It's About Liberty: A Conservative Forum
Topics => 2nd Amendment/Firearms => Topic started by: Libertas on September 25, 2013, 07:14:15 AM
-
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/24/kerry-to-sign-un-arms-treaty-despite-senators-opposition/ (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/24/kerry-to-sign-un-arms-treaty-despite-senators-opposition/)
Miserable traitor shoud be arrested immediately after...or We the People should do it ourselves!!!
There is NO treasonous act this vile Regime isn't willing and eager to perpetrate!!!
-
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/24/kerry-to-sign-un-arms-treaty-despite-senators-opposition/ (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/24/kerry-to-sign-un-arms-treaty-despite-senators-opposition/)
Miserable traitor should be arrested immediately after...or We the People should do it ourselves!!!
There is NO treasonous act this vile Regime isn't willing and eager to perpetrate!!!
Treasonous? No. For it to be treason there would have to be a government to commit treason against. No this is just a cabal of A-holes now, with no more authority over you than your neighbors raspberry bush. They think they can make things happen and exercise such authority? Let them try. In the end they have an enforcement problem, made worse by being unable to pay anyone.
-
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/24/kerry-to-sign-un-arms-treaty-despite-senators-opposition/ (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/24/kerry-to-sign-un-arms-treaty-despite-senators-opposition/)
Miserable traitor should be arrested immediately after...or We the People should do it ourselves!!!
There is NO treasonous act this vile Regime isn't willing and eager to perpetrate!!!
Treasonous? No. For it to be treason there would have to be a government to commit treason against. No this is just a cabal of A-holes now, with no more authority over you than your neighbors raspberry bush. They think they can make things happen and exercise such authority? Let them try. In the end they have an enforcement problem, made worse by being unable to pay anyone.
I thought We are the government?
Anyway...I look forward to the enforcement action piece of this...Molon Labe!
-
The leftards in Canada are in a dither because we refused to sign on to this travesty...
-
The leftards in Canada are in a dither because we refused to sign on to this travesty...
What? You mean they can't understand something as basic as usurping rights guaranteed by our constitution? Really? ::facepalm::
Oh silly me I thought they were pissed at us for not signing onto it before now.
Nevermind ::unknowncomic::
-
Canadians still have it fresh in their minds that given any opportunity or pretense, government will violate the right to keep and bear arms. It is the nature of government.
They had a lot of flooding in one of the western provinces earlier in the summer, with mandatory evacuations ordered. The police then went to homes of the evacuated and seized legally owned firearms. Seems the controversy was made worse by the fact that a substantial number of people were "evacuated" from areas not threatened by the flooding. robins111 can probably describe this incident in better detail.
-
(http://i585.photobucket.com/albums/ss291/libertasinfinitio/2nd%20Amendment/1239664531-1.jpg)
(http://i585.photobucket.com/albums/ss291/libertasinfinitio/2nd%20Amendment/46807_10200392441234001_1864795020_n_zpse5cf5111.jpg)
(http://i585.photobucket.com/albums/ss291/libertasinfinitio/2nd%20Amendment/1239664534.jpg)
-
I thought only the senate could approve and sign treaties for the US?
-
I thought only the senate could approve and sign treaties for the US?
Only the Senate can RATIFY the treaty and at this moment a MAJORITY of the Senate OPPOSES this treaty.
-
I thought only the senate could approve and sign treaties for the US?
Only the Senate can RATIFY the treaty and at this moment a MAJORITY of the Senate OPPOSES this treaty.
Thanks for the correction CHF.
-
(http://i585.photobucket.com/albums/ss291/libertasinfinitio/2nd%20Amendment/1239664534.jpg)
NO GUNS FOR NEGROES 1of2 THE RACIST ROOTS OF GUN CONTROL (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yA4mJW-kjSc#ws)
NO GUNS FOR NEGROES 2of2 THE RACIST ROOTS OF GUN CONTROL (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwueChZUgf8#ws)
-
Canadians still have it fresh in their minds that given any opportunity or pretense, government will violate the right to keep and bear arms. It is the nature of government.
They had a lot of flooding in one of the western provinces earlier in the summer, with mandatory evacuations ordered. The police then went to homes of the evacuated and seized legally owned firearms. Seems the controversy was made worse by the fact that a substantial number of people were "evacuated" from areas not threatened by the flooding. robins111 can probably describe this incident in better detail.
The High River 'gun grab' is playing out rather interestingly.. The RCMP. ::dueling::. at the direction of the Alberta 'Progressive Conservative' government ( Read RINO) broke in and seized hund4eds of firearms and over 4 tons of ammo. Many of the homes were in areas not affected by the flooding.. The area is served by a legislator who is leader of the 'Official Opposition' party.. The Wildrose party which is very Conservative in its views, ideology etc.. Both the ruling goverment and the rcmp are desperatly trying to do the 'Nothing to see here folks' but its gathering steam and the plebes are getting angrier as the BS piles up. The people are demanding 1. Who ordered this theft and violation of personal property. 2. How did they know who had guns, as the 'gun registry' was ordered destroyed over a year ago.. Who ordered the first and ongoing attempts at the coverup. And lastly. There was an Indian reserve about 3 miles from High River, with the same flooding issues, but the Queens Cowboys, (RCMP) didn't boot and seize there.. Neither did the boot and seize at Calgary.. which had the same issues..
