Obama's Arms Treaty.........

[greenberetTFS]

Obama arms treaty signing July 27th...........:mad:

http://www.reagancoalition.com/articles/2012/20120706002-obama-arms-treaty.html

Big Teddy :munchin

[SF18C]

I think I just lost all my firearms...should I call the cops or something???

[Paslode]

Iran has been chosen as a member of the “bureau” overseeing a month-long United Nations conference in New York aimed at finalizing a controversial global “arms trade treaty.”

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/iran-named-group-overseeing-un-arms-treaty-conference-choosing-bernie-madoff-police

[Kyobanim]

Doesn't it take two-thirds of the senators to approve treaties? If that's the case, I doubt the US will be a signatory.

On a related matter, we need to get the fook out of the UN and send the whole bunch of those worthless assholes back to their 3rd world backwater shitholes.

Or an alien attack to take the place out. :cool:

[Badger52]

On a related matter, we need to get the fook out of the UN and send the whole bunch of those worthless assholes back to their 3rd world backwater shitholes.

Or an alien attack to take the place out. :cool:It's worth a shot. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCbfMkh940Q)
:cool:

[rubberneck]

Doesn't it take two-thirds of the senators to approve treaties? If that's the case, I doubt the US will be a signatory.

On a related matter, we need to get the fook out of the UN and send the whole bunch of those worthless assholes back to their 3rd world backwater shitholes.

Or an alien attack to take the place out. :cool:

I don't think we should get out but I'm all in favor of paying no more than any of the other 192 members. Without cash they can't finance 99% of the bizarre off the wall crap that they come up with. Let them beg the Chinese to pick up our 22% of their annual budget while we pay China's paltry 3.189%

[Pericles]

The current pres has decided to bypass the old outdate part of this law it is a living document you know. He is the anointed one and can do that. Btw the Geneva accords were never ratified by the Senete yea we follow them and prosicute soldiers for violating them.

This may be of interest to you: http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebSign?ReadForm&id=375&ps=P

[Paslode]

Doesn't it take two-thirds of the senators to approve treaties? If that's the case, I doubt the US will be a signatory.


You are correct about the 2/3 vote...however the MARPOL Treaty signed by SoS Hillary Clinton in 2010 has not received a 2/3 vote in favor of ratification.
Despite this the EPA, the Department of Homeland Security and others are apparently using this marine treaty amendment as the basis for the new federal regulations without waiting for ratification of that amendment by the U.S. Senate.

Alaska sues to block low-sulfur fuel requirement for ships (http://news.yahoo.com/alaska-sues-block-low-sulfur-fuel-requirement-ships-025940611.html)

[greenberetTFS]

This isn't good,we better watch this!.........:mad:

Big Teddy :munchin

[spherojon]

This is a big issue to me and everyone I meet. The president is destroying our constitutional rights.

So much for, "I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

He is placing a lot of stress on the Federal vs State, while at the same time overstepping his power. Well here is a letter from congress to the president and secretary of state.

http://kelly.house.gov/sites/kelly.house.gov/files/ATT%20Letter.pdf


IMO I think this is one of the reasons why AZ is doing what it is doing (reference thread http://professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=38706).

[Richard]

It's the UN and there are members of Congress tracking and pushing to counter such a 'worst case' scenario - let me know when the UN collects all the $$ they claim we've owed them for decades and I'll break out the aluminum foil and start worrying.

And so it goes...

Richard :munchin

[AngelsSix]

This is a big issue to me and everyone I meet. The president is destroying our constitutional rights.

So much for, "I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

He is placing a lot of stress on the Federal vs State, while at the same time overstepping his power. Well here is a letter from congress to the president and secretary of state.

http://kelly.house.gov/sites/kelly.house.gov/files/ATT%20Letter.pdf


IMO I think this is one of the reasons why AZ is doing what it is doing (reference thread http://professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=38706).


I believe you are right in one respect, but keep in mind that the Congress and HOR have just as much to do with out Constitutional rights being eroded in this country. Think back to high school and how a law is made, and who is responsible for passing them.

Here ya' go: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyeJ55o3El0

[spherojon]

I believe you are right in one respect, but keep in mind that the Congress and HOR have just as much to do with out Constitutional rights being eroded in this country. Think back to high school and how a law is made, and who is responsible for passing them.

Here ya' go: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyeJ55o3El0

I remember that video from school LOL good link.

Couple things
"Lastly, regardless of negotiated text, the Administration must make clear its reservations, understandings, and declarations that the ATT places no new requirements for action on the U.S., because the U.S. law is already compliant with the treaty regime or that the treaty cannot change the Bill of Rights or the constitutional allocation of power between the federal and state governments."

"Further, the Constitution gives the power to regulate international commerce to Congress alone, and the ATT will be considered non-self executing until Congress enacts any legislation to implement the agreement."

[Debo]

I think I just lost all my firearms...should I call the cops or something???


The same day that it comes time to bury (or lose) our guns is the very day we need to be digging them up (or finding them).

D.

[greenberetTFS]

My Response.........:mad:

Big Teddy :munchin

[Go Devil]

It's the UN and there are members of Congress tracking and pushing to counter such a 'worst case' scenario - let me know when the UN collects all the $$ they claim we've owed them for decades and I'll break out the aluminum foil and start worrying.

And so it goes...

Richard :munchin

Unfortunately Richard, I trust congress with my unalienable rights to just this side of maximum effective range of a 7.62x51 NATO .

Aluminum foil is quickly being exchanged for copper jacketed lead in this neighborhood.

