It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Revolution 2012 Get ready it's going to happen (arms treaty)

page: 1
60
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+24 more 
posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 01:16 PM
link   
Treason and the the UN arms treaty.

Live UN Video link Originally posted by Daedal Kudos for the link.

www.forbes.com...

What, exactly, does the intended agreement entail?


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

Enact tougher licensing requirements, creating additional bureaucratic red tape for legal firearms ownership.
Confiscate and destroy all “unauthorized” civilian firearms (exempting those owned by our government of course).
Ban the trade, sale and private ownership of all semi-automatic weapons (any that have magazines even though they still operate in the same one trigger pull – one single “bang” manner as revolvers, a simple fact the ant-gun media never seem to grasp).
Create an international gun registry, clearly setting the stage for full-scale gun confiscation.
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.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------


Note the source.


I have a friend named Jon that lives up in PA. I have know him for about 5 years. He is a Volunteer Firefighter up there and Host a local radio show. He is a machinist by trade and a great Patriot.

last night he called me and asked to get the guys together for a skype call. Felix Wilson was in this same group where over the last 5 years we researched as a team and verified information for Alarm and Muster. Jon has never called me and asked to get everyone on skype. Once we had mustered for the call he informed us that he with a heavy heart has put out the call "To Arms" for all the Patriots. He said this is in the response to the arms trade treaty.

My thoughts on this.

Our elected and un-elected officials as well as the military, swore an oath to defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. We know where we individually stand on this issue. After my years of research into the US Constitution and its amendments i have come to the conclusion that for the POTUS to sign this treaty is treason.

-----------------------


Article III

Section 3 defines treason and its punishment.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

The Constitution defines treason as specific acts, namely "levying War against [the United States], or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." A contrast is therefore maintained with the English law, whereby a variety of crimes, including conspiring to kill the King or "violating" the Queen, were punishable as treason. In Ex Parte Bollman, 8 U.S. 75 (1807), the Supreme Court ruled that "there must be an actual assembling of men, for the treasonable purpose, to constitute a levying of war."

Under English law effective during the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, there were essentially five species of treason. Of the five, the Constitution adopted only two: levying war and adhering to enemies. Omitted were species of treason involving encompassing (or imagining) the death of the king, certain types of counterfeiting, and finally fornication with women in the royal family of the sort which could call into question the parentage of successors. James Wilson wrote the original draft of this section, and he was involved as a defense attorney for some accused of treason against the Patriot cause.

Section 3 also requires the testimony of two different witnesses on the same overt act, or a confession by the accused in open court, to convict for treason. This rule was derived from an older English statute, the Treason Act 1695. In Cramer v. United States, 325 U.S. 1 (1945), the Supreme Court ruled that "[e]very act, movement, deed, and word of the defendant charged to constitute treason must be supported by the testimony of two witnesses."[13] In Haupt v. United States, 330 U.S. 631 (1947), however, the Supreme Court found that two witnesses are not required to prove intent; nor are two witnesses required to prove that an overt act is treasonable. The two witnesses, according to the decision, are required to prove only that the overt act occurred (eyewitnesses and federal agents investigating the crime, for example).

Punishment for treason may not "work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person" so convicted. The descendants of someone convicted for treason could not, as they were under English law, be considered "tainted" by the treason of their ancestor. Furthermore, Congress may confiscate the property of traitors, but that property must be inheritable at the death of the person convicted.


-----------------------------


It is my personal opinion that entering into any treaty that violates our constitution, especially one involving the right to keep and bear arms, gives aid to our enemies. This treaty has the potential to severely restrict our means as a free people to repel invasion and fight tyranny.

Albert Einstein defined insanity as: doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different outcome. This is why no matter how many letters we write, how many protest we hold, it seldom accomplishes anything. This Government would have us trade our liberty for the illusion of security. We must ready ourselves and those willing to answer the call to fight evil once again. I know some that read this may not agree, but I would rather die on my feet before I live on my knees.

The passion of freedom and liberty is a fire that rages inside me. It cannot and will not be extinguished.

I do not proclaim this with out knowing the consequences.





Freedom is not free its paid for with the blood of patriots and tyrants.




I close with this Powerful Must Watch Video.

In Liberty,

SWCCFAN
edit on 8-7-2012 by SWCCFAN because: fix link

edit on 8-7-2012 by SWCCFAN because: Add Live UN video Link




posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by SWCCFAN
 

S&F

I did a thread on this treaty a few days ago. It appears this is a furtherance of the UN Agenda 21 garbage; scary stuff indeed.

If the POTUS signs this I don’t think we’d be under any obligation to abide by it because congress didn’t approve. The POTUS cannot create law or bind us to international law without congressional approval.


+1 more 
posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by SWCCFAN
 
They can pass all the laws they want. Look at Obamacare/ACA. Just because they pass these stupid laws and even some get passed by SCOTUS, it doesn't make it constitutional.

Plus, I would find it amusing to see them actually TRY to take them.



