Venture Surplus ad

The threat to 2nd Amendment is REAL!!

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Texas

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • thorkyl

    Active Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 13, 2008
    697
    21
    Brazoria County
    I thought all treaties had to be ratified by the Senate to become valid. Am I wrong?


    Not quite...
    And yes.

    Let me explain
    Yet they have to be ratified to become valid

    No this one does not
    The plan
    Freedom from War (1961)

    Look at USC 22 Chapter 35

    http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/22C35.txt


    -CITE-
    22 USC Sec. 2552 01/08/2008
    -EXPCITETITLE
    22 - FOREIGN RELATIONS AND INTERCOURSE
    CHAPTER 35 - ARMS CONTROL AND DISARMAMENT
    SUBCHAPTER I - GENERAL PROVISIONS
    -HEADSec.
    2552. Definitions
    -STATUTE
    As used in this chapter -
    (a) The terms "arms control" and "disarmament" mean the
    identification, verification, inspection, limitation, control,
    reduction, or elimination, of armed forces and armaments of all
    kinds under international agreement including the necessary steps
    taken under such an agreement to establish an effective system of
    international control, or to create and strengthen international
    organizations for the maintenance of peace.

    (b) The term "Government agency" means any executive
    department, commission, agency, independent establishment,
    corporation wholly or partly owned by the United States which is
    an instrumentality of the United States, or any board, bureau,
    division, service, office, officer, authority, administration, or
    other establishment in the executive branch of Government

    He has been authorized by congress to do it already.
    Combine that with Globalist Plan to Disarm America - PL87-297 Arms Control and Disarmament Act / State Department Publication No. 7277

    And you will have the same migraine I have

    You will also go home every night and load magazines.
     

    APatriot

    Active Member
    BANNED!!!
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Aug 19, 2009
    779
    21
    Houston, Tx
    My friend,

    Not quite...
    And yes.

    Let me explain
    Yet they have to be ratified to become valid

    No this one does not
    The plan
    Freedom from War (1961)

    Look at USC 22 Chapter 35

    [url]http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/22C35.txt[/URL]


    -CITE-
    22 USC Sec. 2552 01/08/2008
    -EXPCITETITLE
    22 - FOREIGN RELATIONS AND INTERCOURSE
    CHAPTER 35 - ARMS CONTROL AND DISARMAMENT
    SUBCHAPTER I - GENERAL PROVISIONS
    -HEADSec.
    2552. Definitions
    -STATUTE
    As used in this chapter -
    (a) The terms "arms control" and "disarmament" mean the
    identification, verification, inspection, limitation, control,
    reduction, or elimination, of armed forces and armaments of all
    kinds under international agreement including the necessary steps
    taken under such an agreement to establish an effective system of
    international control, or to create and strengthen international
    organizations for the maintenance of peace.

    (b) The term "Government agency" means any executive
    department, commission, agency, independent establishment,
    corporation wholly or partly owned by the United States which is
    an instrumentality of the United States, or any board, bureau,
    division, service, office, officer, authority, administration, or
    other establishment in the executive branch of Government

    He has been authorized by congress to do it already.
    Combine that with Globalist Plan to Disarm America - PL87-297 Arms Control and Disarmament Act / State Department Publication No. 7277

    And you will have the same migraine I have

    You will also go home every night and load magazines.

    We can debate whether or not such an issue has to be ratified by the Senate. The point is simply the Obama shitbird is trying to bypass the Constitution and we need to alert everyone we can about this. That is the issue.

    I am not trying to be an AH here, but throughout this website we are talking about whether this gun is better than this gun, and everything else on this "green earth" in regards to firearms, and the socialist moron is attempting to confiscate what is rightfully ours by our founding fathers. Our discussions about firearms and ammo in general will be "mute" if this moron gets away with this.

    Contact the NRA, TNRA, and everyone else who loves freedom. That is what is needed.
     

    Texas1911

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    May 29, 2017
    10,596
    46
    Austin, TX
    This has been ongoing in the UN for a while now ... the actual treaty focuses on the international trade of firearms and is seeking to enforce accountability and standardize the myriad of national trade laws. Basically they are trying to stop people from selling guns to Africa.

    The UN has no jurisdiction in the United States.

    Our Senate would have to ratify the treaty, and the treaty does not empower the United States to disarm it's people. The Blair-Holt legislation has yet to even get a co-sponsor, and that's just to create a national registry of firearms owners, and yet somehow the Senate is going to ratify this?

