Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

How Obama will eliminate the second amendment

Discussion in 'Gun-Control Issues' started by Grayhawk, Sep 30, 2012.

  1. Al Czervik

    Al Czervik My arm!

    Aug 18, 2006
    Or, some reprobate spillover from the HuffPo and DKos.
  2. engineer151515


    Nov 3, 2003
    The good news is that you have the right to be as unarmed as you want to be.

    Black powder muskets don't even require a background check.

    Nobody wants guns in the hands of a lunatic, hence Form 4473.

  3. rhikdavis

    rhikdavis U.S. Veteran

    Jul 22, 2002
    In Remembrance
    Like termites.
  4. Providence


    Feb 5, 2011
    Woodstock, GA
    I am for a clear unrestricted reading of the second amendment. There is no mention of restricting certain persons from gun ownership. Guns create a civilized society. Guns restrict a foreign power from invading our country. Guns are a good thing.

    As far as Obama is concerned, I am not that concerned that he would mount a legal campaign to restrict the 2nd amendment. He has proven that he doesn't have the ability to do that. I am concerned that he would do it by edict or through a regulatory agency. This has happened time after time. It's the way he does things. "This is too important to wait on congress to act! I must act now to save our children!" And idiots all over the country will blindly follow.

    You can't say he hasn't done that, only that he hasn't yet done it to the 2nd amendment. He would have no reason to fear the NRA. They are nothing to him.
  5. Jerry

    Jerry Staff Member Moderator Millennium Member

    Dec 21, 1998
    Oh my god... logic has reared it's ugly head again. What are the morons to do. Oh... lie and spin. Whooo! For a second I thought the Nazy gun nuts might rule the day. :whistling:
  6. countrygun


    Mar 9, 2012
    " But, but, but, didn't the Founders use the term "Militia" to describe a group of guys who got together to go deer hunting each fall???"



    Funny the Founders protected the peole from opression by the weapons of their day, some people think we should still use those weapons to protect ourselves from oppression by the weapons of today.

    The Founders didn't need an internet, TV or radio, what do they have to do with freedom of speech today?

    They should be censored because the Founders were talking about the communication tools of their day.
  7. SpringerTGO


    Jul 30, 2011
    Romney has stated that corporations are citizens (in support of "Citizens United") and I have heard Ryan speak out against appointed judges. How will elected judges, backed by endless supplies of corporate funding, protect our rights?
  8. SpringerTGO


    Jul 30, 2011
    A couple more little details...
    Wasn't the machine gun ban enacted under the late great President Ronald Reagan? Wasn't he a....... Republican?
    Wasn't Brady on his staff? It can't be that a Republican President passed anti gun measures, and the most famous anti gun person in this country is a Republican????? Granted Sarah did get her bill passed under President Clinton.
  9. t4terrific


    Sep 8, 2011
    Sweet! That is comforting.
  10. Glock26z


    Jul 17, 2010
    I have my 5,6 shot revolvers and my single stacks 1911's in 9 and .45 acp. since I am disabled,it's hard for me to load a double stack magazine. I sold all my Glocls because of my health and disability.
  11. FireForged

    FireForged Millenium #3936 Millennium Member

    Dec 25, 1999
    Rebel South
    ^^^^ this.

    Plus, the US has already placed so many red lines on so many aspects of the proposed treaty, it negated any possibility of the US ever being any part of it.
  12. Gpruitt54


    Jul 18, 2012
    I love your avatar. that looks like a male donkey. So, that is a gay elephant? Right?

  13. artert3


    Jul 15, 2008

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

    The crooks can't be controled and the government is a separate entity. Looks like our biggest fear is coming true. Only the crooks will have guns, government included and who will be the biggest crook?

    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.

    On Wednesday Obama Took the 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 ammu nition 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.

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

    We are being led like a lamb to the slaughter (Socialism/Dictatorship).


    The crooks can't be controlled and the government is a separate entity. Looks like our biggest fear is coming true. Only the crooks will have guns, government included and who will be the biggest crook?