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


From everything I have seen such as the SPP agreement signed back in 2005 under Bush (43) can go into effect with out congress or the senate more specifically needing to ratify it. So it is likely that the provision of the treaty will indeed go into effect once it is signed. The Senate would need to ratify it to make it permanent. Look at all the nations that have agreed to it already. Their people have already been disarmed.



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by SWCCFAN
 
well, due to a burglary that occurred upon finishing the read of your post i'm afraid there isn't any firearms on the premises for the fed to confiscate.
if this is true it would be the final nail in the coffin for our dear old uncle sam.



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


This is not a law it is a treaty and it has the power to nullify the right to keep and bear arms.




posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by SWCCFAN
 


Why are you posting a article from 6/07/2011? and acting like it something current? Has the senate ratified this treaty? How far along are we in this process? Why would they work on this during a election year? or is this more fear mongering from the right propaganda machine?



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 01:37 PM
link   
if the Goverment loses their way then its up to the people to take things into their own hands so all power to the patriots if they want a revolution



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 01:37 PM
link   
if the Goverment loses their way then its up to the people to take things into their own hands so all power to the patriots if they want a revolution



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 01:37 PM
link   
if the Goverment loses their way then its up to the people to take things into their own hands so all power to the patriots if they want a revolution



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 01:40 PM
link   
well this is what i found on the subject, idk if all this is true or not. i guess time will tell.

State Dept. says UN arms treaty won't 'handicap' Second Amendment rights

thehill.com...

Key U.S. redlines

• The Second Amendment to the Constitution must be upheld.

• There will be no restrictions on civilian possession or trade of firearms otherwise permitted by law or protected by the U.S. Constitution.

• There will be no dilution or diminishing of sovereign control over issues involving the private acquisition, ownership, or possession of firearms, which must remain matters of domestic law.

• The U.S. will oppose provisions inconsistent with existing U.S. law or that would unduly interfere with our ability to import, export, or transfer arms in support of our national security and foreign policy interests.

• The international arms trade is a legitimate commercial activity, and otherwise lawful commercial trade in arms must not be unduly hindered.

• There will be no requirement for reporting on or marking and tracing of ammunition or explosives.

• There will be no lowering of current international standards.

• Existing nonproliferation and export control regimes must not be undermined.

• The ATT negotiations must have consensus decision making to allow us to protect U.S. equities.

• There will be no mandate for an international body to enforce an ATT.



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 01:40 PM
link   
The best way to control the [our] opposition is to lead it - Lenin



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 01:40 PM
link   
I just showed this to my wife...

Not too happy about it to say the least...

I feel bad for the little blue helmets.
edit on 8-7-2012 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 01:40 PM
link   
Like beezzer said, I'd find it amusing as well. Who would be the ones collecting the weapons? Law enforcement? Military? It would be virtually impossible.

edit on 8-7-2012 by UnaChispa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by SWCCFAN
 



From everything I have seen such as the SPP agreement signed back in 2005 under Bush (43) can go into effect with out congress or the senate more specifically needing to ratify it. So it is likely that the provision of the treaty will indeed go into effect once it is signed. The Senate would need to ratify it to make it permanent. Look at all the nations that have agreed to it already. Their people have already been disarmed.


The wording might suggest that but that obviously contradicts the constitution, therefore its non-binding. As Beezzer suggested, it would be amusing to see them actually try and enforce it.

If the UN were to attempt to enforce law on American soil you WILL see angry citizens and an angry congress (and likely a second revolution if congress didn't take a strong stand against this). This may very well be the proverbial “last straw”. I certainly won’t be complying with UN treaties…they can kiss my #$$. My hope is that this stays out of the SCOTUS because we know what those idiots will do.


edit on 8-7-2012 by seabag because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by UnaChispa
 


I ain't doin' it.

US Army hooah.



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by LDragonFire
reply to post by SWCCFAN
 


Why are you posting a article from 6/07/2011? and acting like it something current? Has the senate ratified this treaty? How far along are we in this process? Why would they work on this during a election year? or is this more fear mongering from the right propaganda machine?


Ummm well it is current and it is likely to be signed in a couple of weeks. No the Senate has not ratified it yet and they don't need to for it to go into effect. We are 2 1/2 weeks out it seems. Why not? The Democrypts have nothing to loose but the majority in the Senate. Look for the lame duck ratification. Fear Mongering? No this just the potential loss of our inherent right of self defense. It is news and it is current. This is not about Left or Right it's about the very foundation of our republic.



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabag


The wording might suggest that but that obviously contradicts the constitution, therefore its non-binding. As Beezzer suggested, it would be amusing to see them actually try and enforce it.




It is Non-binding to all of us but it doesn't mean that it can't go into effect. I hope it passes and the senate ratifies it. Aren't we all tired of incrementalism? Turn up the heat so the rest of the frogs can jump out the pot.



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by SWCCFAN
 


Where does it say were 2 1/2 weeks away please provide a link??



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 01:50 PM
link   
I'm all about killing AQ terrorists. I'm all about destroying the enemies of the US even in foreign lands should they be there. I am more than willing to deploy, engage, and destroy for my country.

Gun confiscation? Nope. Find someone else...



new topics

top topics



 
60
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join