[BrokenSwitch]

Obama arms treaty signing July 27th...........:mad:

http://www.reagancoalition.com/articles/2012/20120706002-obama-arms-treaty.html

Big Teddy :munchin

Happy 27th... :munchin

[Paslode]

From Giuns.com

“Every major element ... has major loopholes,” said Peter Herby, head of the International Committee for the Red Cross arms unit. “There is a very high risk this treaty will simply ratify the status quo, rather than changing the status quo.”

“Rather than producing the highest possible international standards for the transfer of all conventional weapons, it would allow many countries to simply continue doing what they're doing,” Herby added.

http://www.guns.com/united-nations-arms-trade-treaty-major-loopholes-10083.html

[afchic]

Many senators express concerns over arms treaty

By Donna Cassata - The Associated Press
Posted : Thursday Jul 26, 2012 19:00:03 EDT

WASHINGTON — A bipartisan group of 51 senators on Thursday threatened to oppose a global treaty regulating international weapons trade if it falls short in protecting the constitutional right to bear arms.

In a letter to President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, the senators expressed serious concerns with the draft treaty that has circulated at the United Nations, saying that it signals an expansion of gun control that would be unacceptable.

The world’s nations are pressing to complete the first legally binding treaty dealing with arms trade and preventing the transfer of weapons to armed groups and terrorists. The 193-member U.N. General Assembly is expected to approve the treaty this month.

The senators said as the negotiations continue, “we strongly encourage your administration not only to uphold our country’s constitutional protections of civilian firearms ownership, but to ensure — if necessary, by breaking consensus at the July conference — that the treaty will explicitly recognize the legitimacy of lawful activities associated with firearms, including but not limited to the right of self-defense.

“As members of the United States Senate, we will oppose the ratification of any Arms Trade Treaty that falls short of this standard,” they wrote.

The lawmakers insisted that the treaty should explicitly recognize the legitimacy of hunting, sport shooting and other lawful activities.

They also raised concerns that the draft defines international arms transfers as including transport across national territory while requiring the monitor and control of arms in transit.

The National Rifle Association opposes the treaty, saying its members will never surrender the right to bear arms to the United Nations.

The treaty has been in the works since 2006. Abandoning the Bush administration opposition, the Obama supported an assembly resolution to hold this year’s four-week conference on the treaty.

In April, the U.S. assistant secretary of state for international security and nonproliferation, Thomas Countryman, reiterated U.S. support for a treaty.

“We want any treaty to make it more difficult and expensive to conduct illicit, illegal and destabilizing transfers of arms,” he said. “But we do not want something that would make legitimate international arms trade more cumbersome than the hurdles United States exporters already face.”

[Pericles]

When someone tells you that it is a living document, you may rest assured that that person intends to kill it.

[Richard]

When someone tells you that it is a living document, you may rest assured that that person intends to kill it.

I disagree.

And so it goes...

Richard :munchin

[Badger52]

The senators said as the negotiations continue, “we strongly encourage your administration not only to uphold our country’s constitutional protections of civilian firearms ownership, but to ensure — if necessary, by breaking consensus at the July conference — that the treaty will explicitly recognize the legitimacy of lawful activities associated with firearms, including but not limited to the right of self-defense.

“As members of the United States Senate, we will oppose the ratification of any Arms Trade Treaty that falls short of this standard,” they wrote.

The lawmakers insisted that the treaty should explicitly recognize the legitimacy of hunting, sport shooting and other lawful activities.
Senate Amendment 2575 (tucked into the Cybersecurity bill) gets face-time from the AWB crowd (http://thehill.com/video/senate/240657-cybersecurity-bill-includes-gun-control-measure); no mags or feeding devices over 10 rounds (except the .22). (sound familiar?)

These are naturally called "reasonable" measures.
:rolleyes:

[Streck-Fu]

I disagree.

And so it goes...

Richard :munchin

Depends on how the individual considers it a 'living' document. It can be changed and added to through the amendment process but interpretation of the original text shall not change according to whim.

[Paslode]

Because hearing a narrowing of firearms uses, I would not be surprised see a compromise in the near future....

From the mouth Bill Kristol:

People have a right to handguns and hunting rifles … I don’t think they have a right to semiautomatic, quasi–machine guns that can shoot hundred of bullets at a time. And I actually think the Democrats are being foolish as they are being cowardly. I think there is more support for some moderate forms of gun control.

Read more: http://swampland.time.com/2012/07/23/gunclingers-aurora-assault-weapons-and-the-rise-of-mass-shootings/?iid=sl-article-arenapage#ixzz222danoVT


Bill Kristol on Foxnews:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJZRAt9PNeI&feature=player_embedded

51 Senators:

The senators said as the negotiations continue, "we strongly encourage your administration not only to uphold our country's constitutional protections of civilian firearms ownership, but to ensure — if necessary, by breaking consensus at the July conference — that the treaty will explicitly recognize the legitimacy of lawful activities associated with firearms, including but not limited to the right of self-defense.

"As members of the United States Senate, we will oppose the ratification of any Arms Trade Treaty that falls short of this standard," they wrote.

The lawmakers insisted that the treaty should explicitly recognize the legitimacy of hunting, sport shooting and other lawful activities.

The State Department would like to postpone any agreement until after the November elections:

U.S. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said in a statement Friday evening that the U.S. supports a second round of negotiations next year.

"While we sought to conclude the month's negotiations with a treaty, more time is a reasonable request for such a complex and critical issue," the satement said.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20120728/un-un-arms-trade-treaty/

[ZonieDiver]

and other lawful activities.

I think that pretty well covers it, doesn't it? :munchin

[Sarski]

How about the term "non-negotiable." Why are there even negotiations going on? That makes it seem like more of citizens rights will indeed at some point be taken away. Maybe not as much as these politicians would like (through negotiations and compromise) but eroded and taken away. Then, there will be a new set of negotiations in a few years, or after the 2016 elections to take away what is left of those, and so on.:mad:

[Paslode]

I think that pretty well covers it, doesn't it? :munchin


No. What is considered lawful is up for grabs according to Scalia.