    Yet another case of people blowing up over nothing, and sensationalist commentaries circling the internet getting all us gun-toting babykilling state militia types all worked up.

    Do I support the treaty? No, it will fix absolutely nothing. It's a waste of time, along with just about everything else the UN does.
     

    TexasR.N.

    Active Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 12, 2009
    655
    21
    Rampart
    Our safety net with this idiotic move by Obama is that, indeed, the Senate has to ratify this and any other treaty to have any impact on us. IMHO that's where our efforts should be directed. Get in touch with your senators and make it clear that if they vote to ratify this POS, they will be looking for honest work come the next election. I don't see this sneaking past the Senate, but it's just evidence of how underhanded the current administration is. Add this to the move to reinstate the weapons ban to help "solve" the border drug war and you can see that Obama and his flunkies have no intention of trying to jam actual anti-gun legislation through the Congress; they've found other ways to do it that they hope will not attract attention. Forget HR45; keep your eyes on diplomatic moves to disarm us.
    I was waiting on someone to bring this up.

    I'm betting the Senate knows better than to start a civil war. At least I'm hoping.
    You know, I am not so sure anymore. :banghead: There willful disregard to listen to "We the people............." Not to mention, I believe the libs / socialists / fascist / marxists think we are full of bravado and won't stand up to them when / if it came to gun control / confiscation. I don't want to see this day come but it is my belief that those of the aforementioned political ideology are hell bent in their beliefs and plans for the future of this nation. Furthermore, I believe 99.9% of us would agree that the day gun confiscation of the American citizen is enacted is the day the civil war starts.

    And I do worry about a civil war in our country. I believe that anything, be it a people, government, financial system, etc... will only bend so far before it breaks. If we were to go down this road it is going to be very ugly as this is a very divided nation. This group is opposed to that group, opposed to this other group, who can't stand this other group, etc..........

    I am truly concerned for the future of this country and for my young kids.

    Craig
     

    TrailDust

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 29, 2009
    2,945
    21
    Kalifornication
    With all the violations and bastardizations of the Constitution going on with the President and members of Congress, I have my doubts that the system will function "as advertised" much longer.
     

    Englishman

    Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jun 24, 2009
    106
    1
    The New World
    NRA Called

    I guess there must be something to this story as the NRA called me today looking for some money to fight this specific issue.

    Long telemarketing call but they mentioned something about Mexico specifically pushing the agenda at the UN blaming the US for all their gangsters fighting with American sourced guns.

    Looking to research this a little further………
     

    LonghornAR15

    Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Nov 11, 2009
    72
    1
    Austin
    With all the violations and bastardizations of the Constitution going on with the President and members of Congress, I have my doubts that the system will function "as advertised" much longer.

    Just out of curiosity, what "violations and bastardizations of the constitution" are you talking about?

    I'm not trying to be contentious, I'm just really not aware of any. I hear lots of vague generalizations to this effect, and some stuff that is not at all grounded in reality(rumors of his Kenyan birth, etc), but I'm not aware of any real constitutional violations.

    I will probably be flamed for even suggesting such an idea, but so be it. It's a free country, RIGHT?
     

    res1b3uq

    Active Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Feb 14, 2009
    336
    1
    Tell me, friend--why does Obama need so many Czars? Who gave them any power? Is that in the Constitution? As you say, "It's a free country" -- up to now.
     

    TrailDust

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 29, 2009
    2,945
    21
    Kalifornication
    I'm not trying to be contentious, I'm just really not aware of any. I hear lots of vague generalizations to this effect, and some stuff that is not at all grounded in reality(rumors of his Kenyan birth, etc), but I'm not aware of any real constitutional violations. I will probably be flamed for even suggesting such an idea, but so be it. It's a free country, RIGHT?



    I'll give you a few of them...a wide variety, but all relevant.

    Look no further than the government health care plan. Absolutely no provisions in the Constitution for government to provide it to the people, and no provision to force it down your throat with government confiscation of personal finances/property and imprisonment for not participating.

    The National Organ Transplant Act (NOTA), enacted by Congress in 1984, makes it illegal to give anything of value in exchange for bone marrow or other organs, tissue, etc. There is no justification for the Congressional prohibition on this practice other than arbitrary unconstitutional abuse of power that too many Americans tolerate.

