Obama's back door Gun control

j-mac

Verified User
Thanks to help from George Soros, and Media Matters (one of the most dishonest groups on the planet) Obama is meeting this month to discuss turning your 2nd amendment right, and the sovereignty of that right over to the UN....

George Soros is financing the fight to give the United Nations control of your guns.

Through his Media Matters organization, Soros is dumping pro-UN gun control propaganda into the mainstream media to coincide with the United Nations Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty being held in New York July 2–27.

In a blog post published on July 3, Timothy Johnson of Media Matters describes the notion that the United Nations would ever try to take away the right of Americans to keep and bear arms “laughable.”
Johnson goes on to promote the passage of the UN’s Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) as a means of “curtailing the illicit arms trade” and thus cracking down on those who use these weapons to deny others their “human rights.”

The blog post assures citizens concerned about the potential eradication of the rights guaranteed in the Second Amendment to the Constitution that they have nothing to fear from the UN’s gun control treaty.

Top officials from the United Nations, the United States, and other high profile supporters have repeatedly and clearly said that the treaty does not aim to restrict anyone’s “freedom to own” a gun. Indeed, the UN General Assembly’s resolution on the treaty makes clear that countries will “exclusively” maintain the right within their borders to “regulate internal transfers of arms and national ownership, including through national constitutional protections on private ownerships.”

Constitutionalists will instantly notice a couple of red flags raised by Media Matters’ word choice.


First, there need be no quotation marks around the phrase freedom to own a gun. Americans should enjoy the unqualified right to bear arms and it is not some antiquated idea or some unicorn-like mythical creature that requires special punctuational treatment. Americans are well aware that an unarmed citizenry is easier to subdue and will rightly resist all efforts to abridge that right.

Second, the citizens of the United States do not need the permission of the United Nations to maintain the “exclusive” right to own a gun. This right, as with all others protected by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, comes from God, not man, and may be neither given nor taken away by any government.

http://www.infowars.com/soros-promotes-un-control-over-gun-ownership/

My question is why do we have to get this information from the likes of Alex Jones? Where is the MSM?
 
Ok, ok, ok.....I even said I don't like Alex Jones for any type of news, but this meeting is real, and the goal is to end run our 2nd amendment rights, and place that in the hands of the UN.

Ratification would require passage by a 2/3 majority of the U.S. Senate in addition to presidential approval, which is rendered unlikely by opposition from gun rights groups such as the National Rifle Association, who claim that the treaty is an attempt to circumvent the Second Amendment and similar guarantees in state constitutions in order to impose domestic gun regulations.[11] Advocates of the treaty claim that it only pertains to international arms trade, and would have no effect on current domestic laws[12][13]. These advocates point to the UN General Assembly resolution starting the process on the Arms Trade Treaty. The resolution explicitly states that it is “the exclusive right of States to regulate internal transfers of arms and national ownership, including through constitutional protections on private ownership.”

As of September 14, 2011, 58 US Senators (45 Republicans and 13 Democrats) have expressed their opposition to an ATT that would limit the Second Amendment rights of US citizens.[14] As this group comprises far more than 1/3 of the Senate, it is sufficient to block ratification of the treaty by the United States if the treaty addresses civilian ownership of firearms. However, the strength of the opposition remains unclear because the treaty will not likely address the Second Amendment issue.
A quick search of the Internet (on Feb 8, 2012) confirms that the treaty is highly controversial in the United States and has been fodder for political speeches, blogs, viral political e-mails and advertisements claiming or insinuating that the treaty provides a "legal way around the 2nd amendment," and a "complete ban on all weapons for U.S. citizens." Snopes.com, the "urban myth" tester, calls the viral e-mail "scarelore" and false.[15] The Huffington Post reports that "such a scenario remains virtually impossible."[16] The Los Angeles Times reports on October 23, 2011 that "only a narrow fringe purports that Americans could see their guns taken away by the U.N., which has no authority over constitutional rights."[17]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_Trade_Treaty

So we have the usual lies and subterfuge from the left on this, saying that it won't effect you at all, when in the end it will indeed do so.
 
Ok, ok, ok.....I even said I don't like Alex Jones for any type of news, but this meeting is real, and the goal is to end run our 2nd amendment rights, and place that in the hands of the UN.



So we have the usual lies and subterfuge from the left on this, saying that it won't effect you at all, when in the end it will indeed do so.

God damn. Do you even read your own links? 2/3 of the senate must approve, yet 58 senators are opposed? Do you understand basic math at all?
 
God damn. Do you even read your own links? 2/3 of the senate must approve, yet 58 senators are opposed? Do you understand basic math at all?

Until you realize that another lame duck session is coming, and based on Obama's extra constitutional trickery in appointing his CBP hack, that was a test run....Just watch. Obama couldn't care any less what the Senate says, or doesn't say, he'll just go around them.
 
Until you realize that another lame duck session is coming, and based on Obama's extra constitutional trickery in appointing his CBP hack, that was a test run....Just watch. Obama couldn't care any less what the Senate says, or doesn't say, he'll just go around them.

From your own link;

Ratification would require passage by a 2/3 majority of the U.S. Senate in addition to presidential approval,

:facepalm:
 
From your own link;

Ratification would require passage by a 2/3 majority of the U.S. Senate in addition to presidential approval,

:facepalm:

You can repeat all day long, it doesn't change the fact that we have an administration that has stated that when congress fails to act he will unilaterally, and has in violation of his oath of office.
 
Ok, ok, ok.....I even said I don't like Alex Jones for any type of news, but this meeting is real, and the goal is to end run our 2nd amendment rights, and place that in the hands of the UN.