Justice Scalia on 2nd Amendment Limitations: 'It Will Have to Be Decided'

(CNSNews.com) - Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia says "yes, there are some limitations that can be imposed" on the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. It's up to future court cases to determine what those limitations are, he said on "Fox News Sunday."

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/justice-scalia-2nd-amendment-limitations-it-will-have-be-decided

From The Blaze:

Conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on Sunday left open the possibility that some types of guns could be regulated by the government, such as assault weapons capable of holding 100 rounds of ammunition.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/justice-scalia-it-will-have-to-be-decided-whether-govt-can-regulate-some-types-of-guns/#ooid=9oOGlpNTq1tFBc2HcXcA-ox6lXZwCgEj

Mags and firearms sales and prices are going to shoot through the roof!

[ZonieDiver]

No. What is considered lawful is up for grabs according to Scalia.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/justice-scalia-2nd-amendment-limitations-it-will-have-be-decided

From The Blaze:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/justice-scalia-it-will-have-to-be-decided-whether-govt-can-regulate-some-types-of-guns/#ooid=9oOGlpNTq1tFBc2HcXcA-ox6lXZwCgEj
!

Granted that lately I have been watching The Disney Channel more than FoxNews (or CBS/NBC-Olympics coverage sucks/MSNBC/et al), I did follow your links and read all the articles, and even watched the entire video of his interview with Wallace (Chris, not Mike - or George... was Wallace awake during the interview, he looked as if he were dozing off).

I didn't notice anything that differed very much from what has been said MANY times as regards legislation about firearms. While he did mention arms that cannot be "borne" (not The Bourne Conspiracy), such as artillery, he did indicate that man-portable rocket launchers would have to be considered. When asked specifically about "assault rifles" and mega-round magazines, he replied, "We'll have to see." (paraphrasing, perhaps, but close)

That's what I used to tell my daughters when they asked if they could do something and I didn't want to say NO right then. I'd say, "We'll see." (It meant NO.)

At any rate, I didn't see anything alarming enough to merit mention in three threads - including a mention of the right-wing lunatic fringe (and for those who might think I'm picking on them... there IS a left-wing lunatic fringe, too).

Remember... it is easy for "Paul Revere" to devolve into "Chicken Little"! :munchin

[Badger52]

I also see this as normal stuff, but it happens to be normal stuff I don't discount just because it's happened before. Important to keep majorities in the Legislature. It was a VERY narrow vote, but it only took 3 weeks to move the '94 AWB in the House (companion to Feinstein's version) from intro to law.

Big picture folks.

[Dozer523]

No. What is considered lawful is up for grabs according to Scalia. Well, of course it is. He's a Supreme Court Justice. Interpreting the Constitution is his Job.

[Paslode]

Well, of course it is. He's a Supreme Court Justice. Interpreting the Constitution is his Job.

True. The Court mentioned in the Heller decision that not all firearms were necessarily protected under the 2nd Admendment and some could possibly be banned.

The Court also added dicta regarding the private ownership of machine guns. In doing so, it suggested the elevation of the "in common use at the time" prong of the Miller decision, which by itself protects handguns, over the first prong (protecting arms that "have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia"), which may not by itself protect machine guns: "It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service – M16 rifles and the like – may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home.


The new debate is going to be about what is a lawful activity and what is a lawful firearm. Lawful could be an AR-15 or it might end up being single shot only. And because it is up for interpretation TPTB are jockeying for position, though it appears (at this time) most are jumping on the band wagon for increased restrictions.

Bill Kristols remarks reminded me of something that would expect from out of Bloomberg's mouth.

[tonyz]

William Kristol seems like an nice, well educated fellow.

I'd be surprised if he knew which end of a screw driver to use properly - but he could probably debate the issue to no end.

I'm beginning to think that something might be in the water in Manhattan.

[koz]

Well, of course it is. He's a Supreme Court Justice. Interpreting the Constitution is his Job.

Does anything think that he said that to persuade conservative voters to elect a conservative president? Scalia knows that Kennedy is going to retire in the next admin and maybe Thomas. Liberal president could put a 6-3 swing on the court and that will last for at least 20-30 years. Roberts in now the wild card. Scalia also knows that people get very serious about gun rights and the population has heavily favored pro-gun politicians in recent past. I'm no legal scholar but I can't find any supreme court ruling where the banning of Ax Heads in public was upheld past the 2nd Amendment passage.

[Paslode]

Does anything think that he said that to persuade conservative voters to elect a conservative president? Scalia knows that Kennedy is going to retire in the next admin and maybe Thomas. Liberal president could put a 6-3 swing on the court and that will last for at least 20-30 years. Roberts in now the wild card. Scalia also knows that people get very serious about gun rights and the population has heavily favored pro-gun politicians in recent past. I'm no legal scholar but I can't find any supreme court ruling where the banning of Ax Heads in public was upheld past the 2nd Amendment passage.

Possibly. And I think it was a reminder of what was said during Heller.

I think what gets me most is the talking heads (like O'Reilly & Kristol who likely have armed body guards) jumping on a popular band wagon, in this case restricting firearms, ammo purchases and types magazines. A simple solution that sounds wonderful and plays well to the audience, but it doesn't solve the problem and it doesn't get to the root cause of the problem.

