The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Gun Control -- circumventing the constitution

  1. #1
    Senior Member brandywinelabs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    718

    Default Gun Control -- circumventing the constitution

    Be sure and read the link as it validates this information.




    Obama Finds Legal Way Around The 2nd Amendment And Uses It.

    The Full Article Here: http://www.reuters.com/article/polit...59E0Q920091015 14 Nov. 2009

    OR
    Synopsis.

    Copied from a friends email.
    On Wednesday the Obama administration took its first major step in a plan to ban all firearms in the United States. The Obama administration intends to force gun control and a complete ban on all weapons for US citizens through the signing of international treaties with foreign nations. By signing international treaties on gun control, the Obama administration can use the US State Department to bypass the normal legislative process in Congress. Once the US Government signs these international treaties, all US citizens will be subject to those gun laws created by foreign governments. These are laws that have been developed and promoted by organizations such as the United Nations and individuals such as George Soros and Michael Bloomberg. The laws are designed and intended to lead to the complete ban and confiscation of all firearms.

    The Obama administration is attempting to use tactics and methods of gun control that will inflict major damage to our 2nd Amendment before US citizens even understand what has happened. Obama can appear before the public and tell them that he does not intend to pursue any legislation (in the United States) that will lead to new gun control laws, while cloaked in secrecy, his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton is committing the US to international treaties and foreign gun control laws. Does that mean Obama is telling the truth? What it means is that there will be no publicized gun control debates in the media or votes in Congress. We will wake up one morning and find that the United States has signed a treaty that prohibits firearm and ammunition manufacturers from selling to the public. We will wake up another morning and find that the US has signed a treaty that prohibits any transfer of firearm ownership. And then, we will wake up yet another morning and find that the US has signed a treaty that requires US citizens to deliver any firearm they own to the local government collection and destruction center or face imprisonment.

    This is not a joke nor a false warning. As sure as government health care will be forced on us by the Obama administration through whatever means necessary, so will gun control.

    Read the Article

    U.S. reverses stance on treaty to regulate arms trade

    WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States reversed policy on Wednesday and said it would back launching talks on a treaty to regulate arms sales as long as the talks operated by consensus, a stance critics said gave every nation a veto.

    The decision, announced in a statement released by the U.S. State Department, overturns the position of former President George W. Bush's administration, which had opposed such a treaty on the grounds that national controls were better. View The Full Article Here http://www.reuters.com/article/polit...59E0Q920091015 14 Nov. 2009
    Greg W.

    Brooks Black Gold At Briarwood JH (Louie)
    Brandywine's Belle on Wheels JH (Belle)
    Serengetti Sadie O'Brandywine SH -MH passes (Sadie)
    CH Brandywine's Westdale Duggan MH (Duggan)
    CH Alpenglo's Jasmine O'Brooks JH CD (Jasmine)
    Brandywine's Flagship SH (Brandy)

  2. #2
    Senior Member YardleyLabs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Yardley, PA
    Posts
    6,639

    Default

    Treaties have the force of law once they have been ratified by a two thirds majority of the Senate. It has no impact without such ratification. Even with such ratification, treaties do not override the Constitution. Thus, no treaty can modify Constitutional rights to bear arms. The Reuters story that you say validates the comments in your post about using a treaty to outlaw guns actually indicates that the US position makes it highly unlikely that there will be any agreement at all that significantly constrains gun trading.

  3. #3
    Senior Member road kill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    New Berlin, WI
    Posts
    10,664

    Default

    The "Gun Control" the lefty's want has nothing to do with criminals.

    They want the guns out of the hands of the citizenry!!
    Stan b & Elvis

  4. #4
    Senior Member YardleyLabs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Yardley, PA
    Posts
    6,639

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by road kill View Post
    The "Gun Control" the lefty's want has nothing to do with criminals.

    They want the guns out of the hands of the citizenry!!
    As a "lefty" who packs heat, I disagree with your generalization. Baker, among others, is a gun control favoring righty. I agree that many liberals favor stricter gun control. However, there is not a very large portion of the population that favors banning or even greatly changing gun control wth respect to either hand guns or rifles/shotguns. Many have trouble understanding the desire of some to own military style rifles that can easily be converted to full auto fire. I am among those, but do not believe that there is a very good case for singling these weapons out for a ban. Personally, I want to keep my guns in case someone like Cheney ever gains full control of the White House. Lefties have at least as good a record in guerrilla warfare as righties.

