H.R. 2159, the Disarming American Citizens Act

Originally posted by MrSpad

Originally posted by hillbilly4rent
reply to post by Danbones

 

I agree on that Obama had a Chair in the UN Security Council in 09 so how do we know he didnt give his approval to run us through

Off topic, I thought it was against con. law for a pres. to occupy two seats of governing during his term.

Obama chaired a meeting as in he led a debate. And anything like this would have to go through congress. And even if it passed then it would only outlaw large scale arms tranfers to certain rebel groups that commit genocide or use child soldiers. This has nothing to with personal fire arms. Not that it will ever pass in the US or the UN.

This U.N. treaty will lead to more gun control in America. "After the treaty is approved and it comes into force, you will find out that it has this implication or that implication and it requires the Congress to adopt some measure that restricts ownership of firearms," former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John R. Bolton warns. "The [Obama] administration knows it cannot obtain this kind of legislation purely in a domestic context. ... They will use an international agreement as an excuse to get domestically what they couldn't otherwise."

The U.N. Small Arms Treaty opens a back door for the Obama administration to force through gun control regulations. Threats to the Second Amendment are as real today as ever.

www.washingtontimes.com...

I beg to differ
a qoute from the link I posted earlier

8 pages discussing a Bill that died in Committee? How sad.

reply to post by felonius

This LEO will not lift a finger take another man's gun. However, I will lift all ten to protect our second amendment rights. Nuf said.
Seeashrink

reply to post by Blaine91555


It doesn't matter if it was defeated. It will be back ...again and again.
Seeashrink

Originally posted by Danbones

Originally posted by MrSpad

Originally posted by hillbilly4rent
reply to post by Danbones

 

I agree on that Obama had a Chair in the UN Security Council in 09 so how do we know he didnt give his approval to run us through

Off topic, I thought it was against con. law for a pres. to occupy two seats of governing during his term.

Obama chaired a meeting as in he led a debate. And anything like this would have to go through congress. And even if it passed then it would only outlaw large scale arms tranfers to certain rebel groups that commit genocide or use child soldiers. This has nothing to with personal fire arms. Not that it will ever pass in the US or the UN.

This U.N. treaty will lead to more gun control in America. "After the treaty is approved and it comes into force, you will find out that it has this implication or that implication and it requires the Congress to adopt some measure that restricts ownership of firearms," former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John R. Bolton warns. "The [Obama] administration knows it cannot obtain this kind of legislation purely in a domestic context. ... They will use an international agreement as an excuse to get domestically what they couldn't otherwise."

The U.N. Small Arms Treaty opens a back door for the Obama administration to force through gun control regulations. Threats to the Second Amendment are as real today as ever.

www.washingtontimes.com...

I beg to differ
a qoute from the link I posted earlier

Who ever wrote that is either an idiot or has an agenda that he is using hyperbole and a lack of facts to support. Of course it is an opinion piece and it is not required to have facts to back it up. Unless you are shipping off 500 Ak-47s to some random rebel army that has child soldiers then your safe. That is if it ever passed. And the US has put so many restrictions on its support for it that it never will. We do sell alot of arms after all.

Originally posted by 2weird2live2rare2die
"it would be difficult to approach a man rapidly firing an sks-m with a thirty round magazine at medium range :



.."or an AR with a 30-round mag, with 30 more loaded mags on his person. Just speculating out loud here. "





Im not even going to read any more replys after the first few just prove my point. this would never happen...people just wish it would so they would have a reason to shoot at people...

[edit on 30-7-2010 by Lateralus51]

This reminds me of the "gun scare" before President Obama had taken office. AR's & AK's sales flying off the charts. NRA has not spoken of this in news as of my latest reading in which I am subscribed.
* IMO Not a good idea as I know in my area it would be a war to try and take away our rights. Here in Ohio Portman for Senator has endorsed right to bear arms and endorsed by the FOP so do homework on the senators you vote for!