  14. :rofl:
  15. Chris Brines

    Chris Brines

    Feb 11, 2012
    Nobody can predict the future but this is surely worth considering:

    Quote from Dick Morris:

    Now advocates of the Treaty, as we predicted, are back and have introduced a resolution in the UN General Assembly calling for the resumption of negotiations and outlining a new procedure to get it passed even if the US objects.

    Under their plan -- likely to be approved later this month by the General Assembly -- the negotiators are not going to seek consensus (read: U.S. approval) but will write the Treaty as they please and introduce it to the General Assembly for approval. If two-thirds of the Assembly vote for the treaty (a foregone conclusion), then it will be submitted to the nations of the world for signature and ratification. Nobody will be able to change the Treaty, they have the option of signing or not.

    When sixty nations have signed, the Treaty will take effect and be binding on those who have signed and ratified it.

    Here's the rest of the plan: After the election is over, Obama and Hillary will probably sign the Treaty. They then won't submit it for ratification since, under the Vienna Convention, it takes effect automatically on their signature even without Senate ratification. That means that the Treaty takes full effect unless one of two things happen:

    (a) Either the Senate votes to kill the Treaty, or

    (b) The president or a future president renounces it

    The first option won't happen. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid won't permit the Treaty to come up for a vote in the lame duck Senate session that begins after Election Day. He knows it would lose. So, as long as Obama is president and he doesn't renounce the Treaty, it will take effect without Senate action.

    We need to mobilize to stop this end run around our Constitution. Once the Arms Trade Treaty is signed by Obama, it will open the door to international gun controls imposed by the Geneva-based enforcers of the Treaty.

    (Nominally, the Treaty bars the exportation of small arms by private individuals or companies to foreign countries. But, in its enforcement, it obliges signatory countries to require registration of the small arms in their citizens' possession. And, if that fails to stop the export of small arms, it empowers the global body to take further steps, likely to include prohibition and confiscation.

    People can theorize all they want...but obviously there are some people who feel pretty strongly about Obama's 2nd Amendment disregard....enough to turn down business of those who voted for him:


    Although that is kinda harsh and I don't think I'd personally go that far, I can't say I blame them one bit.
  16. Drilled


    Dec 2, 2006
    You are an idiot.
  17. Chris Brines

    Chris Brines

    Feb 11, 2012
    What he said X100000000

    You (BADOS) obviously don't know a damn thing about the 2nd Amendment or its purpose. First and foremost, it is included in the Bill of Rights, not the "Bill of Needs". Meaning it's not about what BADOS thinks people "need" or not. If I wanna own an AK I'm gonna own an AK. If I wanna own 100 AK's, I"m gonnna own 100 of them.

    I have no problem with not selling full auto machine guns to the average citizen (although I believe if someone is willing and able to go through all of the Class 3 red tape to get one, it is his or her right as well and should not be infringed), but any restrictions on semi automatic weapons of any caliber 50 BMG or lower is a direct infringement of the right of the people to keep and bear arms. In other words, it's a crime against the free people of the USA.
    Last edited: Nov 10, 2012
  18. concretefuzzynuts

    concretefuzzynuts Brew Crew

    Dec 27, 2011
    The second amendment was written to ensure the citizens of our country had equal fire power as the government. It was musket to musket back then. The purpose of the second amendment was not only self protection from bandits and murderers. It was mostly to defend ourselves from a tyrannical government rule.

    We already don't have equal firepower and they want to take more.

    The amendments were well thought out. These people had fled an oppressive government, they were looking for freedom. The first amendment is free speech, the second is the right to bear arms to protect that speech. In that order. These men were not dumb or archaic. This was well thought out and planned for our future. Now.
  19. Chris Brines

    Chris Brines

    Feb 11, 2012
    A few famous quotes from our founders sum it up perfectly:

    1. Free people shall never be debarred the use of arms

    2. When people fear their government, there is tyranny

    3. The best way to enslave people is to disarm them
    Last edited: Nov 10, 2012
  20. Gpruitt54


    Jul 18, 2012
    This represents why Conservative thought is a dangerous thing in a nation based on freedom.

    This sign is akin to the Star of David used in the late 1930s to mark and set apart the Jews in Europe. Because Conservatives are by in large authoritarians, this tendency to separate those who don't agree with their extremism must be called out for what it is; un-American.