Prepared Society Forum banner
1 - 20 of 33 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
10 Posts
I got this from....

preparedsurvivalistsunite2%40yahoogroups.com

Don't know if he can do this or not:

OBAMA TO REVERSE GUN POLICY
Mon Nov 2, 2009 12:54am

Obama Takes First Step in Banning All Firearms

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.

Source: The Full Article

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

Please forward this message to others who may be concerned about the direction in which our country is headed.

Silence will lead us to Socialism.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,512 Posts
That guys tin foil hat is on a little too tight. The Reuters article is about the international arms trade. Something the U.S. is less and less involved in by the day. In Canada it's pretty much impossible to buy many guns that are made in the United States. The State Department, out of a sense of paranoia, has banned the export of many popular guns.

Their fear is that someone here would buy one and then re sell it to a terrorist nation. The whole idea is pretty silly. Between the Chinese, Russians and former Easter Block there is more than enough variety to satisfy the international market for small arms. Ironicaly we can buy as many dirt cheap M14 and AR15 Chinese knock offs as we want in Canada. A real built in the U.S. M1A costs several thousand Canadian. The identical Chinese copy is only a few hundred.

Even if international treaties are signed the U.S. government will still need their own internal legislation and enforcement. An international treaty might make it harder for an American to buy imported guns. However, if there is a demand in the U.S. the european company will just build the gun in their U.S. based factory instead.

I don't doubt that the government is working towards confiscation as the eventual goal. However, they don't need to do something as big as international agreements to do it. A small expansion of the "homeland security" measures (which already farts in the face of the constitution) would be enough.
 

·
YourAdministrator, eh?
Joined
·
8,000 Posts
even if it were true enforcement woukd be impossible.
Not quite impossible. The Canadian government tried to implement something like that - it has worked, but, not to the extent that they had hoped. Right now, we have huge lists of banned weapons, but, that doesn't mean that they are not here "underground".

There have been stories of police going "door-to-door" to relieve law-abiding-citizens of their "illegal" weapons - weapons that had been passed down from generation to generation and making the current holders of those weapons criminals in the eyes of the courts.

If I (as a Canadian) am caught with "silent-death" weapons, I can spend some quality-time in jail, have a criminal record that will never disappear and will be banned from ever having a passport. That means that I could never visit the USA again.

Our USA members might be wondering what kind of "silent-death" weapons can cause that kind of trouble? Pistol-style cross-bow. Butterfly-knife. Blow-gun. Throwing star. Flail (aka, nun chukka). I heard that even a plastic "toy-version" of any of those items could slam someone into cuffs.

BTW: I have researched some of the reasons behind the ban on those kinds of "silent death" weapons. It falls down to the Hollywood movie portrayals of those weapons, not their actual capabilities.
 

·
Member
Joined
·
446 Posts
I can't imagine what would happen if the gubbamint tried to enforce something like that (not saying they won't try). :( I know a lot of folks who would not submit quietly (including me).

Tim
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24 Posts
It would create acivil war in the usa and several states would seperate from the union- Texas would be first.
Law enforcment would be split and most would not comply with enforcment.
Some things are worth the fight
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,922 Posts
I think our gennereation will have enough guns, it is the next one I worry about. I have a hard time getting kids interested in going outside let alone shooting.:scratch
 

·
I am a little teapot
Joined
·
2,696 Posts
Really? When I was a Scout (I never made Eagle) we loved going to the firing range at Summer camp. I remember one year one guy who was my age brought his older brother who was home from the Service and had been in the troop in his youth. He kicked butt in the troop leaders' shoot-every one else had weekend warriors and hunters shooting for their team and we had an Army sniper. :)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,660 Posts
I can't imagine what would happen if the gubbamint tried to enforce something like that (not saying they won't try). :( I know a lot of folks who would not submit quietly (including me).

Tim
I agree with Tim and Kenny ... I can't see it right now ... most gun owners... just handing their guns over and and say "alright".