Originally posted by seeashrink
reply to post by felonius

 

This LEO will not lift a finger take another man's gun. However, I will lift all ten to protect our second amendment rights. Nuf said.
Seeashrink

Thank you SeeaShrink, you are an American Hero!

You deserve some form of medal for the uprightness of your oath - which even though it's duty, it seems that today, duty is a four letter word when it comes to those who swore the oath to protect America's constitution and have interests outside those of American Interests that are lining thier pockets to destroy our Country.

People that pass legislation meant to imprison Americans for excercising thier God Given freedoms... who would instead watch those same people instead wither in secluded legislative imprisonment...

Originally posted by Blaine91555
8 pages discussing a Bill that died in Committee? How sad.

Hey Blaine - this thread is really about all the attempts these so called Americans are making in subverting Constitutional Freedoms, one of which happens to be our second Amerndment rights to bear arms, to offset a tyrranical government... That pretends to publicly call itself America.

This just happens to be round 532 of the same broken recording....

[edit on 7/31/2010 by Megiddodiddo]

reply to post by whatukno

When they act alone, in my opinion they are nothing better than street gangs.

I hear that response from a lot of people, so now I have to ask . . . have you actually witnessed this phenomenon with your own eyes? I mean, what are you basing this statement on? Personal knowledge of this happening where you live? Because I've gotta say, other than the raid they did on the militias a few months back (and much of what was claimed about them could've been over-dramatized for all we know), I can't think of reported incidents where militia members are committing acts that could be likened street gangs. I know there are the militia extremists and that some of them might very well be dangerous, but some people hear the word "militia' and they act like these guys are going to go out and shoot up the town . . .

I'm not trying to be sarcastic, I'm just trying to find out if there is, indeed, some kind of factual basis to this belief.

reply to post by NightGypsy


I am talking about the constitutionality of Militias.

The Constitution references them in both Article I Section 8 of the United States Constitution and in the 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Now, most people just go with the 2nd Amendment and leave the rest alone.

But it clearly states in Article I Section 8 of the United States Constitution that Militias are under the authority of Congress.

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

www.archives.gov...

If they reject that concept, they aren't a true militia, they are just a bunch of wannabe thugs and again, no better than a street gang.

Once again yes, militias are a great part of this country, without the militia, we wouldn't have this country to begin with, but unfortunately over time, the militias have forgotten their constitutional place and instead of being the defenders of the constitution, they have instead become enemies of it.

[edit on 7/31/2010 by whatukno]

reply to post by whatukno


England, to be fair, is probably pretty easy to invade. It's flat for a start. And all they do is drink tea and fight each other.

Back to the point! If you guys did get invaded by anyone, it would be pretty hard to get past the however many million of you there are with guns. That's a good call. If only there was a way of making sure that no crazy bastards got a-hold of them. Maybe like that sword from the film 'Blade'? If you can put a man on the moon, surely you can make a gun with pop-out blades!

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by NightGypsy

 

I am talking about the constitutionality of Militias.

The Constitution references them in both Article I Section 8 of the United States Constitution and in the 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Now, most people just go with the 2nd Amendment and leave the rest alone.

But it clearly states in Article I Section 8 of the United States Constitution that Militias are under the authority of Congress.

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

www.archives.gov...

If they reject that concept, they aren't a true militia, they are just a bunch of wannabe thugs and again, no better than a street gang.



[edit on 7/31/2010 by whatukno]

What I find hillarious is you calling American Citizens who have military and law enforcement backgrounds street thugs...

Are you totally off your one legged rocker man?

Let me ask you this really pertinant question...

With the enactment of the Patriot act, and the subsiquent other laws that have to date minimized the constitution, can it be said that we have a constitutional congress?

NO - We do not.

So therefore, an illegal congress has no priviledge to train or command such a militia, one governed by constitutional Law and that has also SWORN AN OATH TO PROTECT IT!