-
My above synopsis of the High River gun grab should make my American friends think for a minute. the foundation of the UN gun control treaty is a series of national gun registries..even when a registry is gone.. bootleg copies will be used to do the bidding of the most unstable politician in power. Interestingly the leader of the Alberta Progressive Conservative (RINO) is a former UN lawyer.. She was bootstrapped into the leadership role after there was a massive takeover of the PC party by various Union groups, most notably the Alberta teacher union...
-
The Leftists will never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever stop coming for the guns. Never.
Which means that if history is to be our guide, we will have to use them as some point. The alternative would be resigning ourselves to the conclusion of the American experiment, and accepting a diminished life in their hell. I don't see that happening.
So they'll have to be used.
-
So they'll have to be used.
And it's already late.
-
So they'll have to be used.
And it's already late.
Aye...and perhaps we can engage the rhetoric with something substantial...it appears the other side is ready...
http://itsaboutliberty.com/index.php?topic=9009.new#new (http://itsaboutliberty.com/index.php?topic=9009.new#new)
-
What I don't get is why these politicians think they are even allowed to give away our Constitutional rights. Where in the constitution does it say an individual can give away constitutional rights? That's right,,,,, their isn't. No government employee can change that.
Kerry doesn't have the right to even sign this treaty if it violates the US Constitution. He should know better but doesn't or is ignoring it on propose.
Thankfully the Senate will probably void it, but it shouldn't be necessary. He shouldn't have signed it to begin with.
-
What I don't get is why these politicians think they are even allowed to give away our Constitutional rights.
They're under the assumption that they've got momentum going . . . velocity . . . impact . . .
-
It seems so obvious to me that most politicians are untethered from the constitution in all but a passing acknowledgement. It's something to be trotted out and dusted off when they want to lend themselves some haughty legitimacy; something to be mindlessly ignored, overcome, and circumvented the rest of the time.
You can see it in the response from both parties to those of us who are demanding that they adhere to it. They can't defend their actions constitutionally, so their only possible response is to marginalize us. The Palins, Cruzes, Pauls, Becks, and Limbaughs of the world are the thorn in the sides of both parties. Both parties hate us. They hate us because we seek to hold them to the constitution.
-
They hate us because we seek to hold them to the constitution.
This uncivil war we are about to enter will be one as old as History itself. It is government people versus the people. It will be the power of a now an almost hereditary political mandarin class running the show against the wishes of the People. Then a more than willing media turning into a Praetorian Guard enabling Owebama and his cult of personality, if only to justify their richness versus their progressivism, their white guilt, a real hypocrisy for which we all should suffer. Include now an indoctrinating progressive 'every child gets a trophy' 'education' under Federal government rules. We are on that slippery slope. We have a president who chooses which laws to obey and which to simply ignore with a wave of his chin thrust. He even manages to tinker with a bill he signed into law, his signature piece de resistance, a piece of something else which neither he nor the Congress which shoveled him that piece of crap bill has ever read to this day. But no criticism. No because . . . racist. Just give the king what he wants. Mustn't keep his highness from his golf game. His closing down parks/memorials that are scenery, that have no facilities and are normally open 24 hours a day like any city street corner, is absurd and abusing power for thrill of the misery it can inflict. One more irony being it cost more to close the places down than it does to run them when the government is open. President Spending Priorities strikes again. Yet President Hissy Fit can do such a thing and it's all the Republicans fault because they won't give in to his temper tantrum, give him his 'clean budget'.
I never imagined I would ever see such events like this in my lifetime. Why does the TEA Party piss off all the right people? Because we are of the same stock, the same mindset that once said 'Screw King George'. Like I said, a rebellion/revolution as old as humanity. An overbearing and capricious government, and its fawning enablers, against the very people who pay for their misanthropic schemes. They fear us and do not respect us. A dangerous combo. We are their sworn enemy, those who believe in such niceties as Constitutional controls on power. Oppressive government versus the people's innate desire for Freedom. That's also many an historical lesson in their own right, such a lesson not learned being one fraught with serious implications for any society. How easy it is for many to give away their, and ultimately our, freedoms to the government. Shackles are also as old as humankind.