[Badger52]

I think what gets me most is the talking heads (like O'Reilly & Kristol who likely have armed body guards) jumping on a popular band wagon, in this case restricting firearms, ammo purchases and types magazines.This is nothing new at all for O'Reilly. He deals alot in "American values" type issues, but any firearms issue sustained will cause him to show his true stripes. He is too smart not to know the ultimate purpose of codifying what was written in the Bill of Rights (that Hamilton advised against doing, now shown to be a correct assessment imo). So he can't claim ignorance.

He can talk all day about why an oppressive city would close down a little girl's lemonade stand because she didn't have a business permit; but get him into throwing off (or preventing) shackles of tyranny type stuff and he's pretty dismissive. He's in show business.

[Paslode]

He's in show business.

Inside Addition = tabloid/gossip.

That is pretty much universal in the world of news these days.

[ZonieDiver]

Inside Addition = tabloid/gossip.

That is pretty much universal in the world of news these days.

Including Limbaugh and Beck?

[Paslode]

Including Limbaugh and Beck?

All of them in varying degrees indulge in gossip, tabloid and sensationalist journalism, news or whatever you want to call it....that is what puts money in the bank.

IMO

[greenberetTFS]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/27/un-fails-to-reach-deal-on-global-arms-trade-treaty-as-us-asks-for-more-time/?test=latestnews

Big Teddy :munchin

[greenberetTFS]

It amazes me how all of these TV talking heads think they are completely qualified to talk about firearms and the Second Amendment without knowing anything about them.

Exactly,I concur 100%.............:mad:

Big Teddy :munchin

[Paslode]

There was this older lady in the voting line on Tuesday who said to me she was glad it was just about over. My response, it starts all over again in 3 days.

Now that the election is over, while most have had at least one night of peace and there is no fear of repercussion at the voting booth ..... the folks in DC, the rust that never sleeps were busy with one of the many pre-election veils and revealed its ugly face again.

Hours after U.S. President Barack Obama was re-elected, the United States backed a U.N. committee's call on Wednesday to renew debate over a draft international treaty to regulate the $70 billion global conventional arms trade.

U.N. delegates and gun control activists have complained that talks collapsed in July largely because Obama feared attacks from Republican rival Mitt Romney if his administration was seen as supporting the pact, a charge Washington denies.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/07/us-arms-treaty-un-idUSBRE8A627J20121107

[afchic]

There was this older lady in the voting line on Tuesday who said to me she was glad it was just about over. My response, it starts all over again in 3 days.

Now that the election is over, while most have had at least one night of peace and there is no fear of repercussion at the voting booth ..... the folks in DC, the rust that never sleeps were busy with one of the many pre-election veils and revealed its ugly face again.





http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/07/us-arms-treaty-un-idUSBRE8A627J20121107

Any treaty needs to be ratified by the Senate. Even the Dems won't go down this road, their consituents won't let them.

[medic&commo]

afchic,
I hope you're right. But I'm being pessimistic, IMO the POTUS & Congress will find a way to spin it or bury it until the treaty becomes law.
If the majority either cared or was informed I would say we're OK.
But having both the majority & MSM squarely behind BHO I hold little hope.
m&c

[afchic]

afchic,
I hope you're right. But I'm being pessimistic, IMO the POTUS & Congress will find a way to spin it or bury it until the treaty becomes law.
If the majority either cared or was informed I would say we're OK.
But having both the majority & MSM squarely behind BHO I hold little hope.
m&c

IMHO won't happen. To ratify a treaty you need more than 50 members of the Senate to vote for it. They need 2/3 and I can't imagine that 16 Republican members of the Senate would vote for that.

Maybe I am being optomistic, but I still believe in our Constitution, and I believe it will see us through this dark time in our history.

[Streck-Fu]

IMHO won't happen. To ratify a treaty you need more than 50 members of the Senate to vote for it. They need 2/3 and I can't imagine that 16 Republican members of the Senate would vote for that.

Executive Order.

I would hope this couldn't happen, but am not above suspecting the possibility.

[BKKMAN]

A good primer / synopsis from the Senate page on treaties and the Senate's role:

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Treaties.htm

[Streck-Fu]

A good primer / synopsis from the Senate page on treaties and the Senate's role:

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Treaties.htm


The Constitution's framers gave the Senate a share of the treaty power in order to give the president the benefit of the Senate's advice and counsel, check presidential power, and safeguard the sovereignty of the states by giving each state an equal vote in the treatymaking process.

Until the 17th Am came along that is....

From that link:

Executive Agreements

In addition to treaties, which may not enter into force and become binding on the United States without the advice and consent of the Senate, there are other types of international agreements concluded by the executive branch and not submitted to the Senate. These are classified in the United States as executive agreements, not as treaties, a distinction that has only domestic significance. International law regards each mode of international agreement as binding, whatever its designation under domestic law.

The challenge of obtaining two-thirds vote on treaties was one of the motivating forces behind the vast increase in executive agreements after World War II. In 1952, for instance, the United States signed 14 treaties and 291 executive agreements. This was a larger number of executive agreements than had been reached during the entire century of 1789 to 1889. Executive agreements continue to grow at a rapid rate.

In recent years, the growth in executive agreements is also attributable to the sheer volume of business conducted between the United States and other countries, coupled with the already heavy workload of the Senate. Many international agreements are of relatively minor importance and would needlessly overburden the Senate if they were submitted as treaties for advice and consent. Another factor has been the passage of legislation authorizing the executive branch to conclude international agreements in certain fields, such as foreign aid, agriculture, and trade. Treaties have also been approved that authorize further agreements between the parties. According to a 1984 study by the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, "88.3 percent of international agreements reached between 1946 and 1972 were based at least partly on statutory authority; 6.2 percent were treaties, and 5.5 percent were based solely on executive authority."

[Go Devil]

I never dreamed that my government would knowingly allow illegal purchases of thousands of firearms intending for them to migrate into the hands of Mexican drug cartels...
I also never dreamed that my government would allow our own foreign liason and security detail to be murdered.
All of the above with no one held to account.

If anyone believes that the future of America does not include the legislated surrender of all firearms, then you my comrades are suffering from retarded upper brain functions.

What would Greece look like today with an armed populace?
England?
Ireland?
...

[Paslode]

Any treaty needs to be ratified by the Senate. Even the Dems won't go down this road, their consituents won't let them.

Hopefully.

What I found most interesting about the news was the administration shelving it until immediately after the election as a means of avoiding the topic....which likely would have had the NRA and others going on the war path prior to the election and given Romney some ammo.

And the other point was that it didn't take long for them (Admin, Media, Etc.) to swerve back to the fun and games we have experienced during the past 4 years.

[afchic]

I never dreamed that my government would knowingly allow illegal purchases of thousands of firearms intending for them to migrate into the hands of Mexican drug cartels...
I also never dreamed that my government would allow our own foreign liason and security detail to be murdered.
All of the above with no one held to account.

If anyone believes that the future of America does not include the legislated surrender of all firearms, then you my comrades are suffering from retarded upper brain functions.

What would Greece look like today with an armed populace?
England?
Ireland?
...

I am not sure about you, but I sure as hell am not giving up my weapons. I am sure there are plenty of QP's, active and retired members that agree with me. Is our government willing to risk a civil war? I am not sure they are, but I can guarantee that is what will happen if they try to take away the legally owned firearms of this county. Our country was founded in part on the 2nd ammendment, and I sure as hell would rather die standing up for my rights than die on my knees.

[ironyoshi]

Obamacare was supposed to be passed on a 2/3rds vote, but the Dems used an arcane budgetary definition to squeak it by with less.

I don't see how that definition could be used to pass this treaty, but then again, nobody knew about that rule before it was used to strongarm Affordable Healthcare into law.

[ZonieDiver]

Obamacare was supposed to be passed on a 2/3rds vote, but the Dems used an arcane budgetary definition to squeak it by with less.

I don't see how that definition could be used to pass this treaty, but then again, nobody knew about that rule before it was used to strongarm Affordable Healthcare into law.

"I'm not sure I agree with you a hundred percent on your police work, there, Lou."

First of all, it wasn't 2/3 that was required, but 60% - 60 votes out of 100 (which is required for cloture - look it up, if you don't know).

The "arcane budgetary definition" is called reconciliation. It is hardly 'arcane' but is not usually used as Harry Reid chose to do in this case. (Which will - well, if the Rs ever get their shit together- bite the Ds in the ass someday.)

nobody knew about that rule...

I'm pretty sure everyone in the Senate knew about that rule before it was used. Look it up. It's been used a lot. Perhaps you'd like to define "nobody".

"Facts are stubborn things..."
"Ready, fire, aim!"
"We're not going to go around the mulberry bush again... are we?"

[Box]

The absolute chicanery over the last four years followed by a reelection win of over 100 electoral votes while sitting on the worst unemployment record since FDR should give even the goofiest tin-foil hat wearing, living in grandma's basement, conspiracy nut the right to say.....

"See, I told you so."


...even JJJ got reelected and he is in the nuthouse, under investigation
WHO IN THE FUCK WAS RUNNING AGAINST JJJ ? Was it the same guy that lost to Marion Barry after he was busted for smoking crack?
How do you loose an election to derelicts like this? American citizens put people like this in office, and yet, someone that is shopping around for a properly sized foil hat is the one we refer to as the "nut"

TIN FOIL HATS ARE A GOOD IDEA PEOPLE.

I will never again sit back and say "that will never happen in this country"
In fact, I am finally going to fabricate my own foil hat.
The rest of you can continue to subject yourself to those mind control rays being transmitted through your cell phone, and the mind control chemical in the fluoride in your toothpaste...
I am going to be wrapping my head in foil from now on. I am even going to put some foil in my MICH
...just in case.

[Go Devil]

I am not sure about you, but I sure as hell am not giving up my weapons. I am sure there are plenty of QP's, active and retired members that agree with me. Is our government willing to risk a civil war? I am not sure they are, but I can guarantee that is what will happen if they try to take away the legally owned firearms of this county. Our country was founded in part on the 2nd ammendment, and I sure as hell would rather die standing up for my rights than die on my knees.

Are you willing to die?
Wait until your county SWAT is in your living room at 3am because your progressive thinking neighbor is offended by your ideals.
Civil War?
You are outnumbered; that was proved on the 6th of November.
Read the top two points in my previous post and tell me who is willing to stamp in blood as one would a mud puddle.

[Barbarian]

Is our government willing to risk a civil war?

Would be a pretty one-sided war, IMHO. Not in favor of the government.

[afchic]

Are you willing to die?
Wait until your county SWAT is in your living room at 3am because your progressive thinking neighbor is offended by your ideals.
Civil War?
You are outnumbered; that was proved on the 6th of November.
Read the top two points in my previous post and tell me who is willing to stamp in blood as one would a mud puddle.

I don't know about you sweetheart, but I put this uniform on 18 years ago to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against ALL enemies foriegn and DOMESTIC. So in answer to your question, YES I AM.

We are not outnumbered. We are still a 50/50 nation. So you may be willing to stand by and allow your rights to be trampled on because you believe "we are outnumbered". If that was the way of thinking of our founding fathers at the birth of our nation, we would all be talking with a British Accent.

Are you a sheepdog, or are you a sheep? You sound like a sheep to me.

[Streck-Fu]

You are outnumbered; that was proved on the 6th of November.
Read the top two points in my previous post and tell me who is willing to stamp in blood as one would a mud puddle.

Out numbered by sheep. Not outnumbered in those willing to take action. Not outgunned either.

