I told you so....

I told you so....

This is a discussion on I told you so.... within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; A couple of months back I posted this from a second amendment site and was basically told it was BS well here it is again ...

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 38

Thread: I told you so....

  1. #1
    VIP Member Array Sheldon J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Battle Creek, Mi.
    Posts
    2,286

    Exclamation I told you so....

    A couple of months back I posted this from a second amendment site and was basically told it was BS well here it is again from another source, close your eyes and watch it happen....


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

    On Wednesday Obama Took the First Major Step
    in a Plan to Ban All Firearms in the United States




    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.
    The rest if from the e mail allert I recieved with the above
    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 firearms 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
    "The sword dose not cause the murder, and the maker of the sword dose not bear sin" Rabbi Solomon ben Isaac 11th century


  2. #2
    Senior Member Array ronwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    816
    The U.N. has been trying to negotiate a treaty of this type for quite some time. The U.S. has said it will not sign such a treaty but that was before Clinton became Secretary Of State. She has always been a big supporter of the U.N. and such a treaty. The good news is that it would have to be ratified by the Senate and House. The probability of this happening, even under the Obama administration, is minimal at best.
    Member NRA, SAF and Georgiacarry.org
    “America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.” Abraham Lincoln

  3. #3
    Member Array MSteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    414
    This article appears to be discussing foreign weapons sales, not domestic sales.
    Even if they tried to apply it domestically, the US Supreme Court could still void it.

    A little wikipedia research on the history of similar issues:

    The Supreme Court in 1957 declared that the United States could not abrogate the rights guaranteed to citizens in the Bill of Rights through international agreements. Reid v. Covert and Kinsella v. Krueger concerned the prosecution of two servicemen's wives who killed their husbands abroad and were, under the status of forces[109] agreements in place, tried and convicted in American courts-martial.[110] The Court found the Congress had no constitutional authority to subject servicemen's dependents to the Uniform Code of Military Justice and overturned the convictions. Justice Hugo Black's opinion for the Court declared:

    There is nothing in [the Constitution] which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to [it] do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution. Nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification of the Constitution which even suggests such a result. These debates as well as the history that surrounds the adoption of the treaty provision in Article VI make it clear that the reason treaties were not limited to those made in "pursuance" of the Constitution was so that agreements made by the United States under the Articles of Confederation, including the important peace treaties which concluded the Revolutionary War, would remain in effect. It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights—let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition—to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power under an international agreement without observing constitutional prohibitions. In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and the Senate combined

    Here is an answer to this frm factcheck.org:
    This is the short version:
    International Gun Ban Treaty?
    December 5, 2009

    Q: Has Obama found a "legal way around the Second Amendment"?

    A: The administration’s agreement to talk about writing a United Nations treaty to regulate arms exports and imports is a far cry from banning possession of firearms, which Obama says he doesn’t want to do and the Supreme Court has said can’t be done anyway.


    The full version is at:
    International Gun Ban Treaty? | FactCheck.org
    AlabamaConstitution of 1819: That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defence of himself and the state.
    The world doesn't owe you anything. It was here first.-Mark Twain
    "Life's tough. It's tougher if you're stupid."-John Wayne
    Sig P228; Micro Desert Eagle; S&W M&P Compact .357 sig

  4. #4
    Member Array Bandolero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    267
    A wing nut hears what a wing nut wants to hear.

  5. #5
    VIP Member Array JonInNY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Mid-Hudson Valley New York State
    Posts
    4,207
    While the president of the United States can negotiate and sign treaties, in order to take effect, they must be ratified by Congress.

    Unlikely, in this case.
    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch; Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
    -- Benjamin Franklin

  6. #6
    Senior Member Array ep1953's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Kodak TN
    Posts
    1,158
    Not to pick a nit here but if I'm not mistaken it the Senate that ratifies treaties. While I think it unlikely that the Senate would ratify such a treaty I don't rule out the possibility.

    On the subject of the UN I have said it before and I say it again.

    We the people should:

    Get the US out of the UN
    Get the UN out of the US

  7. #7
    Member Array MSteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    414
    Quote Originally Posted by ep1953 View Post
    Not to pick a nit here but if I'm not mistaken it the Senate that ratifies treaties. While I think it unlikely that the Senate would ratify such a treaty I don't rule out the possibility.

    On the subject of the UN I have said it before and I say it again.

    We the people should:

    Get the US out of the UN
    Get the UN out of the US
    You are partially right. The US recognizes a few different types of treaty.
    See below from wikipedia (also verified from a gov site, but this reads more easily):

    In the United States, the term "treaty" has a different, more restricted legal sense than exists in international law. U.S. law distinguishes what it calls treaties from treaty executive agreements, congressional-executive agreements, and sole executive agreements. All four classes are equally treaties under international law; they are distinct only from the perspective of internal American law. The distinctions are primarily concerning their method of ratification. Whereas treaties require advice and consent by two-thirds of the Senate, sole executive agreements may be executed by the President acting alone. Some treaties grant the President the authority to fill in the gaps with executive agreements, rather than additional treaties or protocols. And finally, congressional-executive agreements require majority approval by both the House and the Senate, either before or after the treaty is signed by the President.

    Currently, international agreements are executed by executive agreement rather than treaties at a rate of 10:1. Despite the relative ease of executive agreements, the President still often chooses to pursue the formal treaty process over an executive agreement in order to gain congressional support on matters that require the Congress to pass implementing legislation or appropriate funds, and those agreements that impose long-term, complex legal obligations on the U.S.
    AlabamaConstitution of 1819: That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defence of himself and the state.
    The world doesn't owe you anything. It was here first.-Mark Twain
    "Life's tough. It's tougher if you're stupid."-John Wayne
    Sig P228; Micro Desert Eagle; S&W M&P Compact .357 sig

  8. #8
    Member Array torgo1968's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    420
    Quote Originally Posted by Sheldon J View Post
    A couple of months back I posted this from a second amendment site and was basically told it was BS well here it is again from another source, close your eyes and watch it happen....
    Did you look at the date?