The VERY fact that America possesses the yellow fringe around our Flag PROVES we are under Admiralty Law - NOT Constitutional Law.

On November 19, 1973, the Special Committee on the Termination of the National Emergency presented Senate Report 93-549 at the first session of the 93rd Congress. The Introduction to the report, an examination of existing War and Emergency Powers Acts, states:

"Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency. In fact, there are now in effect four presidentially-proclaimed states of national emergency: In addition to the national emergency declared by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933, there are also the national emergency proclaimed by President Harry S. Truman on December 16, 1950, during the Korean conflict, and the states of national emergency declared by President Richard M. Nixon on March 23, 1970, and August 15, 1971."
The Report states, "Because Con
gress and the public are unaware of the extent of emergency powers, there has never been any notable congressional or public objection made to this state of affairs. Nor have the courts imposed significant limitations ... the temporary states of emergency declared in 1938, 1939, 1941, 1950, 1970, and 1971 would become what are now regarded collectively as virtually permanent states of emergency (the 1939 and 1941 emergencies were terminated in 1952). Forty years can, in no way, be defined as a temporary emergency."

The Special Committee's opinion was that, "In the view of the Special Committee, an emergency does not now exist. Congress, therefore, should act in the near future to terminate officially the states of national emergency now in effect", although the Committee was also "of the view that it is essential to provide the means for the Executive to act effectively in an emergency. It is reasonable to have a body of laws in readiness to delegate to the President extraordinary powers to use in times of real national emergency."

an ADMIRALTY congress is not a CONSTITUTIONAL congress... and thus has no rights to govern over an American Militia sworn to protect the Constitution. They are an ADMIRALTY CONGRESS - let them talk to the sea...

THIS IS WHY WE NEED GUNS

Read this and all your gun phobias will go away.

Here is a video on how the government and media slants the stories on gun safety.

One example, the government and media does not state that because of guns, minimally, they prevent 5 times as many acts of violence as they are involved in. Now, these do not include the ones they cannot place statistically.



[edit on 7/31/2010 by endisnighe]

reply to post by Megiddodiddo


So let's see, you counter my argument with unsourced internet lies?

What does the fringe on the flag represent?
The gold trim is found on ceremonial flags, to be used indoors and for ceremonies only. They originally were used on military flags. The fringe has no specific significance, but is considered completely within the guidelines of proper flag etiquette. There is nothing in the flag code indicating that the fringe is for federal government flags only. The Internet contains many sites that claim that the fringe indicates martial law or that the Constitution does not apply in that area. These are entirely unfounded (usually citing Executive Order 10834 and inventing text that is not part of the order) and should be dismissed as urban legends.

Snoops.com

www.ushistory.org...


We do have a Constitutional Congress, if you don't like what they are voting for, vote against them in the next election. Don't just make up lies. Really, please, spare us the usual tripe that we have to deal with on this site for once.

Because we do have a Constitutionally Elected Congress, that means that any group claiming to be a militia that does not submit to the will of that congress are nothing more than a street gang. Doesn't matter if they are former military or police officers, if they are a part of a militia, and that militia is against Congress, and they are planing on one day overthrowing that Constitutionally Elected Congress, they are traitors.

[edit on 8/1/2010 by whatukno]

reply to post by Megiddodiddo


Thank you for your kind words.
Seeashrink

reply to post by whatukno


Your ignorant and need to correct that deficient on your own time. Believe what you want, Marxist. Many of of us have delved very deeply into the written word and intent. Live within your own mindset and paradigm..........your problem.

reply to post by ATSROT


Sorry, it's the facts, if you are in a militia, Congress has authority over your group according to the Constitution. If your militia is against that concept, your group is nothing more than a street gang.

Article I Section 8 United States Constitution

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

reply to post by whatukno


What Congress? You mean this one?

12% Congressional Approval rating


Hmmmm, the last time the people had such a HIGH regard for the government, was about....................1774 when King George was in power.