[cat in the hat]

outnumbered is not the same as outmanned.

I'll bet on 5 sheep dogs over 500 sheep any day.

[Go Devil]

I don't know about you sweetheart, but I put this uniform on 18 years ago to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against ALL enemies foriegn and DOMESTIC. So in answer to your question, YES I AM.

We are not outnumbered. We are still a 50/50 nation. So you may be willing to stand by and allow your rights to be trampled on because you believe "we are outnumbered". If that was the way of thinking of our founding fathers at the birth of our nation, we would all be talking with a British Accent.

Are you a sheepdog, or are you a sheep? You sound like a sheep to me.

Thank you for the words of endearment.

"This is a very important lesson. You must never confuse faith that you will prevail in the end—which you can never afford to lose—with the discipline to confront the most brutal facts of your current reality, whatever they might be."
James Stockdale

23523

This is our current reality.

Are you working to confront this? How?

I wore a uniform for a number of years as well and still show my decorations on the wall, but I understand this does nothing to slow the growth of domestic enimies of the Republic.

Pushing buttons in a booth and calling your representatives is not going to fix this current reality.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/11/09/republicans-find-religion-on-immigration-reform-is-it-too-late/

The Republican party is dead.

How are you going to confront this?

[Paslode]

Rather than call for a civil war if the government ever tried to take away firearms, wouldn't it be better to just march by the millions in Washington, D.C.? I mean to carry out an actual civil war, you'd need millions of people to side with it. So why not just have said millions march in protest. I think THAT would get the message through to Congress.


My guess would be that TPTB would cordon off large swath of land as off limits and TSA VIPER would setup road blocks any March of that size chances of reaching DC are slim.

With that in mind RL's topic on secession might be the way to go.

The Republican party is dead.

Both parties have been perverted, subverted and are pretty much facade.

[ZonieDiver]

My guess would be that TPTB would cordon off large swath of land as off limits and TSA VIPER would setup road blocks any March of that size chances of reaching DC are slim.

With that in mind RL's topic on secession might be the way to go.



Both parties have been perverted, subverted and are pretty much facade.

As the Aussies say, "No worries, mate!"

I read somewhere that the TSA just became unionized. Therefore, if my experience with federal empoyees is an indicator, all "we" need do on "our" March on Washington is time our arrival at those dreaded, jackbooted, TSA VIPR cordons at precisely 1600.

The VIPRs on shift would have started packing up at 1545 so they could be out the door on the way home at precisely 1559.59. The next shift of those in shape, well-tailored uniform wearing weapons handling experts (though not testing well on the range) would still be in the union-mandated break room having their second cup of coffee and joking about how they were going to stop those marchers.

If "we" were quiet, and moved along quickly, "we" could probably get a couple divisions past them before they put down the doughnut, looked in their pocket for the bullet, and tried to run to the cordon.

[afchic]

Thank you for the words of endearment.

"This is a very important lesson. You must never confuse faith that you will prevail in the end—which you can never afford to lose—with the discipline to confront the most brutal facts of your current reality, whatever they might be."
James Stockdale

23523

This is our current reality.

Are you working to confront this? How?

I wore a uniform for a number of years as well and still show my decorations on the wall, but I understand this does nothing to slow the growth of domestic enimies of the Republic.

Pushing buttons in a booth and calling your representatives is not going to fix this current reality.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/11/09/republicans-find-religion-on-immigration-reform-is-it-too-late/

The Republican party is dead.

How are you going to confront this?
I don't believe the party is dead. I believe the party needs to pull its head out of its collective ass. We need to stop alientating those that think like us, and find.ways to have them.gravitate towards us vs the Dems.

To me, the nswer is our youth. As.many have said in other threads, we need to get involved in the lives if our children and their friends. By shiwing them our values vs preaching at them.with words we show them how to live independant of the "give me free stuff" they arw gwtting from the other side.

My daughter belongs to the local FCA. It has well over 500 students. That is a great start. So is her inviting her criends to her church youth group.

There are.ways. We just need to stop talking and start DOING.

[Sigaba]

This is our current reality.That is not reality, that is a map.:rolleyes:

[ZonieDiver]

This is our current reality.


More reality around here would be most welcomed, especially in this thread.

Speaking of reality:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9QV4TCEEXs&feature=related

The Tao of Barnes

[Go Devil]

That is not reality, that is a map.:rolleyes:

Come on Sigaba! You are more eloquent than that.

[BOfH]

MOO: EO and BATFE, "under the radar", at least until the 2014 congress-critter elections. The House will talk a lot but do little, the same with the Senate, considering that 20[1] D Senate seats are up in 2014. Those same 2A loving folks that put BHO in for round two might make him a lame duck for the last two years if he loses the Senate, if he comes out definitively against guns. The NRA had(has?) a formidable ground game when there is clear proof. Unfortunately, "under the radar" has worked this time around, of course the MSM helped too. One other thing, expect states rights to come front and center both with 2A and ObamaCare.

My .02

[1] http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/228759-vulnerable-democratic-senators-low-on-2014-money

[Dozer523]

Are you willing to die?
Civil War?.
Are you willing to die? Would be a pretty one-sided war, IMHO. Not in favor of the government.I wouldn't bet my life on that. I, and lots of us, swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution (all of it).
So grab your gun, load up, take to the streets, march on Washington.
When I see you, all you are is center of mass. I won't even have to think about it because I swore that oath.

I think it's time to stop all this silly ass talk about civil war.

[Box]

I'd love to follow this issue, but I am far too busy learning about who our Generals are screwing.

...move along. Nothing to see here.

[Dozer523]

I'd love to follow this issue, but I am far too busy learning about who our Generals are screwing.