    Wed Oct 14, 2009 11:56pm EDT
    Yeah, you showed us. You get the facts wrong on a story months and months ago, then re-post the same exact six month old non-story and crow about how you told us so.

    Seriously moderators, it's bad enough that people don't use search and keep reposting this irrelevant nonsense, but now we've got people who can't even be bothered to check the date on stories that they have been told are garbage.

  9. #9
    Senior Member Array ElMonoDelMar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Champaign, Illinois
    Posts
    641
    Quote Originally Posted by torgo1968 View Post
    Did you look at the date?



    Yeah, you showed us. You get the facts wrong on a story months and months ago, then re-post the same exact six month old non-story and crow about how you told us so.

    Seriously moderators, it's bad enough that people don't use search and keep reposting this irrelevant nonsense, but now we've got people who can't even be bothered to check the date on stories that they have been told are garbage.
    You must have missed this part:
    THIS IS NOT A JOKE NOR A FALSE WARNING.
    They're REALLY serious.

  10. #10
    Member Array Bhamrichard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Birmingham, AL.
    Posts
    234
    Quote Originally Posted by Sheldon J View Post
    A couple of months back I posted this from a second amendment site and was basically told it was BS well here it is again from another source, close your eyes and watch it happen....
    The Senate would have to ratify such a treaty - - Not going to happen
    The Constitution would have to be burned - - Not going to happen
    SCOTUS would have to reverse current law - - Not going to happen
    The American People would have to surrender - - NEVER going to happen

    Don't get me wrong I believe we ALL should stay vigilant in the protection of our rights and freedoms, but there are those that try to crow when there's nothing to crow about.

  11. #11
    Member Array torgo1968's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    420
    Quote Originally Posted by Bhamrichard View Post
    The Senate would have to ratify such a treaty - - Not going to happen
    This is really the only part that anyone needs to worry about. Broken record and all that, but consider:

    The Democrats, on paper, have a 60 vote "super majority" and still can't keep everyone in line. Even under the best case scenario (for them), they are going to lose another couple of seats in November. Despite this Democratic majority, a number of pro-gun issues have passed.

    So now we are supposed to believe that this Senate is going to pass what would be one of the most controversial treaties in decades, and remember, not with 60 votes, but with 67 votes (treaties must pass by a 2/3 majority)!

    The Democratic party, regardless of the official party line, has been running in terror away from the gun issue. It's poison and they know it. Did you all catch the White House response to Mayor Bloomberg freaking out at them? Or the Brady bunch giving them an F grade? They didn't respond at all. Which functionally is the same as saying, "Shut your pie hole and run along, you're not getting what you want."

    Anyone who thinks that they can get every Democrat and anywhere between 7 and 12 Republicans to ratify a treaty that would generate a Category 5 hurricane of fury from the public and the gun lobby is out of their mind.

  12. #12
    Senior Member Array xsigma40cal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    North Dakota is open for business!!
    Posts
    646
    "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 firearms 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"


    Thats wonderful, but in the world of journalism, a person's sources go alongway into considering if the information we are recieving is credible or not. It sounds to me that this is more tin-foil hat consipiracy. The wonderful thing about the internet is that its a big electronic bathroom wall where anyone can write any piece of garbage they want and a good number of people will take it seriously. Plus, lets just jump into worst case scenario, if this were to come to a vote in the legislature, the tea-party uproar over healthcare would be a mosquito's fart in a Metallica concert compared to what you hear on this issue. The government knows it, Obama knows it, and the whole country knows it that any attempt on their part to enact a gun-ban will go VERY VERY BADLY for them.

    Enough said.

  13. #13
    Moderator
    Array RETSUPT99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    45,052
    It won't happen in MY lifetime...

    (I am in my 60's...I'm just sayin'...)
    The last Blood Moon Tetrad for this millennium starts in April 2014 and ends in September 2015...according to NASA.

    ***********************************
    Certified Glock Armorer
    NRA Life Member[/B]

  14. #14
    VIP Member Array Sig 210's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Southwestern OK
    Posts
    2,017
    Seriously moderators, it's bad enough that people don't use search and keep reposting this irrelevant nonsense, but now we've got people who can't even be bothered to check the date on stories that they have been told are garbage.
    +1

    That OP gets considerably worse. Sheldon has posted a link to a quote that does not exist at than link.

    Sheldon posted the same link and quote on another site yesterday. He drew this comment from a staff member:

    I told you so.... - THR

    I think that superimposing the link in the OP against the 'quoted text' in the OP represents the pinnacle of intellectual dishonesty, since the text is NOT from the article at the link. I also think that the age of the article calls into question any of the hysteria associated with the OP.

    Not today, and not here.

  15. #15
    Senior Member Array Shadowsbane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    1,051
    Some people seem to prefer to go around and waste their energy on false battles instead of the real ones.
    Now, we must all fear evil men. But there is another kind of evil which we must fear most, and that is the indifference of good men.

    www.Lonelymountainleather.com

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

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

Similar Threads

  1. i have been told on here......
    By mommytanya3 in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: April 2nd, 2010, 10:25 PM
  2. I hate to say it, but I told you so...
    By RogerThat in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: February 1st, 2010, 11:19 PM
  3. my wife just told me
    By TedBeau in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: October 30th, 2009, 12:28 PM
  4. I told my wife...
    By cl00bie in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: January 11th, 2009, 07:28 PM

Search tags for this page

obama

Click on a term to search for related topics.