The following US Senators Just Committed Treason and Should Be Arrested Immediately!

Originally posted by jimmyx

Originally posted by Signals
reply to post by Kali74

 

States?

We have God-given INDIVIDUAL rights, nothing to do with states or governments

please, you don't have a GOD-GIVEN second amendment right...it's a man-made right, which by the way for those who are getting ready to flame me, i believe in the second amendment

In all due respect you are wrong, mostly. Its probably not god given and it is DEFINITELY not man made.

INALIENABLE

The founders, much greater thinkers than any politicians we have now, based the bill of rights on 'natural rights', rights that did not emanate from the crown. So specificially not man made and not given from 'your highness'. Says this specifically in the Dec of Independence and in the many writings of the founders.


Natural rights or inalienable rights.

Forget arresting them; let them go the way of Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette...

I truly do not get the whole guns and America topic. Round here nearly no one has guns. I have never seen a gun in my life on the hands of a civilian, except in TV and police offers in the air port. I do not personally know anybody who owns a gun. I have never heard a gun shot. I am in my mid-twenties and I am happy about my choice

My country signed the contract and I do not see anything wrong with it, perfectly normal action from any civilized country in my opinion.

I will probably never understand the Americans...

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by jimmyx

 

Not to mention this:

Principles
Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations,
States Parties, in promoting the object and purpose of this Treaty and implementing
its provisions, shall act in accordance with the following principles:

1. The inherent right of all States to individual or collective self-defence;

UN Arms Trade Treaty

I don't see anywhere in there that allows firearms expressly.

There is a Democrat State Senator Evie Hudak, in Colorado who thinks guns are not necessary for self defense and told a rape victim that having a firearm for defense was actually more dangerous than not having one. So I guess self defense is an open ended thing... I don't trust the idiots at the UN to decide what I can and cannot have for self defense purposes. I mean these are the same people who put nations like Libya and Sudan on the Human Rights Counsel - their judgment is suspect in my opinion. Besides I don't have any elected representation in the UN (nor do I want any BTW) for all I care they can go pound sand into thier 4th point of contact.

I once fought for my life in a city in Somalia called Mogadishu, perhaps you heard of it. All the while a force of UN personnel with armored vehicles let us get fired up for almost 24 hours outnumbered 500:1 while they decided what to "do".

They are about as effective an organization as the tits on my boar hogs... They hang around and there are plenty of them but they are useless none the less well sometimes they even get infected which is a special treat...

Originally posted by Golf66

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by jimmyx

 

Not to mention this:

Principles
Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations,
States Parties, in promoting the object and purpose of this Treaty and implementing
its provisions, shall act in accordance with the following principles:

1. The inherent right of all States to individual or collective self-defence;

UN Arms Trade Treaty

I don't see anywhere in there that allows firearms expressly.

There is a Democrat State Senator Evie Hudak, in Colorado who thinks guns are not necessary for self defense and told a rape victim that having a firearm for defense was actually more dangerous than not having one. So I guess self defense is an open ended thing... I don't trust the idiots at the UN to decide what I can and cannot have for self defense purposes. I mean these are the same people who put nations like Libya and Sudan on the Human Rights Counsel -

their judgment is suspect in my opinion. Besides I don't have any elected representation in the UN (nor do I want any BTW) for all I care they can go pound sand into thier 4th point of contact.

I once fought for my life in a city in Somalia called Mogadishu, perhaps you heard of it. All the while a force of UN personnel with armored vehicles let us get fired up for almost 24 hours outnumbered 500:1 while they decided what to "do".

They are about as effective an organization as the tits on my boar hogs... They hang around and there are plenty of them but they are useless none the less well sometimes they even get infected which is a special treat...

Why not taser or pepper spray as a self defense? Something that is extremely unlikely to kill somebody, although it disables the assaulter for a while, so you can run away or scream help.

reply to post by Signals


Yes States, as in we are a Member State of the UN. Now personally I do think self defense is an inalienable right or as you say God given right, but nothing in that Treaty threatens that which is what I was pointing out. You're fear mongering.

reply to post by Signals


Thats funny because I've had another ATS member tell me, as a fact, that Rand Paul was some name (I think whackjob or nutjob) for not supporting a UN Treaty and I think it might've been the Small Arms Treaty.

Originally posted by Cabin

Originally posted by Golf66

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by jimmyx

 

Not to mention this:

Principles
Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations,
States Parties, in promoting the object and purpose of this Treaty and implementing
its provisions, shall act in accordance with the following principles:

1. The inherent right of all States to individual or collective self-defence;

UN Arms Trade Treaty

I don't see anywhere in there that allows firearms expressly.