...move along. Nothing to see here.

Me too. We need a scorecard.
And I thought all I was going to do this Winter was look out the window and wait for Spring.

[Go Devil]

Are you willing to die? I wouldn't bet my life on that. I, and lots of us, swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution (all of it).
So grab your gun, load up, take to the streets, march on Washington.
When I see you, all you are is center of mass. I won't even have to think about it because I swore that oath.

I think it's time to stop all this silly ass talk about civil war.

Willing to die? Yes, I've offered before.

Marches are are as useful as a guard dog without teeth.

Civil War? No, I don't see that happening as long as there is food on the table and cable television.

With Ted Turner's high level of income and the advances of modern science this political environment could last, not forever, but at least 245 maybe 300 years.

[Dozer523]

Are you willing to die?
Wait until your county SWAT is in your living room at 3am because your progressive thinking neighbor is offended by your ideals.
Civil War?
You are outnumbered; that was proved on the 6th of November.
Read the top two points in my previous post and tell me who is willing to stamp in blood as one would a mud puddle.
Oh, my mistake. I took this as you calling for armed insurrection.
References to SWAT in my living room, ok ok AFCHIC's living room , and "Civil War". I just assumed it was YOU who would "stamp in blood as one would in a mud puddle". Will you please explain that post? Thank you.

[Barbarian]

I wouldn't bet my life on that. I, and lots of us, swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution (all of it).
So grab your gun, load up, take to the streets, march on Washington.
When I see you, all you are is center of mass. I won't even have to think about it because I swore that oath.

What I intended to imply, was that defenders of the Constitution would surely win a civil war (hypothetically speaking.)

[Paslode]

What I intended to imply, was that defenders of the Constitution would surely win a civil war (hypothetically speaking.)

You would like to think so, but I wouldn't bet on it....without a plan and resources your civil war will likely be short lived.

[ddoering]

You would like to think so, but I wouldn't bet on it....without a plan and resources your civil war will likely be short lived.

Given the history of insurections in the last 300 years it matters more that you have a force willing to stick it out for 10-20 years rather than a numerical/technological superiority.

[Go Devil]

Oh, my mistake. I took this as you calling for armed insurrection.
References to SWAT in my living room, ok ok AFCHIC's living room , and "Civil War". I just assumed it was YOU who would "stamp in blood as one would in a mud puddle". Will you please explain that post? Thank you.

Are you willing to die?

I hear "I'll die before I give up my guns" so often fleetly that I believe little actual thought is brought to bear on the possible event let alone the actions leading up to said "cold dead hands". I have held more cold dead hands than I care to count on both of mine. Not something I take lightly. I would prefer that an individual truely contemplate such actions and their ramifications.

Wait until your county SWAT is in your living room at 3am because your progressive thinking neighbor is offended by your ideals.

I believe that voluntary turn in / confiscation is on the table, but I also believe that cost prohibitive measures on ammunition is more likely.
I believe that laws are not designed for criminals, but for law abiding citizens and should a "pen" make us all criminals, then, following the course of law, you will find unwelcomed visitors in your living room at their most opportune time.

Civil War?

Incredibly unlikely. Further comments posted in the Secession thread.

You are outnumbered; that was proved on the 6th of November.

Democratic win.

Read the top two points in my previous post and tell me who is willing to stamp in blood as one would a mud puddle.

Those two points were Operation Fast and Furious or Gunwalker: BATF and other complicit agencies allowing thousands of illegally purchased firearms to be transferred into the hands of Mexican drug cartels resulting in the death of a Border Patrol agent and potentially more Mexican officers and civilians. I am willing to provide sources; many are on this site under the Fast/Furious thread.
The other being the current malfunction that took place in Bengazi; also listed on this site.

These actions have taken place under the current administration, and based upon my reading, this administration is complicit and thus willing to "stamp in blood as one would a mud puddle".
Form follows function. If they are willing to allow murder of their own and innocents (Function), they will probably find a way to legitimize said actions (Form).


I hope this clarifies my comments, Sigaba puts me to shame.

[Paslode]

Given the history of insurections in the last 300 years it matters more that you have a force willing to stick it out for 10-20 years rather than a numerical/technological superiority.


Very true. At the time I posted I was thinking along the same lines, but I was viewing it from the perspective of those that say we want to have a revolution and we want to secede....they have no plan and they have put little to no thought how they are going to accomplish it and what will be required.

[Dozer523]

Very true. At the time I posted I was thinking along the same lines, but I was viewing it from the perspective of those that say we want to have a revolution and we want to secede....That's a relief

they have no plan and they have put little to no thought how they are going to accomplish it and what will be required.
Cuz based on post 63 and 76 kinda looked like you might of meant "we" instead of "they".

[Paslode]

That's a relief


Cuz based on post 63 and 76 kinda looked like you might of meant "we" instead of "they".



63....IMO, there is no way the TPTB are going to allow a million gun owners march on DC, they would likely cordon them off like Fred Phelps. If you want to take the time to dig through the archives of Sipsey you'll find this is what has happened before during a open carry gathering.

Talk, possibly even threats of secession is another avenue for states and/or it's people to voice their discontent with DC....and you don't need 1 million people to march there.


And IMO....both parties are pockets of pus.


76.....You would like to think good would prevail over evil, but it doesn't always work out that way.


As with any of these extreme ideas, you better think hard and fast about the potential secondary and tertiary effects before stepping over that line, and you better have a good idea of what you're getting into before you sign on.....because if it goes bad, you won't get a re-spawn.

[ZonieDiver]

63....IMO, there is no way the TPTB are going to allow a million gun owners march on DC, they would likely cordon them off like Fred Phelps. If you want to take the time to dig through the archives of Sipsey you'll find this is what has happened before during a open carry gathering.