    There's absolutely no Constitutional authority for Congressional spending on various things like prescription drugs for the elderly, subsidies to farmers, or food stamps to the poor. In 1794, Congress appropriated $15,000 for relief of French refugees. James Madison stood on the floor of the House to object, saying, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." James Madison, you'll recall, is the acknowledged father of the Constitution, and he couldn't find constitutional authority for spending "on the objects of benevolence."

    Trust me, the list goes on and on....
     

    Euclid

    New Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Nov 22, 2009
    34
    1
    Dallas
    An asasinashun* will take place far sooner than a retraction/override of the 2nd amendment. No doubt in my mind.

    *(misspelled on purpose)
     

    TrailDust

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 29, 2009
    2,945
    21
    Kalifornication
    Just adding more examples to my list above as they came to mind the last hour or so.

    Abraham Lincoln's suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus was absolutely unconstitutional, and went ultimately unchallenged by a complicit Congress. Lincoln also violated due process and otherwise ignored Constitutional rights for Clement Vallandingham and other southern sympathizers.

    The internment of the Japanese authorized by FDR was unconstitutional. Even though it was challenged in the Supreme Court on those grounds, the court ruled that it was not and allowed it. Another example of the failure of the Supreme Court to uphold the Constitution as is their duty, but they did not. There are also many examples of their failures.

    Anyone who thinks the 2nd Amendment is safe because it is part of the Constitution is kidding themselves. Gun abolishment can and may be pursued in the blink of an eye, with little concern for issues of constitutionality.
     

    LonghornAR15

    Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Nov 11, 2009
    72
    1
    Austin
    I'll give you a few of them...a wide variety, but all relevant.

    Look no further than the government health care plan. Absolutely no provisions in the Constitution for government to provide it to the people, and no provision to force it down your throat with government confiscation of personal finances/property and imprisonment for not participating.

    The National Organ Transplant Act (NOTA), enacted by Congress in 1984, makes it illegal to give anything of value in exchange for bone marrow or other organs, tissue, etc. There is no justification for the Congressional prohibition on this practice other than arbitrary unconstitutional abuse of power that too many Americans tolerate.

    There's absolutely no Constitutional authority for Congressional spending on various things like prescription drugs for the elderly, subsidies to farmers, or food stamps to the poor. In 1794, Congress appropriated $15,000 for relief of French refugees. James Madison stood on the floor of the House to object, saying, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." James Madison, you'll recall, is the acknowledged father of the Constitution, and he couldn't find constitutional authority for spending "on the objects of benevolence."

    Trust me, the list goes on and on....

    I will definitely grant you that there have historically been many violations of the constitution, including those committed by our previous Presidential administration(detainment of American citizens without being charged, various elements of the Patriot Act 1&2 which likely violated the 4th amendment). However, I am just not aware of any under the current administration.

    The proposed government health care plan may not be explicitly provided for in the constitution, but I don't know of any constitutional amendment or clause that would prohibit it.

    As for the other comment about the need for "czars" under this administration, I am not completely clear on what your argument is. The use of the word czar as a casual title for the head of federal offices indicates what exactly? The title "czar" has unofficially been used for some time now, definitely not starting with Obama's administration.

    Understand that I am not here to defend or promote the Obama administration, but rather to question the arguments against it. If there were any likely significant threats to my second amendment rights under this administration, I would certainly be concerned, but I have seen no indication that that is the case. I just feel like the often baseless and illogical accusations of tyranny voiced by some actually hurt the credibility of the pro-2nd amendment movement.

    The problem with democracy is that the will of the people collectively is not always what we as individuals would like. It is, however, the system within which we have to operate, and the lesser of many evils when it comes to systems of government.
     

    TrailDust

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 29, 2009
    2,945
    21
    Kalifornication
    The problem with the various "czars" is they are new positions created and filled by Obama, and by anyone's definition their positions are at least equivalent to Cabinet positions, and they hold sweeping powers granted by no one other than Obama. There are no Congressional hearings to act as a check and balance to assess and either approve or disapprove these czars, as there is for Supreme Court nominees, heads of intelligence agencies, or Cabinet positions. Again, they wield sweeping powers granted by no one other than Obama, are paid, yet no act of Congress has approved these positions in the first place. The appointing of the czars is unconstitutional. Obama has gotten away with this usurpation of his Presidential powers because that is how corrupt our federal government has become, and that is how uninformed and apathetic the American people have become.
     