There is a Democrat State Senator Evie Hudak, in Colorado who thinks guns are not necessary for self defense and told a rape victim that having a firearm for defense was actually more dangerous than not having one. So I guess self defense is an open ended thing... I don't trust the idiots at the UN to decide what I can and cannot have for self defense purposes. I mean these are the same people who put nations like Libya and Sudan on the Human Rights Counsel -

their judgment is suspect in my opinion. Besides I don't have any elected representation in the UN (nor do I want any BTW) for all I care they can go pound sand into thier 4th point of contact.

I once fought for my life in a city in Somalia called Mogadishu, perhaps you heard of it. All the while a force of UN personnel with armored vehicles let us get fired up for almost 24 hours outnumbered 500:1 while they decided what to "do".

They are about as effective an organization as the tits on my boar hogs... They hang around and there are plenty of them but they are useless none the less well sometimes they even get infected which is a special treat...

Why not taser or pepper spray as a self defense? Something that is extremely unlikely to kill somebody, although it disables the assaulter for a while, so you can run away or scream help.

Because americans dont run from danger or threats, we face them.

I would have thought that obvious, but since it wasnt, here is an explanation.

A free man, doesnt run from danger that threatens him, he faces it head on, and fights it by any and all means necessary to ensure not only his personal safety, but the safety of hidls family and property.

I have not once backed down from a bully, I have also not onfe been bothered by one a second time ever.

I will use any and all force available and necessary to end a threat to me, my family, and my property.

If a criminal wants some, I am the guy, come and get some, I will give them all they wanted and more.

Once they decided to try to cause me or my family injury, or deprive us of our rights to be secure in our property, they have already decided their life is forfeit. I am more than willing to oblige them.

Originally posted by Cabin
Why not taser or pepper spray as a self defense? Something that is extremely unlikely to kill somebody, although it disables the assaulter for a while, so you can run away or scream help.

The principle of threat reduction is to reduce or mitigate a threat as quickly and efficiently as possible. The least threatening condition for a human being is dead.

The bonus is that once a person is dead (assuming it is a lawful engagement) I don't ever have to worry about any retribution (when they get out of jail for "good behavior"), threats from the same, lawsuits for injury as they sob and tell how their daddy didn't love them enough and they are a junky and only wanted my money...

The State I live in allows me to kill an intruder in my home weather they are armed or not - I love that about this State. I don't have to decide if a person is there to hurt me or my wife or child or to steal stuff... I personally don't care either. Enter my home uninvited at your own peril. I still have pretty good muscle memory for one in the head two in the chest.

I don't want or need help - I am a combat veteran with 24 years’ service most of that in Special Forces. I always carry a firearm. I do not frequent places they are not allowed. I do not relish killing - but I won't hesitate either. Don't want to be dead don't be a criminal.

If the only wages of crime were certain death there would be far less of it for sure.

ETA: As someone else said - I am an American. I don't run from trouble and problems I find solutions to them. Perfect solution to crime is to make the person dead. Bingo - they commit no more crime.

reply to post by Golf66


It's a treaty not a law.

reply to post by maluminse


Natural rights include the laws of God, the laws of nature, the principles of justice, moral values, fundamental human rights, and basic goods.

But none-the-less, these are all constructs of man. Natural law suggests that law is uncover-able by human reason (i.e. to live peacefully, survive and procreate).

But human reason is relative to the society, as are the laws of God, which are constructs of what man believes God laid down as the law (considering all the laws of God were written by man), principles of justice are relative to the society (i.e. conservative cultures have far different ideas of justice than say liberal ones. Consider, once in the Middle Ages, severing ones hand was believed to be a proportional response to stealing, now it isn't). Moral values vary from community to community (i.e. Canada gay marriage is legal, in Egypt it is not), human rights are relative to your view (whether it be universalist or that of a cultural-relativist).

Lastly, natural law is a philosophy, it does not necessarily affect the law. Natural law theorists suggest that all positive laws (i.e. those made by government) must be consistent with extrinsic standards of natural law, or they need not be abided to at all. However, even so, if you believe the law doesn't have to be abided to, it is still the law and breaking it will still have consequences.

Lastly, all human thought is a product of man, therefore all laws are a product of man.

Originally posted by Signals

We were 4 votes away from allowing the UN to come in and DISARM ALL OF US.

Absolute BS.

The small arms treaty regulates international trade - it has nothing at all to do with the ownership of guns in the USA.

Originally posted by Signals
As you probably know, the UN Small Arms Treaty just barely failed in the Senate, 53-46.

The vote was held March 23, 2013, 04:30 AM.

Statement of Purpose: To uphold Second Amendment rights and prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.