I heard a caller on a call I received. Don't know how, but I decided to pick up the phone and normally I don't, straight to voicemail. This time was a TEA Party Something telephone town hall. I came on as Cruz was speaking. Then he took some calls. One older woman, when she finally she realized she was on the air, sputtered in a thick East European accent, 'Do you know what you have here? Do you know, know what you have?' Then the call was an 'oops, we lost her'. Cruz then mentioned she's called before and was a survivor of the Holocaust. Too many are tiptoeing around the 800 gazillion dollar donkey in the room: That we've had a coup, aided by the mandarin class, cheered on by the Praetorian Guard media, and abetted by an education 'political correctness' mafia indoctrinating youth into the joys of big government, hmmm, hmmm, hmmm. As if an omnipotent government which can give you everything has never taken everything 'slip sliding' away.
I really hate interesting times.
-
What I don't get is why these politicians think they are even allowed to give away our Constitutional rights. Where in the constitution does it say an individual can give away constitutional rights? That's right,,,,, their isn't. No government employee can change that.
Kerry doesn't have the right to even sign this treaty if it violates the US Constitution. He should know better but doesn't or is ignoring it on propose.
Thankfully the Senate will probably void it, but it shouldn't be necessary. He shouldn't have signed it to begin with.
If it ever comes to the Senate and ratification is voted down it does NOT disappear, the treaty remains signed but unratified and can be submitted to the Senate again later for another ratification attempt, and again and again and again until it is ratified. Then it STAYS ratified, there is no Constitutional way I am aware of to "unratify" a treaty.
-
What I don't get is why these politicians think they are even allowed to give away our Constitutional rights. Where in the constitution does it say an individual can give away constitutional rights? That's right,,,,, their isn't. No government employee can change that.
Kerry doesn't have the right to even sign this treaty if it violates the US Constitution. He should know better but doesn't or is ignoring it on propose.
Thankfully the Senate will probably void it, but it shouldn't be necessary. He shouldn't have signed it to begin with.
If it ever comes to the Senate and ratification is voted down it does NOT disappear, the treaty remains signed but unratified and can be submitted to the Senate again later for another ratification attempt, and again and again and again until it is ratified. Then it STAYS ratified, there is no Constitutional way I am aware of to "unratify" a treaty.
I'm no expert but isn't there something called nomalization?
-
Nation throughout history have withdrawn from signed treaties and we've done that ourselves with threats to do more when it's in our best interests. Basically all that's needed is to give intent and carry it out.
-
Nations can withdraw from a treaty simply by giving notice, if there are nation specific actions beyond that to be processed internally that could vary, but if these clowns wrote this as a "human rights" treaty typically exclude withdrawal...I'm betting these clowns went that route. It is bad enough having an asshole regime like ours sign the rancid thing when big arms exporters like China & Russia are abstaining...any Senate ratifying this atrocity is declaring war upon us citizens and should be stormed by angry patriots.
-
Nations can withdraw from a treaty simply by giving notice, if there are nation specific actions beyond that to be processed internally that could vary, but if these clowns wrote this as a "human rights" treaty typically exclude withdrawal...I'm betting these clowns went that route. It is bad enough having an asshole regime like ours sign the rancid thing when big arms exporters like China & Russia are abstaining...any Senate ratifying this atrocity is declaring war upon us citizens and should be stormed by angry patriots.
I think the UN assclowns wrote this treaty to exclude withdrawal and in such a way that it takes effect when "X" number of nations sign it under the assumption it becomes "International Law."
It's the same kind of crap they use to justify threatening US nationals inside the US with arrest and prosecution under the International Criminal Court even though the US (to my knowledge) never signed on to it.
-
Nations can withdraw from a treaty simply by giving notice, if there are nation specific actions beyond that to be processed internally that could vary, but if these clowns wrote this as a "human rights" treaty typically exclude withdrawal...I'm betting these clowns went that route. It is bad enough having an asshole regime like ours sign the rancid thing when big arms exporters like China & Russia are abstaining...any Senate ratifying this atrocity is declaring war upon us citizens and should be stormed by angry patriots.
I think the UN assclowns wrote this treaty to exclude withdrawal and in such a way that it takes effect when "X" number of nations sign it under the assumption it becomes "International Law."
It's the same kind of crap they use to justify threatening US nationals inside the US with arrest and prosecution under the International Criminal Court even though the US (to my knowledge) never signed on to it.
Time to burn that UN building to the ground...they can convene in beautiful Beijing and enjoy the highest air quality standards to be found in a leftist nation...
::mooning::
-
Time to burn that UN building to the ground...they can convene in beautiful Beijing and enjoy the highest air quality standards to be found in a leftist nation...
::mooning::
Or move it to Port-au-Prince in Haiti where the crooks will really be appreciated. ::hysterical::
-
Time to burn that UN building to the ground...they can convene in beautiful Beijing and enjoy the highest air quality standards to be found in a leftist nation...
::mooning::
Or move it to Port-au-Prince in Haiti where the crooks will really be appreciated. ::hysterical::
True, but we have to be somewhat realistic and find a place they could actually be convinced is a swell idea...since all signs point to China inheriting the "sole superpower" status, why not encourage the UNer's to beat the rush?
::evil::