But I do see them (the gubbamin) ... working in a back room ... to take our guns away...

I wonder ... how I will like living on the other side... ((of the law)):sssh:
 

·
YourAdministrator, eh?
Joined
·
8,000 Posts
I don't know what I would do if nunchuks were illegal.
The way I understand that the law is written, any blunt-object that is carried with the purpose of harming others is illegal. Baseball bats, steel pipe, rolling pins etc all fall within that catagory. I believe that the key word is intent-of-use ...
 

·
Pincushion
Joined
·
278 Posts
I thought all treaties had to be ratified by the Senate to be valid. They had better do it before the 2010 elections if they want a prayer of passing something as bold as that, and then they can kiss their carreers goodbye.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
348 Posts
Yeah, it just wouldn't work, attempting to take the guns away. I could possibly see a lot of violence springing up if that happened.

Now if these anti-gun folks were smart, they would stop trying to take away the guns and focus on taking away the ammunition. The constitution provides us with the right to bear arms to defend ourselves. But it didn't say how.

Although I am against any sort of regulation on firearms. There are many people around these parts that depend on hunting year to year in order to survive and provide for their families. And if you take away their guns and hand them a bow and arrow instead, about 80-90% of them are screwed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14 Posts
Not possible

The article does cover international arms trade, not individual confiscation. The next few years is truly going to be a scary time in our history, but I know alot of law enforcement and folks in the military. About 90% won't even enforce it. It'll bog them down, the criminals will run rampant which will keep them completely swamped with responses, besides, they have families as well. So, I don't see this going anywhere.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
2,248 Posts
The way I understand that the law is written, any blunt-object that is carried with the purpose of harming others is illegal. Baseball bats, steel pipe, rolling pins etc all fall within that catagory. I believe that the key word is intent-of-use ...
In Texas it's illegal not to carry those things.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
2,248 Posts
I thought all treaties had to be ratified by the Senate to be valid. They had better do it before the 2010 elections if they want a prayer of passing something as bold as that, and then they can kiss their carreers goodbye.
Kyoto Protocol - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The rest of the world doesn't understand how government of the people for the people works so they get all up in arms when we do things like this. Still anything's better than bowing to Unjust authority, monarchy dictatorship whatever.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
638 Posts
They don't have to ban anything, healthcare passes that will be a back door to the guess what, o you have dangerous things in your home (firearms) your ins. premiums will be 3 or 4 times the national average, the rich will be able to keep theirs. The plain joe will not be able to afford to keep them and still keep ins. and if you don't have it fines and jail time. Welcome to the future. The fines and jail time are in the bill now.HEALTH CARE MY ARSE ITS ABOUT CONTROL.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24 Posts
I think our gennereation will have enough guns, it is the next one I worry about. I have a hard time getting kids interested in going outside let alone shooting.:scratch
I am happy to say our local club has a youth shooting program that is really taking off. We had a 14 year old win a national ranking last year. Its nice to see the parents get involved and support there kids even if they dont shoot.
Firearms are making a comeback in a big way I believe.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
If you think this is about international arms sales only you are sadly mistaken. Guns that have been showing up in Mexico and traced back to US gun shows have prompted this new position switch. Not A giant sale of M4 rifles by Bushmaster to the Republic of Georgia. That is why the UN does not want any "State" to be able to obstain from the said treaty. Yes this is aimed at the sale and "transfer" of all arms. With a treaty like this in place a Country simply has to complain about a few US made weapons showing up in their sovereign territory and suddenly it's not a Texas gun dealer or a thug in LA that violated the treaty-it's the USA and they will be compelled by the treaty to deal with it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
638 Posts
Well that funny little thing called a treaty might cause a problem since we the general public did not sign the d.. thing. They might want to consult us on this one. Could be a conflict of intrest thar, ya reckon.
 
1 - 20 of 33 Posts
Top