The following Senators voted (NAY), in other words, to accept the treaty, therefore surrendering your Second Amendment right -


Baldwin (D-WI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bennet (D-CO)
Blumenthal (D-CT)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Coons (D-DE)
Cowan (D-MA)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hirono (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kaine (D-VA)
King (I-ME)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murphy (D-CT)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schatz (D-HI)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Warner (D-VA)
Warren (D-MA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)


www.senate.gov...

Traitors, every last one of them...Conspirators to undermine the Constitution.

The U.S. Supreme Court has made it very clear that
1) Treaties do not override the U.S. Constitution.
2) Treaties cannot amend the Constitution. And last,
3) A treaty can be nullified by a statute passed by the U.S. Congress (or by a sovereign State or States if Congress refuses to do so), when the State deems a treaty the performance of a treaty is self-destructive. The law of self-preservation overrules the law of obligation in others.

www.sweetliberty.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

We were 4 votes away from allowing the UN to come in and DISARM ALL OF US.

Who are the real Terrorists, America?

When will they be arrested and held without bail for trial?

edit on 24-3-2013 by Signals because: (no reason given)

Must you exercise such bleeding-heart emotion when a reasoned, articulated approach would suffice?

If these senators are terrorists--they're not, mind you, but to please you I'll pat your head and assume they are--then they are duly-elected terrorists, selected by a majority of their constituents to represent a broad range of interests well beyond the scope of your personal interpretations and opinions. And if you seek to draw a parallel between their actions and those destructive elements of society which seek to keep the population in a perpetual state of fear, I'm sure you could find a much more intelligent way of doing so than the literary equivalent of walking around with your pants around your ankles while banging a spoon against a large cooking pot.

reply to post by Signals


All the usual traitors...

reply to post by Signals


All I see on that list is a bunch of......


D's


Figures....




But you can lump all of them, R's included into the mix also. These just stand out more.........

reply to post by Kali74


Quite the contrary - Truth Mongering, wake up....

reply to post by inverslyproportional


Hell yes you are brother. We are legion!

Democrats and Republicans have got to go. Those who did not make this list are guilty of other treasons. When elections are over, the headlines scream "Democrats Win" or "Republicans Win" but they never, never, never, say "Americans Win"! The reason for that is when Democrats and Republicans get elected, Americans get screwed!!! Democrats and Republicans conspire in Washington to scam, defraud, and extort money from the American people to give to their campaign contributors and friends and family.

People it is well past time to get out the pitchforks, torches, tar and feathers and send these maggots packing in a style that suits their criminality. I am confident we will never see them swinging on the gallows, but we should be able to make them sweat as they try to hold on to their ill gotten gains on their way out of town!!

reply to post by Signals


i just got a chance to look at your thread.... I have no idea why you are thinking... this "treaty" is nothing more that signing a bill into effect that prohibits selling or trading arms across borders. I'm not surprised that this got voted down, how bad would it look when the fast and the furious already gave a bunch of guns to mexican drug lords.

Originally posted by Cabin
I truly do not get the whole guns and America topic. Round here nearly no one has guns. I have never seen a gun in my life on the hands of a civilian, except in TV and police offers in the air port. I do not personally know anybody who owns a gun. I have never heard a gun shot. I am in my mid-twenties and I am happy about my choice

My country signed the contract and I do not see anything wrong with it, perfectly normal action from any civilized country in my opinion.

I will probably never understand the Americans...

edit on 25-3-2013 by Cabin because: (no reason given)

Guns are a way to pass the time here, a way to connect with our sons and daughters. Without guns America wouldn't exist, we would still probably be a British protectorate. I have fond memories of my dad taking me to the gravel pit by our hometown and teaching me how to shoot a gun. To learn control and responsibility at a very young age was great.... it trickles down into every aspect of growing up I had. We hunted and provided for our family with guns and bows. My first job was as a range officer at a gun club, i worked on the shotgun range monitoring the skeet and trap field and setting up sporting clays courses in the woods. Im being a little nostalgic but through teaching me respect for guns and how to care for them and use them.... the principles of liberty and the secret safety they give me was a valuable lesson on responsibility from a young age. I own guns and have never had to use them in violence and i hope i never will, but if someone threatens my family I will not hesitate to protect my three girls, my son or my wife. Guns are not evil, people are. Guns are not mentally distraught...people are. I always wonder why other countries take those pleasures away from their citizens........ usually it is because the government is going to go somewhere politically where they fear reprisal from those they are supposed to represent.... and I see that happening in American right now... but it will never happen here... we wont let it..... You say you are happy about your choice... but It sounds like you didn't even have one.