Obama Administration to sign U.N. Arms Trade Treaty that will BAN GUNS IN THE U.S

Originally posted by METACOMET
I think many of you who shrug this off and say it could never happen, could never be enforced, etc..

Don't underestimate how smart these criminals are. They aren't going to knock on your door and demand your guns. Their strategy is not full on confrontation. They are much more insidious than that.

Yes, we begin by taxing all the guns. This serves many purposes~kills several birds with one stone. This is rahm auerbach's pet, as pretend mayor of Chicago. I cannot bear to contemplate the certain, inexorable quelling of anything with a muzzle this insidious game changer on guns of a strategy in a tax presents.

Rahm has many options, should he get his legislative rocks cast as far as he proposed during one of his daily press ops. As prop mayor, it stands to reason that his aim is federal. It could play out as a door to door, nationwide, search for unregistered/untaxed firearms (resistance) led by all those happy campers who registered, and paid taxes, for the right to not be wrong.

The one option rahm does not have is to deny that he tried it, or is still trying to tax guns, via yearly collections on each firearm. He is, after all, familiar with eric holder, and all the virulant anti 2nd amendment shenanigans in barry's circle. Rahm's plan is pure genius. It slowly strangles the finances from any firearm collector, who will be given the choice to pay the taxes, or lose the whole collection should he flout the nefariously devised plan. The thing we ought be thankful for is that rahm was once proud of his idea, or he wouldn't have had to put his name to it, spoken it, given out voice. I don't believe he envisioned it backfiring, since the end game is ultimately, as holder suggests, that serfs have no weaponry against tyrants. Rahm's yearly tax on guns is an idea that tptw really would like to materialize. By being rahm, he may have dashed that hope for centuries to come.

Rahm. Watch that Man.

reply to post by xstealth


Yea, well you're governed by a bunch of absurd US laws already. If the name changes, what matter does it make what label is given as the administer of the law?

If you get punched in the face, does it matter by who? It's almost worse to have laws like the "Bush Spy Act" and NDAA in place because those were put in place by "our own guy." At least if the UN tries this, you could say "they have no business doing it." The Pres. here is even more a bad guy for passing menacing laws.

The thing about this is, if most people refuse to fight against it, as they have shown over, and over, and over...then it will get passed. My devil, they don't even care when 3,000 people in the twin towers died. They listened to Bush, and he took care of the story along with his cohorts. If they can let THAT happen, even when we TRY to convince them to look at the facts. How can we trust that they won't do the same for this? Do not underestimate the apathy of the American people! Who has time to stop the government? My show is on tonight, and I have to cook dinner...

LOL yeah funny guys are funny. Obama, my shoe to your face someday I swear it! I don't give a # if you're a puppet, dumb ass practically handing over America cause the "yes we can" crew fell for the bull #.

reply to post by GoldenRuled


Great find. Very disturbing, even more disturbing is a question of a valid MOTIVE for this proposal other than disarming the population. I have this sneaking suspicion they will find this one hard to implement. The American people have been sleeping but if this doesnt wake them up I dont know what will.

Define gun. Are we talking pistol here, or military grade hardware. What is the situation of accessibility of military grade hardware throughout that country, because a pistol will only be good to defend against home invasion.

reply to post by sheepslayer247


It's been said before,by Charlton Heston I believe,and I will say it here."FROM MY COLD,DEAD FINGERS".TPTB may not want a war directed at them,but try and take our arms and a WAR they will have.It would not be a pretty sight,and I hope it doesn't come to that...time will tell.

reply to post by frazzle


Not quite so IMO.

You have no standing in court (to challenge the Constitutionally) until you have actually been harmed by the EO. But by then it may be too late due to martial law.

Martial law was only to be implemented if the courts were not operational.

A nightmare, bloody nightmare, if the EO's are ever put in to actual effect.

Most treaty ratifications contain a clause such as 'to the extent any clause/term is not found to be in violation of the Constitution'. Thus any term in violation is not considered to have been ratified.

They can do it easy...

Just use 2 CIA/NSA psycho ops agents, one Negro, one Arab.

Send them to a couple of expensive whitey schools, let them loose killing 50 students each, then have a big gun fight with the "Law" on the freeway, shootin any passerby...etc etc.

Then see how long your good ol 2nd amen..ment lasts.

Just the catalyst needed to control the sheeple...and the ones who wont play ball, send in the Apaches and Drones, while the pilots are a singing..."Bye, Bye Mr. and Miss American freedom...I mean piiiie"

Yes we cant even have BBs skirmishes in Oz.

Of course the scriptures say you can bare arms.....Yeah!! like a wooden spear or a copper sword, not a 9mm glock or AK47!!!!