Well, that's an hour of my life I'll never get back!

I think I have above average "google fu" skills. I'll admit that blog's search function isn't the easiest to use. However, the ONLY reference I found to an "open carry gathering" is this from Monday, February 8, 2010:

Restore the Constitution Open-Carry Rally -- 19 April 2010 -- Fort Hunt National Park, VA

http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2010/02/restore-constitution-open-carry-rally.html

Is this what you are referencing. or is there another that I've missed?

If this is it, I missed the references to the 'cordons' that kept people away. I saw comments after the event crowing about how it went off, drove the liberals nuts, and got coverage on CNN and Al Jazeera.

By the way, those guys (Sipsey) have some serious screws loose. MOO

[ZonieDiver]

My guess would be that TPTB would cordon off large swath of land as off limits and TSA VIPER would setup road blocks any March of that size chances of reaching DC are slim.


As the Aussies say, "No worries, mate!"

I read somewhere that the TSA just became unionized. Therefore, if my experience with federal empoyees is an indicator, all "we" need do on "our" March on Washington is time our arrival at those dreaded, jackbooted, TSA VIPR cordons at precisely 1600.

The VIPRs on shift would have started packing up at 1545 so they could be out the door on the way home at precisely 1559.59. The next shift of those in shape, well-tailored uniform wearing weapons handling experts (though not testing well on the range) would still be in the union-mandated break room having their second cup of coffee and joking about how they were going to stop those marchers.

If "we" were quiet, and moved along quickly, "we" could probably get a couple divisions past them before they put down the doughnut, looked in their pocket for the bullet, and tried to run to the cordon.

I have to apologize for making light of your quoted post (at the top of this post). Extensive research online has revealed this picture to me. Rumor has it that this is one of the TSA's vaunted VIPR teams rehearsing the rapid deployment of their "Cordon Off DC" unit:

[Paslode]

Well, that's an hour of my life I'll never get back!

I think I have above average "google fu" skills. I'll admit that blog's search function isn't the easiest to use. However, the ONLY reference I found to an "open carry gathering" is this from Monday, February 8, 2010:



http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2010/02/restore-constitution-open-carry-rally.html

Is this what you are referencing. or is there another that I've missed?

If this is it, I missed the references to the 'cordons' that kept people away. I saw comments after the event crowing about how it went off, drove the liberals nuts, and got coverage on CNN and Al Jazeera.

By the way, those guys (Sipsey) have some serious screws loose. MOO

Okay I used a little liberty with cordon, but in effect some protests/gatherings have in the recent past been limited to an area away from the intended recipients of the protest and out of the public eye....thus the protest is somewhat silenced or minimized.

That could be the rally I mentioned, and yes they (Sipsey) are out there on quite a few levels, but the site has had some good stuff on Fast & Furious that wasn't available on the MSM.

The one gathering I recall reading about the Parks Department allowed them to gather on the other side of the Potomac, but not on the side they originally requested.

HR 347 might also play into a protest of gun owners.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/restricted.asp

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr347enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr347enr.pdf

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2012/03/the_anti_protest_bill_signed_by_barack_obama_is_a_ quiet_attack_on_free_speech_.html

[ZonieDiver]

Okay I used a little liberty with cordon, but in effect some protests/gatherings have in the recent past been limited to an area away from the intended recipients of the protest and out of the public eye....thus the protest is somewhat silenced or minimized.

That could be the rally I mentioned, and yes they (Sipsey) are out there on quite a few levels, but the site has had some good stuff on Fast & Furious that wasn't available on the MSM.

The one gathering I recall reading about the Parks Department allowed them to gather on the other side of the Potomac, but not on the side they originally requested.

HR 347 might also play into a protest of gun owners.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/restricted.asp

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr347enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr347enr.pdf

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2012/03/the_anti_protest_bill_signed_by_barack_obama_is_a_ quiet_attack_on_free_speech_.html

Okay I used a little liberty with cordon, but...

No shit, Sherlock!

There are other ways to characterize your phrase "used a little liberty". "Making shit up" comes to mind. I may be alone in this here, but I want you to STOP IT! Now! If you have a link to a site - even those Sipsey Tin Foilers - post it. If not... DON'T post your "rumors", the voices in your head, or whatever.

As for HR 347, well, that's what the courts are for in this country. I'm sure forces on the right, and left, will be challenging this extension of long-existing law.

IT is SO far from a "cordon" that it's unbelievable.

Where's Susan Powter when you need her?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ur0g-R7ZODY

[Paslode]

No shit, Sherlock!

There are other ways to characterize your phrase "used a little liberty". "Making shit up" comes to mind. I may be alone in this here, but I want you to STOP IT! Now! If you have a link to a site - even those Sipsey Tin Foilers - post it. If not... DON'T post your "rumors", the voices in your head, or whatever.

As for HR 347, well, that's what the courts are for in this country. I'm sure forces on the right, and left, will be challenging this extension of long-existing law.

IT is SO far from a "cordon" that it's unbelievable.

Where's Susan Powter when you need her?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ur0g-R7ZODY

The open carry gathering was merely a confinement to a specific area without riot control, the G20 in Pittsburg could be a better example of a cordon.

Fair enough, I'll do my best ZD to keep it in context.

But keep in mind that was in reference to Broadswords post:

Rather than call for a civil war if the government ever tried to take away firearms, wouldn't it be better to just march by the millions in Washington, D.C.?

I have my doubts the folks in DC would ever allow a large scale Pro-Gun Protest to occur within it's borders....and if a march as described ever got legs, I would bet money the TPTB would cordon off a large restricted zone to thwart this massive group of potentially hostile protestors that were marching on DC.