Very serious warning...Obama finds legal way around the 2nd amendment and uses it.

reply to post by kro32


" I don't see a threat. "

Remember you said that when the SWAT team is at your door asking for your guns. The worse threats are the ones we do not see.

Originally posted by AllUrChips
reply to post by theindependentjournal

 

You know what ATSers. Tell those dirty mofos COME AND GET MY GUNS!!!!!!!!!!! Ill have a warm present waiting to. There is no treaty that can take away you inalienable rights! The constitution CAN not be changed!

the constitution has been changed 27 times since it was first written. it's called an amendment. it is only a right because it was written into law.

your post also fails big time because the original constitution didn't have a right to bear arms. it was changed to include that "right".

so much for "rights". they can be changed and altered anytime congress wants. and if want to challenge that, you better use the supreme court.

because your little .45 won't be any match to a full s.w.a.t team with automatic weapons, night vision, special operations training, marksmanship training and riot shields. when they bust your door with intent to use deadly force, you'll probably leave a stain on couch, let alone take them all out.

actually, you'll end up making a good thread on ats: swat team storms ats members house, riddle him with bullets, confiscate firearm anyways.

Originally posted by fixer1967
reply to post by kro32

 

" I don't see a threat. "

Remember you said that when the SWAT team is at your door asking for your guns. The worse threats are the ones we do not see.

True. But sometimes you cant see them because they arent actually there!

Originally posted by kro32

Originally posted by abecedarian
As already mentioned, treaties must be ratified by the Senate:

Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, includes the Treaty Clause, which empowers the President of the United States to propose and chiefly negotiate agreements between the United States and other countries, which become treaties between the United States and other countries after the advice and consent of a supermajority of the United States Senate.

Notice the phrase "advice and consent".
What one has to be weary of is that this only requires the Senate, and not the House of Representatives, and only 2/3rd of those Senators present have to agree. Watch for a time where the majority of senators present are Democrats and these alleged treaties are presented. Be ready to launch suit in the Supreme Court.

This is actually alot harder than you think when it comes to topics as volatile as gun control. I don't think it would ever be possible to get 2/3 of the Senate to go with this issue. It's would be political suicide to vote for this and they would know it. Once they are kicked out of office then next Congress would just repeal the treaty so I don't see a threat.

I don't think it would be all that hard, actually, since the vote only requires 2/3 of the senators "present" when the vote is brought to the floor. If only sympathetic senators are present, it's not a far stretch to believe such a supermajority could be achieved.

Originally posted by randomname>snip<
the constitution has been changed 27 times since it was first written. it's called an amendment. it is only a right because it was written into law.

your post also fails big time because the original constitution didn't have a right to bear arms. it was changed to include that "right".

so much for "rights". they can be changed and altered anytime congress wants. and if want to challenge that, you better use the supreme court.

Actually, Congress cannot change the Constitution without capitulation, um, I meant agreement from 3/4 the States, so your "anytime congress wants" allegation is in err.

actually, you'll end up making a good thread on ats: swat team storms ats members house, riddle him with bullets, confiscate firearm anyways.

Plenty of threads abound already. Might be a good starting point for a Constitutional Scholar to base a thesis on.

How did they go about takeing the guns from Australia ? What about martial law being declaired? I believe the second amendent has prevented the US from being attacked. Without armed citizens the police would be overrun and would have to call out the National Guard to police the population . Who would be respocible for picking up the guns ? NATO ?bring a forign army onto our soil to do it ? Blood would run in the streets ! I dont think it will happen in my lifetime .

I'm willing to die defending the US Constitution, I'll leave it at that.

reply to post by theindependentjournal


You have more than one thread on Obama.

Can't you come up with some original material for once?

And perhaps hire someone to make a better avatar while you're at it?

reply to post by QuantumDisciple


Only suckers die for a piece of paper that their overlords refuse to acknowledge.

Much like those suckers over there in Iraq, Afghanistan and now Libya.

Funny how we heard Bush was going to do exactly the same

www.google.com.au...:en-GBfficial&client=firefox-a#sclient=psy&hl=en&safe=off &client=firefox-a&hs=wNt&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB%3Aofficial&source=hp&q=bush+2nd+amendment&aq=f&aqi=g-v1&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=354d42 53d6778b69&biw=1920&bih=897

and Clinton

www.google.com.au...:en-GBfficial&client=firefox-a#sclient=psy&hl=en&safe=off &client=firefox-a&hs=q4D&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB%3Aofficial&source=hp&q=clinton+2nd+amendment&aq=f&aqi=g-m1&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=354 d4253d6778b69&biw=1920&bih=897

Of course nothing came of them, it appears just to be stories

reply to post by fixer1967


Ooh, better put on that tinfoil hat and hide in your bomb shelter then.

Is this what ATS has been reduced to?

reply to post by theindependentjournal


Not good

reply to post by SpaDe_


I love your reply.And I agree,it would bring a new revolution to our country.

They can *try* to take away our guns, but I promise they aren't going to like the $%@!storm that ensues. Stockpile that ammo, fellas. Something tells me we're gonna need every last bullet we can find...

Originally posted by granpabobby
How did they go about takeing the guns from Australia ?

The false flag at Port Arthur.

Couldn't see it happening in the US though. Most Australians didn't have guns before it happened, so it was easy for the media to make the population scared of guns.

When most people own a gun, they feel secure. So taking them away to make people "safe" won't work.

First of all, Secretary Clinton has not, on behalf of the US, signed the treaty you mention nor has the Senate ratified it. Second, even if the US signed the Small Arms treaty and it was ratified by the Senate, the treaty does not restrict the sale or ownership of small arms in the US. Nice try.

There is no legal way,

Shall not be infringed is clear language, any done after that is because people have forgotten what the millions of sacrifices that have been made for our freedom.

Fear is a big motivator, loss of comfort is a fear.

I dont buy it. The Constitution states, flat out, that it is the supreme law of the land and that no contract or treatie shall supersede it.

No international treaty can take away our constitutional rights. Plain and simple.

Got to love you americans I always get a giggle when I read these threads

Tis a shame we English aren't allowed guns.

When this happens I'll start handing out free hollow points