the laws their own law makers pass.

And since when can Congress pass laws that are unconstitutional? Very first time someone gets to the Supreme court with a challenge they get knocked down anyway.

[easymoney]

This is just another attempt by barry at dismantling the freedoms this nation was founded on and to lower the USA in all other nations eyes. Look at his public behavior and international speeches since taking office.
And I agree, it will trigger a civilian revolt.
In respect to the muslim shooter at Fort Hood, like most all heinous perps the warning signs were all there and ignored.

[blacky]

As I understand it, if Obama signs that treaty, Congress needs to approve it and that is reason enough to replace those in Congress in 2010 with people who believe in the Constitution of the U.S.

[BelchFire]

Originally Posted by jindydiver

Smells like horse droppings to me

Since when can an international agreement be considered "law" without first being codified and ratified by the legislative process? The agreement has to be written into law and approved by congress before it is law. It is the same in every country. The citizens of individual democratic countries are not bound by "laws" written and signed by their leader, the citizens are only bound by the laws their own law makers pass.

And since when can Congress pass laws that are unconstitutional? Very first time someone gets to the Supreme court with a challenge they get knocked down anyway.

Jindy,

International Treaties supercede the Constitution. There is a provision for the President to act alone in ratifying a treaty as I understand it. See the following link at Wikipedia for:

United States law

Main articles: Treaty Clause and Foreign policy of the United States
In the United States, the term "treaty" has a different, more restricted legal sense than exists in international law. U.S. law distinguishes what it calls treaties from treaty executive agreements, congressional-executive agreements, and sole executive agreements. All four classes are equally treaties under international law; they are distinct only from the perspective of internal American law. The distinctions are primarily concerning their method of ratification. Whereas treaties require advice and consent by two-thirds of the Senate, sole executive agreements may be executed by the President acting alone. Some treaties grant the President the authority to fill in the gaps with executive agreements, rather than additional treaties or protocols. And finally, congressional-executive agreements require majority approval by both the House and the Senate, either before or after the treaty is signed by the President.
Currently, international agreements are executed by executive agreement rather than treaties at a rate of 10:1. Despite the relative ease of executive agreements, the President still often chooses to pursue the formal treaty process over an executive agreement in order to gain congressional support on matters that require the Congress to pass implementing legislation or appropriate funds, and those agreements that impose long-term, complex legal obligations on the U.S.

Treaty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Stonepointer]

Originally Posted by Common Sense

Obama must do something, after all look what happened at Ft. Hood.

That is a military base. There are supposed to be guns and other munitions there.

The guns and the ammo that are present there are only to be used when checked out like library books or for use by police in law enforcement. They have strict guidelines for the use of firearms and other munitions on base.

If profiling is not done there will be more loss of life in further events like these.

Just start profiling, detain them when they are engaged in activity that shows a warning of danger.

[jindydiver]

That is scary Belch. Your law system has gone seriously awry if it allows the President to make agreements binding on the people, not just binding on the administration.

[castor]

Originally Posted by m57jager

Once the US Government signs these international treaties, all US citizens will be subject to those gun laws created by foreign governments. [/indent]

The above is not correct. A foreign treaty by a government does not impose obligations on its citizens unless it is also enacted as national law in a separate statute. It might be a correct statement of what certain leaders would like to accomplish, but a treaty will not by itself authorize a national gun grab. Even if it could, the 2nd would over ride it.

[astoddard]

Treaties signed by the U.S.A. must be passed by the U.S. Senate to become law. Just let this and many other things that are either being rammed down our throats (medical care) or issues and laws being circumvented (Czars) motivate you at the ballot box and to join the various organizations that have people and programs in place to elevate your voice to the elected class.

[RIFLEMAN]

There are two general perspectives from which to approach this argument. The first is from that of a Strict Constructionist, one who narrowly views the US Constitution according to their understanding of what the Founders wanted to establish. A Strict Constructionist believes in interpreting the document using the context and definition of the words at the time they were written and fervently pursues an accurate understanding of Original Intent...that being, the design of the United States as set forth by the words of the Declaration of Independence and US Constitution. The second perspective is from one who considers the US Constitution to be a Living or Organic document. In other words, these individuals take a pragmatic rather than principled approach to understanding the Constitution and believe that the meaning of the words should change with time according to the circumstances unique to a specific era.

I am an unapologetic Strict Constructionist, and believe, quite frankly, that we Constructionists are the ones who keenly understand the Constitution as it was meant to be. I believe our position is easily defensible when one considers the opinion of no less than Thomas Jefferson...