So we have the usual lies and subterfuge from the left on this, saying that it won't effect you at all, when in the end it will indeed do so.
Zzzzzzzzzzzz...Oh! I'm sorry....excuse me but was that another delusional wingnut ranting over some right wing propaganda again?
 
Until you realize that another lame duck session is coming, and based on Obama's extra constitutional trickery in appointing his CBP hack, that was a test run....Just watch. Obama couldn't care any less what the Senate says, or doesn't say, he'll just go around them.
You're not the sharpest pencil in the box are you? I mean you are aware that W made over 170 recess appointments durining his tenure, 99 of them permanent. Obama has made 32 recess appointments. So please explain to me why you seem to have this double standard or are you just another partisan hack?
 
You can repeat all day long, it doesn't change the fact that we have an administration that has stated that when congress fails to act he will unilaterally, and has in violation of his oath of office.
Can you provide us a citation for that other than Fox News, News Max, Drudge, The Arizona Militiamen or the Aryian Brotherhood?
 
Zzzzzzzzzzzz...Oh! I'm sorry....excuse me but was that another delusional wingnut ranting over some right wing propaganda again?

You're not the sharpest pencil in the box are you? I mean you are aware that W made over 170 recess appointments durining his tenure, 99 of them permanent. Obama has made 32 recess appointments. So please explain to me why you seem to have this double standard or are you just another partisan hack?

I have to ask, are all the liberals on this board just immature, insulting hacks, or is that just the only way they think they can argue, is through Sol Alinsky tactics?

Listen, tell me hack, how many recess appointments did Bush just declare the Congress in recess when they weren't and make the appointment?
 
I have to ask, are all the liberals on this board just immature, insulting hacks, or is that just the only way they think they can argue, is through Sol Alinsky tactics?

Listen, tell me hack, how many recess appointments did Bush just declare the Congress in recess when they weren't and make the appointment?

Dude, give up. You show up here with links from Alex Jones and try to make your unbearable stupidity about liberals who are too rude to debate?
This isn't the four wheel drive forum or where ever you are used to posting.

To be clear, you are actually suggesting that Obama plans to end run arround the 2nd ammendment, (whether congress is in session or not apparrently).

Have you heard of the Supreme Court by any chance? Checks and balances perhaps?
 
Dude, give up. You show up here with links from Alex Jones and try to make your unbearable stupidity about liberals who are too rude to debate?
This isn't the four wheel drive forum or where ever you are used to posting.

To be clear, you are actually suggesting that Obama plans to end run arround the 2nd ammendment, (whether congress is in session or not apparrently).

Have you heard of the Supreme Court by any chance? Checks and balances perhaps?

yep, heard of them, and just witnessed a ruling in which Obama was successful in influencing that court through the threat of public brow beating....Sad really.
 
Crazy or just stupid?

The two are highly intertwined among the NRA Teabagger worshippers.

Ok, ok, ok.....I even said I don't like Alex Jones for any type of news, but this meeting is real, and the goal is to end run our 2nd amendment rights, and place that in the hands of the UN.

So we have the usual lies and subterfuge from the left on this, saying that it won't effect you at all, when in the end it will indeed do so.

Who's lying?

Can I ask you a question? Only because isn't this the second time you've posted silly shit?

This claim has been around since 2009, right after the president was elected btw, when FactCheck and Snopes ruled it false.

Furthermore, if an arms trade treaty ever materializes, the administration won’t be able to "bypass" Congress, as the e-mail maintains. All international treaties require the approval of two-thirds of the Senate before they are considered ratified and in effect.

In addition, the idea that a treaty necessarily would make U.S. citizens "subject to those gun laws created by foreign governments," as the e-mail claims, is wrong. Treaties don’t subject one nations’ citizens to the laws of other nations. They do commit governments to whatever actions a treaty specifies, such as ceasing to test nuclear weapons, in the case of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (a treaty signed by the U.S., but never ratified by Congress).

Can I give you some advice?

Don't believe the chain emails. Don't believe the NRA fearmongering.

Oh. And check your sources before you post this dribble again, mkay?
 
Dude, give up. You show up here with links from Alex Jones and try to make your unbearable stupidity about liberals who are too rude to debate?
This isn't the four wheel drive forum or where ever you are used to posting.

To be clear, you are actually suggesting that Obama plans to end run arround the 2nd ammendment, (whether congress is in session or not apparrently).

Have you heard of the Supreme Court by any chance? Checks and balances perhaps?

Kelo v. New London? Citizens United? i'm guessing that you agree with all the USSC decisions, opinions, and ideas?
 
The two are highly intertwined among the NRA Teabagger worshippers.



Who's lying?

Can I ask you a question? Only because isn't this the second time you've posted silly shit?

This claim has been around since 2009, right after the president was elected btw, when FactCheck and Snopes ruled it false.



Can I give you some advice?

Don't believe the chain emails. Don't believe the NRA fearmongering.

Oh. And check your sources before you post this dribble again, mkay?

It doesn't impress me much to have you cite biased supposed fact checkers, then try to give me advice on how I should think, or what I should hold as my opinion...Tell you what, you believe what you want, and I will believe what I wish...Got it?
 
It doesn't impress me much to have you cite biased supposed fact checkers, then try to give me advice on how I should think, or what I should hold as my opinion...Tell you what, you believe what you want, and I will believe what I wish...Got it?

Of course you don't want the truth. How will your half brain be able to believe the ridiculous crap you read Dicksee?
 
Back
Top