And a hunting we will go??? What?
What are ya gonna hunt..Squirrels?? Most domestic animals you can almost walk up to and kill.
And how long do you think 300 Million starving Americans will last, all shooting the same limited game. Maybe Skunk pie sounds good tonight momma.

The Feds havent been building underground tunnels and mysterious deserted "Camps" for nothing.

I always wanted to walk into a gun store in the US and say..."I'll have a 9mm Uzi, a Magnum 45, and a plazma rifle"....cool....

I love u guys......

reply to post by oghamxx


Yes the courts challenged Obamas birth certificate when suit after suit was brought . The Judges said yes there is merit to this suit and I will look at it . But then they dropped it all the sudden . Yes we can count on our Congress and Judicial to sell out . They are Lawyers and Politicians and we know they are the most unscrupulous people in the world by definition . .

Originally posted by sheepslayer247
They can sign the treaty and pass whatever legislation they want......I see absolutely no way they could get the guns out of the hands of Americans.

Does anyone realize what would happen if they decided to start taking the guns away from people? You would finally see the revolution so many people have talked about.

TPTB know this and you know it.

I wouldn't worry about it.

Well Obama has been pretty much executive privilege happy lately.
You know that possibility has already crossed his mind regarding gun control and I'm sure he is already scheming up a plan to make it happen.

You are right about the revolution bit, which is why I never understood how the anti gun folks would handle such a revolution.
You can't necessarily fight a revolution with pea shooters.

reply to post by GoldenRuled


Lol.. good luck enforcing that one!

reply to post by SimonPeter


And WHY did the courts 'drop' it? The must state a reason. Lack of standing?

A2S1 No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

shall be ELIGIBLE TO the Office of President; What have the courts said about this vague 'Eligible to'. Run for? Hold? Meet the requirements of?

IMO any challenge made AFTER Roberts administered the oath had no standing due to the legal maxim
Currit tempus contra desides et sui juris contemptores. Time runs against the slothful and those who neglect their rights.

But for the Citizens United case, I am beginning to suspect that Roberts is a closet liberal!

With all of the Canadians that post such liberal viewpoints on this board, I was surprised to see that the Canadian government is against this treaty...lol...

www.vancouversun.com...

Jaden

Guess what? I'm not a citizen of the "U.N.", and I'm not bound by their bull*hit. They're going to have to shoot me before I'll give them my legally possessed firearms.

Originally posted by Masterjaden
With all of the Canadians that post such liberal viewpoints on this board, I was surprised to see that the Canadian government is against this treaty...lol...

www.vancouversun.com...

Jaden

Canadian's couldn't defend themselves against an attack by paintball guns. They look to their government to do everything for them and they don't have a clue what national sovereignty is because they don't have any. Furthermore, they wouldn't be so bold if they didn't have the U.S. here to cover their ass for them against other enemies because their military consists of "Mounted Police" and a fishing boat.

Originally posted by links234

Originally posted by oghamxx
The Constitution trumps any treaty!

The Constitution would disagree with you, specifically, the supremacy clause.

As for the OP...it's all false or totally misinterpreted. Good try though.

What constitution are you READING????? No treaty can EVER trump the constitution...

wow.... It's amazing that people like you are allowed to vote in this country...

Jaden

reply to post by axslinger


Your legal representative the president from LBJ on through all of the republican and democrats and Bush and Obama have signed for you . And they can't stand you to be independent .

Originally posted by bnz70
Keep on killing yourself America. Why the obsession with guns?

Because in a FREE society, guns are necessary to ensure that the usurpation of that freedom does not go unchallenged...

Jaden

Originally posted by CB328

All Progressives throughout American history have found ways to circumvent the Constitution and natural rights

What a load of crap- and especially after the last regressive administration that spent the whole 8 years crapping on the constitution.

He didn't say all democrats moron...He said all progressives, that would include Bush Jr....

Jaden

Originally posted by sheepslayer247
They can sign the treaty and pass whatever legislation they want......I see absolutely no way they could get the guns out of the hands of Americans.

Does anyone realize what would happen if they decided to start taking the guns away from people? You would finally see the revolution so many people have talked about.

TPTB know this and you know it.

I wouldn't worry about it.

I'm going to have to tell you this is a completely naive analysis of the effects of the Treaty. Someone pointed out to me that TPTB know that American soldiers won't want to harm their own fellow citizens so they are starting to bring in foreign soldiers. They have been sending our soldiers out to other lands, and foreign troops are being stationed here. I have heard there are even UN Troops here too. It would be mayhem if this really comes down. Think "Children of Men" scenarios in the big cities with others trying to eke out an existence in the countryside but still subject to raids.