1. "On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." --Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823
2. "Strained constructions... loosen all the bands of the Constitution." --Thomas Jefferson to George Ticknor, 1817
3. "The true key for the construction of everything doubtful in a law in the intention of the law-makers. This is most safely gathered from the words, but may be sought also in extraneous circumstances provided they do not contradict the express words of the law." --Thomas Jefferson to Albert Gallatin, 1808
4. "In every event, I would rather construe so narrowly as to oblige the nation to amend, and thus declare what powers they would agree to yield, than too broadly, and indeed, so broadly as to enable the executive and the Senate to do things which the Constitution forbids."--Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1793
5. "When an instrument admits two constructions, the one safe, the other dangerous, the one precise, the other indefinite, I prefer that which is safe and precise. I had rather ask an enlargement of power from the nation, where it is found necessary, than to assume it by a construction which would make our powers boundless." --Thomas Jefferson to Wilson Nicholas, 1803

With my perspective clearly established, let me now offer my thoughts on the argument of the authority of treaties relative to the US Constitution. To be perfectly clear, let me say that the arguments I make, and the speculation I offer, assume that a Strict Constructionist position would be taken by those (President, Congress, Supreme Court) with decision-making power. This is obviously not a reflection of what I actually think our esteemed leaders would do...


Let's first address the general nature of the argument asserting that any treaty could supercede the Constitution. As to the purpose of the Constitution, let us clearly establish a uniform understanding of its authority or otherwise refresh our collective memories. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land (as stipulated in Article VI, paragraph 2), and was specifically ordained to establish our Union when the Articles of Confederation failed to do so about ten years prior. The Constitution serves to enumerate the powers of the federal government, and includes some inalienable rights within the Bill of Rights...this latter deviation from the true purpose of the Constitution (the stipulated design, purpose, and limitation of federal power) was a concession made at the request of the Anti-Federalists in order to convince them to ratify it. The Constitution requires in Article II, Section 1, paragraph 7, that the President be required to swear to, "...preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." In Article VI, paragraph 3, it requires that all Federal and State officers also swear, "...to support this Constitution..."

The Constitution stipulates that, "the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof" and, "...all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." Note the use of the word, "under, " as it clearly sets forth the hierarchy of a treaty as inferior, rather than equal or superior, to that of the Constitution.

The Constitution, being established by the States as the creators of our nation, does not empower the federal government to enter into a treaty that would grant powers to the federal government that the Constitution does not already provide for, obligate the country or any specific State to do something that is contrary to the Constitution, nor transfer responsibilities or authority given to the federal government to any entity other than a State's government. In other words, a treaty may not assume authority for anything Congress is permitted to do, nor exercise powers that Congress is not granted by the Constitution. Executive, legislative, or judicial authority established by our Constitution is intended to trump any authority proposed by treaty. Were a treaty to offer stipulations that would violate any provision of the Constitution, the President and Congress are obligated to dismiss it from consideration.

The Founders were legitimately concerned by the implications and potential dangers of entering into treaties, so much so that to further limit and restrict their making, Article II, Section 2, Paragraph 2 orders that the President: "...shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur..." This stipulation sets forth two expectations. First, it prohibits the President from making a unilateral agreement with other nations, thereby reinforcing the Founders' intent to enforce checks and balances. Secondly, the Senate alone is tasked with ratification rather than the House of Representatives or a joint duty because, prior to the 17th Amendment, Senators were appointed by the legislatures of each State and were therefore thought to be defenders and enforcers of their specific State's interests. As such, it was the Senate (representing the State rather than its people as the House does) who would be most keenly aware of the threats a treaty might potentially hold.

Furthermore, the Founders so seriously took the harm a treaty might have on the United States that they required ratification by a two-thirds majority of the Senate. In order that a treaty not "invade" the nation from within, Article I, Section 10, paragraph 1 stipulates that, "No State shall enter into any Treaty..."

Only when a treaty, presented by a President fulfilling his oath to the Constitution to a Senate fulfilling their oath to the Constitution, that does not violate any aspect of the Constitution or Bill of Rights, (or I would argue, Man's inalienable rights) should there be any possibility for its ratification by a two-thirds vote. Should that happen, then and only then would the federal government and the people of our country be obliged to observe its stipulations. Treaties that are ratified that would subjugate the powers of the federal government, the sovereignty of the United States, or the rights of its people would be invalidated, and a President and Senate who approved of it would be impeached for perjuring their oath to the Constitution.

Finally, as to the general contest between the Constitution and a treaty, I cite Thomas Jefferson who said, "If the treaty power is unlimited, then we don't have a Constitution. Surely the President and the Senate cannot do by treaty what the whole government is interdicted from doing in any way." Alexander Hamilton agreed with, "a treaty cannot be made which alters the Constitution of the country or which infringes any express exceptions to the power of the Constitution of the United States."


Now, let us address the implications of this specific treaty...that private ownership of firearms could be regulated or restricted via treaty with the United Nations. First, because the Founders defined treaties as contracts among "the powers of the earth" of "separate and equal station" as stipulated in the Declaration of Independence, treaties are not valid with any entity other than sovereign nations. As such, given the fact that the United Nations is not a sovereign nation (and technically, US membership in the UN is unconstitutional), a UN treaty that would attempt to control small arms ownership would be null and void. Granted, the Declaration of Independence is not binding, but it does serve to illustrate the intent and design of the Founders for topics further addressed within the words of the Constitution.

Secondly, the Bill of Rights was an affirmation of Natural Law, that being a recognition of some of the Natural Rights of Man...those that are granted by God and earned by virtue of birth into the world. There is NOTHING, neither State, federal, or foreign government, nor treaty or constitution, that can usurp, infringe, or impair the unencumbered exercise of these rights. The right to own and use firearms in defense of self, family, possessions, liberty, and country, is one that cannot be restricted by any source. The Founders believed that God gave Mankind this right, thus only God can take it away.


Those who believe that treaties do and/or should supersede the Constitution do so simply because they want treaties to, for this is the only way to overcome the restrictions the Constitution places on the federal government and the restrictions the Bill of Rights (and other natural rights not enumerated) place on the Constitution. Were the President to present this treaty to Congress, were the Senate to ratify it, and were the Supreme Court Justices permit it to stand, it would be the duty and obligation of the People of the United States to exercise our right to remove these individuals by vote or force of arms in order to restore our country to its design. Count me among those answering roll call. Lest I be thought a crackpot or traitor to my country, let me again re-assert my Constructionist perspective by offering some opinions of our nation's Founders and contemporary leadership concerning the intent of the Second Amendment:

1. "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government." -Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #28
2. "Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense." -President John Adams, 1788
3. "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -President Thomas Jefferson
4. "God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion...And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms...The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -President Thomas Jefferson, 1787
5. "The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms has justly been considered the palladium of the liberties of the republic, since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers, and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them." -Supreme Courty Justice Joseph Story, 1833
6. "The militia is the natural defence of a free country against...domestic usurpations of power by rulers." -Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, 1833.
7. "Although it is extremely unlikely that the fear of governmental tyranny, which gave rise to the Second Amendment, will ever be an important danger to our Nation, the Amendment remains an important declaration...in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country. For this reason, I believe the Second Amendment will always be important." Senator John F. Kennedy, 1960

[BelchFire]

Outstanding, RIFLEMAN. I was really hoping you'd weigh in on this one. However, I have one question regarding your post. Perhaps I just need to be enlightened, but I don't understand why this is not self conflicting:

The Constitution stipulates that, "the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof" and, "...all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." Note the use of the word, "under, " as it clearly sets forth the hierarchy of a treaty as inferior, rather than equal or superior, to that of the Constitution.

Am I not right to read this as :All laws and treaties (under authority of the united States) shall be the supreme law and judges shall be bound to them, allowing no exception for any Constitutional or State law. ? Or am I not reading the notwithstanding clause correctly?

[tbrincefield]

Originally Posted by blacky

As I understand it, if Obama signs that treaty, Congress needs to approve it and that is reason enough to replace those in Congress in 2010 with people who believe in the Constitution of the U.S.

This. That should be our next step as a country.

[castor]

The whole premise of this thread is partisan BS, IMO.

[easymoney]

The whole premise of this thread is partisan BS, IMO.

No it is about siezing control and reversing the former admins rulings...

And of course you are entitled to your opinion...

[castor]

Originally Posted by easymoney

No it is about siezing control and reversing the former admins rulings...

And of course you are entitled to your opinion...

I thought control was granted by the voters?

Isn't changing policies what a partisan government does in a free country?

And you, EM.

[easymoney]

The current swing of change by barry and his admin is just the most recent one. It isn't that there is some minor adjustments being made, it is his self proclaimed agenda to change every thing at once without any regard for outcome. And by his decisions in regards to the economy, they are now proving to be not good ones. At least not for taxpayers.
Yes he was elected, but there is a saying, fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me...
And IMHO, the curtain is being pulled back and barry is being seen as the charlatan that he really is.

[castor]

Originally Posted by easymoney

The current swing of change by barry and his admin is just the most recent one. It isn't that there is some minor adjustments being made, it is his self proclaimed agenda to change every thing at once without any regard for outcome. And by his decisions in regards to the economy, they are now proving to be not good ones. At least not for taxpayers.
Yes he was elected, but there is a saying, fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me...
And IMHO, the curtain is being pulled back and barry is being seen as the charlatan that he really is.

Not everybody thinks he's a charlatan.

[easymoney]

Not everybody thinks he's a charlatan.

And that too is your opinion and you are free to feel that way...

[D3Lifer]

Originally Posted by castor

Not everybody thinks he's a charlatan.

I do

[castor]

Originally Posted by easymoney

And that too is your opinion and you are free to feel that way...

Whether Obama IS a charlatan is a matter of opinion. It is not a mere opinion that not everyone thinks he is a charlatan. It is firm and undeniable fact. It is a matter of firm and undeniable fact that over half of voting Americans preferred Obama over both the previous POTUS and the alternate conservative offering last November.

Just thought I should point that out.