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

reply to post by SWCCFAN


The democrats and republicans stay in character for the masses of stupid people who vote. Democrats preach peace, while the covert war goes on. Republicans angage in overt war and aggression. This contrast keeps people polarized. If Romney is elected expect war.

As far as this alleged treaty, it is misdirection to cull and focus opposition on a false target. And as for enforcement, anyone sent to enforce it would be a stupid dupe and expendable. Nothing is gained by supposed revolution. You end up hauling yourself to your predetermined destiny under your own steam. There is a great mass of science that has risen up around the management of people. You should all look into it because it is looking into you.

Originally posted by LDragonFire
reply to post by SWCCFAN

 

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

www.un.org...

shiftfrequency.com...

reclaimourrepublic.wordpress.com...

www.pakalertpress.com...

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.

We hardly agree on most things, but I acknowledge your convictions on your beliefs.

So you think it will be Amusing to see this enacted?

Let me give you a brief scenario on how this will play out.

First off , the will ask for Volunteer surrender of arms, Most people will go this route.

Then they will enforce a penalty if caught with Firearms, Jail Time. This will shake most others that held on to their weapons. They will give up their Firearms.

Lastly, they will call people holding Arms , "Enemies of the State" or the new catch words "Homegrown Terrorist".
This will set all others against the "hold outs" who will be turned in by neighbors , Family members and through "snitch programs". Look for a huge Ruby Ridge incident to occur, with "homegrown terrorist" taking the blame.

It is fools like you who laugh at the OWS Movement, and other such resistment, who will stand Slack Jawed when you are the Target of Media Propaganda, and no one stands beside you.

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?

What do you think ?

I feel the same way. Then when I tell them nothing is going to happen , they are ready to kick my butt.

reply to post by Tw0Sides


You think the media will be in operation once the revolution begins? You do realize that some current and former operators that I know stand for the constitution and will honor their oath. Conventional warfare is suicide but Tsun Su has proven strategies so ... Yeah we are gonna get our butts kicked, but they will never extinguish the flame of liberty. The enemy has to sleep sometime. We can sleep when we are dead.

Get some!

Originally posted by SWCCFAN
reply to post by Tw0Sides

 

You think the media will be in operation once the revolution begins?

You do realize that some current and former operators that I know stand for the constitution and will honor their oath. Conventional warfare is suicide but Tsun Su has proven strategies so ... Yeah we are gonna get our butts kicked, but they will never extinguish the flame of liberty. The enemy has to sleep sometime. We can sleep when we are dead.

Get some!

Power to you Brother.

But ah, what Revolution ?

Americans are so dumbed down, the only revolution that will ever occur , is if IHOP stops its Buffet Menu.

reply to post by SWCCFAN

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.

Eventually something will be the catalyst and we will unite to draw a line in the sand, much like the first revolution. At some point we will have to sort out who is on the side of liberty and who is on the side of the globalists. Then we will hear the 2nd “shot heard ‘round the world” and we’ll sort this thing out once and for all.

I’m not in a hurry to see it happen but I’ll be in a hurry to finish it once it starts! It appears the globalists are pushing for sooner rather than later.

Be careful what you wish for, traitors!

reply to post by Tw0Sides


The alarm clock will go off and while the estimated 100,000,000 people that own firearms expect about 3-5% of them not to comply and to fight back. Everyone claims to be a patriot when there is no risk involved. Having seen the risk versus sitting on the sideline.... well I am not made for the sideline.

Originally posted by SWCCFAN
reply to post by Tw0Sides

 

The alarm clock will go off and while the estimated 100,000,000 people that own firearms expect about 3-5% of them not to comply and to fight back. Everyone claims to be a patriot when there is no risk involved. Having seen the risk versus sitting on the sideline....

well I am not made for the sideline.

I have read your postings, and realize you will be front and center in a Revolution.

Just answer me this.... Revolution against who? or what?

Who will be standing on the other side from you?

You going to kill Coke Machines?

ATM's going to feel your wrath?

Who?

I hate to burst the bubble.... but this issues has been settled by many decisions over many years. Thus, a dead horse.

www.icrc.org...!OpenDocument

Treaties as law:

As a matter of domestic law, treaties – like statutes – must meet the requirements of the Constitution; no treaty provision may have force of law in the United States if it conflicts with the Constitution. Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957). Thus, the United States is unable to accept a treaty obligation which limits constitutionally protected rights, as in the case of Article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which restricts the freedom of speech and association guaranteed under the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Consequently, when deliberating on ratification of a treaty concerning the rights of individuals, Congress must give careful consideration to the specific provisions of the treaty and to the question of consistency with existing State and federal law, both constitutional and statutory. Where treaty provisions conflict with the Constitution, the United States makes reservations to them simply because neither the President nor Congress has the power to override the Constitution. In some cases, it has been considered necessary for the United States to state its understanding of a particular provision or obligation in a treaty, or to make a declaration as to how it intends to apply that provision or meet that obligation.

en.wikipedia.org...

Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that the Constitution supersedes international treaties ratified by the United States Senate. According to the decision, "this Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty," although the case itself was with regard to an executive agreement, not a "treaty" in the U.S. legal sense, and the agreement itself has never been ruled unconstitutional.

The Court found that "no agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or on any other branch of Government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution." The Court's core holding of the case is that civilian wives of soldiers may not be tried under military jurisdiction, because the Fifth Amendment's grant for military jurisdiction, i.e. "except in cases arising in the land and naval forces" cannot sweep in the jury-trial requirement reflected in the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.

reply to post by Tw0Sides


I do not wish to fight anyone. However my God, my family, and my freedom motivate me. The phrase on the gadsen flag sums it up quite eloquently. "Don't Tread On Me"

The line in the sand has been drawn.

reply to post by Tw0Sides

We hardly agree on most things, but I acknowledge your convictions on your beliefs.

So you think it will be Amusing to see this enacted?

No, it will be amusing to see it enforced.

Let me give you a brief scenario on how this will play out.

First off , the will ask for Volunteer surrender of arms, Most people will go this route.

Then they will enforce a penalty if caught with Firearms, Jail Time. This will shake most others that held on to their weapons. They will give up their Firearms.

Lastly, they will call people holding Arms , "Enemies of the State" or the new catch words "Homegrown Terrorist".
This will set all others against the "hold outs" who will be turned in by neighbors , Family members and through "snitch programs". Look for a huge Ruby Ridge incident to occur, with "homegrown terrorist" taking the blame.

Much of the framework is in place – the last piece of the puzzle is disarmament.

It is fools like you who laugh at the OWS Movement, and other such resistment, who will stand Slack Jawed when you are the Target of Media Propaganda, and no one stands beside you.

Thanks for the kind words!

I don’t need to team up with OWS to defend my country. I don’t remember any of them standing beside me last time I had bullets whizzing over my head so I don’t reckon I’ll need them this time either (it's only a small handfull of people in OWS...less than 1% of the population).

Besides, I think you’re wrong. Americans have a tendency to stand together in times like this so I will have plenty of people on my right and left if/when the time comes. The question you should be asking is will you be one of the fortunate ones standing beside me in defense of our country this time?

Here's a link to live coverage of the UN SALW conference. Also there are press releases available to view that outlines discussion for that day.

UNlivecoverage.com

reply to post by oghamxx


Thank you for posting that.

Very informative and I was aware of it. However has there been any evidence that this administration acted in any way to preserve the Constitution? They say one thing and do another. Politics as usual however in New Orleans 70 miles from me national guard units and police violated the Constitution and took firearms with out any UN treaty. Are we so naive to think it won't happen? Look at Australia.

reply to post by Daedal


Thank you for posting the link.

I will add it the OP.

Kudos + Star!

Originally posted by SWCCFAN
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.

I'm sorry, you are absolutely wrong. The Constitution TRUMPS International Treaties ! PERIOD !

reply to post by Labrynth2012


You should read the supremacy clause of the constitution.

I can't wait for this to happen...just so you all would finally have something tangible to be angry about.

Originally posted by seabag
The question you should be asking is will you be one of the fortunate ones standing beside me in defense of our country this time?

Beside me in defense of our country this time ??

Which time did you have bullets whizzing past you, in DEFENSE of this country?

You have only been used as a Pawn , by Imperialistic America Corporations, not in Defense of this country.

The time has come , and gone, for resistance.

Americans are fat and well fed, they will not fight.

Revolution is a Romantic word , overused and watered down, the Masses in the US are happy , being stupid.

Originally posted by Labrynth2012

Originally posted by SWCCFAN
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.

I'm sorry, you are absolutely wrong. The Constitution TRUMPS International Treaties ! PERIOD !

Are you sure?

Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, known as the Supremacy Clause, establishes the U.S. Constitution, U.S. Treaties, and laws made pursuant to the U.S. Constitution, shall be "the supreme law of the land." The text decrees these to be the highest form of law in the U.S. legal system, and mandates that all state judges must follow federal law when a conflict arises between federal law and either the state constitution or state law of any state. (Note that the word "shall" is used, which makes it a necessity, a compulsion.) However, the Supremacy Clause only applies if the federal government is acting in pursuit of its constitutionally authorized powers, as noted by the phrase "in pursuance thereof" in the actual text of the Supremacy Clause itself.

The "supremacy clause" is the most important guarantor of national union. It assures that the Constitution and federal laws and treaties take precedence over state law and binds all judges to adhere to that principle in their courts. - United States Senate

Source

Originally posted by links234
reply to post by Labrynth2012

 

You should read the supremacy clause of the constitution.

I can't wait for this to happen...just so you all would finally have something tangible to be angry about.

Well Duh.

While our opinions may differ its nice to know that one person on the socialist side actually reads the Constitution.