    LonghornAR15

    Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Nov 11, 2009
    72
    1
    Austin
    I'm asking this sincerely, not to be contentious, but are the "czar" appointments made by Obama different from those made by Bush? What kind of "sweeping powers" do these positions entail? I'm not terribly politically informed, nor do I claim to be, but would definitely like to know if I have sufficient reason to be concerned, but I guess I just don't see it. (note: This does not mean that I have been duped by the trickery of the liberal media and democratic propagandists. While I do not research politics extensively, I can spot bull$hit from any political position, and base my views on what seems reasonable rather than party lines and ideology. Mostly, I love guns.)
     

    TrailDust

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 29, 2009
    2,945
    21
    Kalifornication
    I'm asking this sincerely, not to be contentious, but are the "czar" appointments made by Obama different from those made by Bush? What kind of "sweeping powers" do these positions entail? I'm not terribly politically informed, nor do I claim to be, but would definitely like to know if I have sufficient reason to be concerned, but I guess I just don't see it. (note: This does not mean that I have been duped by the trickery of the liberal media and democratic propagandists. While I do not research politics extensively, I can spot bull$hit from any political position, and base my views on what seems reasonable rather than party lines and ideology. Mostly, I love guns.)

    Here is a link to a list that, as noted, includes any "czars" appointed by Bush....

    Obama’s Czars: So far, this list has the most information Pesky Emotional Republican


    -
     

    TrailDust

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 29, 2009
    2,945
    21
    Kalifornication
    The following is from an editorial by Professor Walter Williams regarding Congress's and Obama's contempt for the Constitution:


    At Speaker Nancy Pelosi's Oct. 29 press conference, a CNS News reporter asked, "Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?" Speaker Pelosi responded, "Are you serious? Are you serious?" The reporter said, "Yes, yes, I am." Not responding further, Pelosi shook her head and took a question from another reporter. Later on, Pelosi's press spokesman Nadeam Elshami told CNSNews.com about its question regarding constitutional authority mandating that individual Americans buy health insurance. "You can put this on the record. That is not a serious question. That is not a serious question."

    Suppose Congress was debating a mandate outlawing tea-party-type protests and other large gatherings criticizing Congress. A news reporter asks Nancy Pelosi where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to outlaw peaceable assembly. How would you feel if she answered, "Are you serious? Are you serious?" and ignored the question. And what if, later on, someone from her office sent you a press release, as was sent to CNS News, saying that Congress has "broad power to regulate activities that have an effect on interstate commerce," pointing out that demonstrations cause traffic jams and therefore interfere with interstate commerce?

    Speaker Pelosi's constitutional contempt, perhaps ignorance, is representative of the majority of members of both the House and the Senate. Their comfort in that ignorance and constitutional contempt, and how readily they articulate it, should be worrisome for every single American. It's not a matter of whether you are for or against Congress' health-care proposals. It's not a matter of whether you're liberal or conservative, black or white, male or female, Democrat or Republican or a member of any other group. It's a matter of whether we are going to remain a relatively free people or permit the insidious encroachment on our liberties to continue.

    Where in the U.S. Constitution does it authorize Congress to force Americans to buy health insurance? If Congress gets away with forcing us to buy health insurance, down the line, what else will they force us to buy; or do you naively think they will stop with health insurance? We shouldn't think that the cure to Congress' unconstitutional heavy-handedness will end if we only elect Republicans. Republicans have demonstrated nearly as much constitutional contempt as have Democrats. The major difference is the significant escalation of that contempt under today's Democratically controlled Congress and White House with the massive increase in spending, their proposed legislation and the appointment of tyrannical czars to control our lives. It's a safe bet that if and when Republicans take over the Congress and White House, they will not give up the massive increase in control over our lives won by the Democrats. In each new session of Congress since 1995, John Shadegg, R-Ariz., has introduced the Enumerated Powers Act, a measure "To require Congress to specify the source of authority under the United States Constitution for the enactment of laws, and for other purposes." The highest number of co-sponsors it has ever had in the House of Representatives is 54 and it has never had co-sponsors in the Senate until this year, when 22 senators signed up. The fact that less than 15 percent of the Congress supports such a measure demonstrates the kind of contempt our elected representatives have for the rules of the game — our Constitution.

    If you asked the questions: Which way is our nation heading, tiny steps at a time? Are we headed toward more liberty, or are we headed toward greater government control over our lives? I think the answer is unambiguously the latter — more government control over our lives. Are there any signs on the horizon that the direction is going to change? If we don't see any, we should not be surprised. After all, mankind's standard fare throughout his history, and in most places today, is arbitrary control and abuse by government.


    -
     
    Top Bottom