  5. #5
    Senior Member road kill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    New Berlin, WI
    Posts
    10,664

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by YardleyLabs View Post
    As a "lefty" who packs heat, I disagree with your generalization. Baker, among others, is a gun control favoring righty. I agree that many liberals favor stricter gun control. However, there is not a very large portion of the population that favors banning or even greatly changing gun control wth respect to either hand guns or rifles/shotguns. Many have trouble understanding the desire of some to own military style rifles that can easily be converted to full auto fire. I am among those, but do not believe that there is a very good case for singling these weapons out for a ban. Personally, I want to keep my guns in case someone like Cheney ever gains full control of the White House. Lefties have at least as good a record in guerrilla warfare as righties.
    My bad, I assumed (shame on me) everyone would know I was referring to Lefty politicians.

    Not to many Right wing, bible thumpin', gun toters believe in gun control.

    Sorry for the "rash" generalization.

    rk
    Stan b & Elvis

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Georgetown, MA
    Posts
    926

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by YardleyLabs View Post
    Many have trouble understanding the desire of some to own military style rifles that can easily be converted to full auto fire. I am among those, but do not believe that there is a very good case for singling these weapons out for a ban.
    ANY semi-automatic firearm can be "easily converted" to full auto. That criteria makes for a VERY slippery slope.......

  7. #7
    Senior Member badbullgator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    somewhere between Boca Grande and Mims
    Posts
    7,122

    Default

    Interesting everyone talks about converting semi's to full auto and yet the M-16 WAS fully automatic (of course military only)and the redesign was three burst fire rather than auto. Not so sure auto is a good thing. Even with all the ammo I have I don't really know the reason anyone would want to convert a prefectly good semi to full auto. If you are in a bad enough spot to need full auto your in trouble and full auto is not going to help, unless you have guys hauling truckloads of ammo for you. I also have a hunch that aim and fire will do far more dammage and kill far more people then spray and pray......
    Views and opinions expressed herein by Badbullgator do not necessarily represent the policies or position of RTF. RTF and all of it's subsidiaries can not be held liable for the off centered humor and politically incorrect comments of the author.
    Corey Burke

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Georgetown, MA
    Posts
    926

    Default

    BBG, agree 100%

    I was just pointing out the poor reasoning in banning "military style" weapons because they could be "easily converted" to full auto.

  9. #9
    Senior Member Uncle Bill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Rapid City, SD
    Posts
    4,289

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by badbullgator View Post
    Interesting everyone talks about converting semi's to full auto and yet the M-16 WAS fully automatic (of course military only)and the redesign was three burst fire rather than auto. Not so sure auto is a good thing. Even with all the ammo I have I don't really know the reason anyone would want to convert a prefectly good semi to full auto. If you are in a bad enough spot to need full auto your in trouble and full auto is not going to help, unless you have guys hauling truckloads of ammo for you. I also have a hunch that aim and fire will do far more dammage and kill far more people then spray and pray......

    Helllllooooo Cory! What the hayel are you doing? Attempting to talk logic with libs has less value than teaching logic to your dogs...they'll catch on quicker.

    When the time comes for the current administration to get serious about gun control, even the socialists that believe in the 2nd amendment, will be rolled over. If we have learned only ONE thing from this "healthcare" crap, it's that the views or beliefs of the proletariat on up to rest of the population, don't mean a thing.

    These gun carrying libs that think their ox won't be gored when it's time for gun control to be enacted, are to be pitied. It's no different than the liberal Congress woman from Sodak, thinking she can make a difference for the right to life folks, because that's what she believes.

    As the "healthcare" garbage has proven...there is NO SUCH THING AS A BLUE DOG DEMOCRAT! It ranks right up there in unbelievability as having Roger convince you he is an independant. Absolutely disgusting.

    UB
    When the one you love becomes a memory, that memory becomes a treasure.

  10. #10
    Senior Member YardleyLabs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Yardley, PA
    Posts
    6,639

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by badbullgator View Post
    Interesting everyone talks about converting semi's to full auto and yet the M-16 WAS fully automatic (of course military only)and the redesign was three burst fire rather than auto. Not so sure auto is a good thing. Even with all the ammo I have I don't really know the reason anyone would want to convert a prefectly good semi to full auto. If you are in a bad enough spot to need full auto your in trouble and full auto is not going to help, unless you have guys hauling truckloads of ammo for you. I also have a hunch that aim and fire will do far more dammage and kill far more people then spray and pray......
    One of the reasons I can't see any reason for outlawing weapons based on what they look like, which seems to be the whole basis for assault weapon bans.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •