United Nations doesn’t approve of our Second Amendment (Read 32803 times)

Heavies

Re: United Nations doesn’t approve of our Second Amendment
« Reply #20 on: June 17, 2012, 01:03:27 PM »
UN will = WW3

We need to get out before we find ourselves on the wrong side.

Axis vs. Allied

clshade

Re: United Nations doesn’t approve of our Second Amendment
« Reply #21 on: June 17, 2012, 02:09:52 PM »
Wow, you guys really think the UN is the boogeyman.

Might be, or might want to be. The UN is largely toothless, though. You really think that Germany and England, or even France - as Nations, not as "UN States" - are going to do anything as stupid as support sanctions or an invasion of the US? Or perhaps China would support the undercutting of its biggest customer?

The UN might have some kooky politics but most of the Nations that have any real teeth are our allies. The US is one of the big swinging dicks in the UN, anyway, and it is far more a tool of the US than the US is a tool of the UN.

Agree or disagree with the UN, I highly doubt it poses a serious threat to the US. I think the UN is largely irrelevant to internal matters in the US - except as a convenient boogeyman.

Heavies

Re: United Nations doesn’t approve of our Second Amendment
« Reply #22 on: June 17, 2012, 02:40:41 PM »
The reason that the UN poses a huge treat to the United States is that it consolidates and organizes those contries that will destroy freedom of people of this country and other countries which want freedom around the globe.

Why this country chooses to keep supporting the United Nations of tyrannical countries is not understood by me.
I guess you have a better grasp on reality than I.

JMHO

clshade

Re: United Nations doesn’t approve of our Second Amendment
« Reply #23 on: June 17, 2012, 04:44:45 PM »
Heavies, to be honest I haven't paid all that much attention to the UN so I may be quite wrong. My perspective comes from watching the US railroad UN approval for what would otherwise be illegal international actions: invading Afghanistan, Kuwait, Iraq. Also the UN sanctions against Libya, Saddam's Iraq, etc - ineffective though they may be in many cases.

Can anyone point me to examples of how these freedom hating countries are empowered by the UN? My (again, limited) observation of the UN is that while it does give smaller countries a measure of influence on US interests abroad it gives them no influence over our internal affairs.

Heavies

Re: United Nations doesn’t approve of our Second Amendment
« Reply #24 on: June 17, 2012, 08:08:32 PM »
My (again, limited) observation of the UN is that while it does give smaller countries a measure of influence on US interests abroad it gives them no influence over our internal affairs.

That, my friend, is what they are trying to change.

eyeeatingfish

Re: United Nations doesn’t approve of our Second Amendment
« Reply #25 on: June 18, 2012, 08:20:48 AM »
if a treaty is signed by the U. S. and ratified by the senate. We are toast. It WILL trump the constitution. It Will be tried before the next election in the lame duck congress.

I think you are getting a little paranoid here. A UN treaty would not trump a constitutionally guaranteed right. It w would need to be repealed first.

clshade

Re: United Nations doesn’t approve of our Second Amendment
« Reply #26 on: June 18, 2012, 09:26:26 AM »
Pastor Dennis, yes I still think that the NRA and other organizations are exaggerating the severity of things in order to keep conservative alarm running high. And I think that is absolutely irresponsible. While there may be some legitimate concern, the amount of hot blooded, irrational "damned UN is a'comin' fer our freedom, boys!" sentiment makes having any kind of productive discussion almost impossible. The liberal propaganda machine has similar elements to it, to be fair. Its divisive politics as usual.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership isn't a UN initiative. Its a collection of countries and business interests discussing how trade might be better facilitated around the Pacific. Until each country signs the treaty - which requires congressional approval just like every other treaty - it is non-binding. Trade agreements of this nature typically favor business interests over public interests so they are usually quite controversial.

The noise over "secret negotiations" has nothing to do with secret bad stuff that nullifies the constitution about to be forced on a helpless US. It has to do with US congress members wanting to see what direction the discussions are going so they can get their fingers into the pie. It is a Big Business vs. Government issue and not a UN vs. Government issue.

Seriously, a little understanding of how government does and does not work goes a very long way. Doesn't change the government still doesn't really represent the people very well but you get alarmed about real things and can direct your energy more effectively. Getting riled up about a UN threat that doesn't really exist - at least not the degree that people get riled up -  is a waste of energy.

Sure, the UN gives another forum for little countries to voice their disagreement with our (sometimes invasive, aggressive and selfish) international actions in pursuit of our national interests. So what? They are going to disagree with us anyway and the UN doesn't give their voice any more force. Its their right to disagree but their doing so doesn't much affect American policy or action abroad and certainly doesn't affect it here at home.

What is the big deal? Someone please point out what I am missing. I fail to see how the UN curtails our freedoms at all except that we don't have the freedom to behave irresponsibly internationally without consequence - which is true whether we are members of the UN or not.

pastordennis

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 349
  • Total likes: 0
  • Isaiah 55:11
  • Referrals: 1
    • View Profile
Re: United Nations doesn’t approve of our Second Amendment
« Reply #27 on: June 20, 2012, 07:25:19 AM »
18 June 2012: It was not one contact, but a series of contacts over the last month from which the following information was developed from my source within the Department of Homeland Security. My initial article citing this specific source was published on May 8, 2012. This article details my subsequent contacts with my source beginning after May 14, 2012. Actual dates, times and locations have been omitted at the request of my source.

Our first meeting

The first words from “Rosebud’s” mouth were various expletives strung together in an interestingly creative tirade. Based on the uncharacteristically profane welcome that I thought was directed at me, it was quite obvious that my source was very angry.

“Do you know that the ‘[expletive deleted]-storm’ is still going on because of all the attention to your article?” Thinking that the “bloom was off the rose” and I was about to lose a valuable source, I began to remind my source that we agreed on what could be printed and spoken publicly, and he seemed to have previously come to terms with the initial blow-back created after the initial information he had given me made the rounds. My explanation was interrupted by his sudden laughter, a welcome relief from the tension I initially felt.

“Don’t worry my friend, it’s all good. I just didn’t think the information would have such staying power. We did the right thing by getting this stuff out there, and I’m convinced of that,” he stated. “We hit a nerve, and a big one,” he added, allowing me to relax a bit and feel better about his use of the words ‘we’ and ‘our.’

“I should have told you this before. Having the information first published in Canada was brilliant. It added a layer of inconvenience beyond their [DHS] containment and control, and they [Canada Free Press] did a great job with exposure. Make sure you tell them that. But the pressure is still on to find out where the leaks are coming from, so we’ve got to change a few operational things. But you’ve got to keep getting the word out while I take care of some things on my end,” my source instructed.

The first order of business was to establish a different communications protocol, followed by some information my source wanted to make certain I had correctly or to reemphasize. “We’re going to hit some more and even bigger nerves in due time, so just be ready” he added. Ready for what, I wondered.

It’s the economy, stupid

“Before we get into the grit, I want to make sure you’re clear about what we talked about before, especially about the economy. You know there’s talk at the highest levels about a coming financial meltdown. When I say the highest levels, I mean the highest. But certain information is being compartmentalized, and almost no information is being sent to out-of-the-loop law enforcement agencies about why things are about to get ugly. They’re getting bigger and better equipment and loving it – not questioning it beyond what they’re told. But here’s what you need to make sure everyone understands when you write about our talks: Despite the fact our economy is on life support, DHS will be budgeting another trillion dollars in surveillance measures and equipment for police state tactics for two reasons. The first is to protect the politicians and the elite who are concerned about their physical safety, and rightfully so. This is why you hear no meaningful objections from either party, because both sides are benefiting, at different levels, from the controlled economic meltdown. They are all in the pockets of the big banks, along with the regulators, and so on. They are paranoid. Even the few who aren’t neck deep in graft – just knee deep. When everything starts to unravel, they will be exposed as complicit, so they have been reminded not to object to the increase in police state tactics,” said my source.

“Secondly, everything is preemptive. The power elite are enabling the looting process by oppressing the truth, so they need to monitor everything. If the top can’t stop the details from getting out, and I’m not talking about news from [expletive deleted] MSNBC or the MSM news, but real news, they figure it’s going to get real ugly. DHS is not just being used as the controlling mechanism to stop people from seeking revenge against the people in power who caused the financial ruin or simply allowed it to happen, but to control information through surveillance, intimidation, and force if necessary,” stated my source.

In response, I told my source that it sounds as if he’s strayed from matters of DHS concern to the venue of international banking. “I’ve developed my own sources, too, as I’ve had to make some sense out of parts of this of this along with you. So to that extent, I had to ask some questions from people I trust who work in that field. Things are very connected – incestuous,” came his reply.

As noted in my initial report, my source emphasized that an economic collapse and the resultant societal chaos is now a common threat topic among top-level DHS officials. [Janet] Napolitano is taking orders from Obama and some people and groups very close to him and making sure they are carried out, without question.

Simply stated, it’s a two-part process that works together. “They [high-level DHS officials] are working through their fusion centers to coordinate specific riot control measures with certain municipalities, and already started the process in the big cities. That’s for ‘blow-back.’ But they want to keep the specific information from getting out, which is for control,” he added.

“Why do you think DHS added a bunch of silly domestic threat categories to their list, like people overly concerned with the U.S. Constitution, the Federal Reserve, and so-called conspiracies that in any world except their global  financial shell game, makes absolutely no sense,” my source asked rhetorically. “Just make sure you emphasize that there is a degree of urgency at DHS over this that’s coming right from the top.”

Something drastically changed

“Speaking of threat categories, I’ve never seen the line between genuine terrorist threats and political enemies blurred like this, ever. You know my history, but others don’t. And you know we’ve talked before, but not to this extent, because there’s really something wrong. I’ve been here since [specific month/year omitted, replaced with: during the G.W. Bush administration] and I started to notice it in 2007. Then, after the financial ‘crisis’ of late 2008, it seemed like everything changed. The mood under [Michael] Chertoff became quite different in the latter part of his time at DHS. When [Janet] Napolitano came in, it became clear that politics trumps true national security,” stated this source.

There is a growing impatience of the top DHS and administration officials. It’s easy to recognize instructional commands that legitimately serve national security. Instead of serving legitimate national security threats, it’s about protecting individuals in our government, and not our country or the people. DHS and certain agencies under DHS have evolved into a personal security apparatus of government officials, it’s that simple,” he stated.

DHS is very busy monitoring people and groups considered threats to this administration, not our country. FISA is disregarded, as is the general rule of law, something with which this department, under this administration, remains unconcerned. The ends, which are questionable at best, justify the means in all cases,” stated this source.

The White House 2012 “war room”

“Right now, it seems as if the duties of DHS overlap those with political issues, such as the re-election campaign. As I mentioned before and can’t stress enough, the line between domestic terror threats and political ‘enemies’ is blurred beyond recognition,” stated my source.

“Understand this: This administration has a very effective mechanism in place to monitor, in real time, internet posters and postings. This is one group of people who understand how the internet works, and is using their people to compile potential threats. Not Islamic terrorist websites, either. American websites and social networks. We are spying on our own people, not for domestic threats, but for political ones against this administration. it’s called ‘the war room,’” stated this source. “This is different than the campaign war room full of young volunteers hopped up on Red Bull and experienced in video games. This is ‘eyes only.’”

I asked for examples of “political surveillance,” and my source had plenty. “Drudge, of course, [Andrew] Breitbart, although that threat seems to have been timely diminished, Glen Beck, Sheriff Arpaio and his Cold Case Posse, [Alex] Jones, and a host of conservative, anti-affordable health care, and anti-abortion sites for others. I’m not going to get into other names, as we could compromise everything as the list is closely guarded and updated constantly. And I don’t think I need to specifically mention your group, do I,” he asked rhetorically.

“Also, this group is often proactive in terms of mitigating potential threats. Their process is to ‘identify, infiltrate, disrupt, marginalize and ultimately, destroy.’” The last part, “destroy,” got my attention. Asking how, my source provided a rather vague answer. “In the most efficient manner possible. The tactics vary. You couldn’t just take down the Drudge website, for example, but things could be done to weaken its effectiveness in a number of areas. Remember, the infrastructure of the internet is being more tightly controlled. Look at the proposed legislation. What do you think that’s for? And it also depends on the nature of the [political] threat.”

Presuming the answer, I asked the following question nonetheless. What about the FOIA process as a method of exposure of such tactics? After all, one would think such a process could be fully corrupted. “Really, that’s your question,” he replied. Enough said.

When asked who ultimately receives briefings about political threats, this source stated that “after proper ‘formatting’ and ‘coding’ the information ends up at the White House.” “But in whose hands,” I pressed. Sounding incredulous, he stated “you want me to name names?” “Yes, I’d really like that” was my reply. “I don’t know all of them as more than one type of report is compiled, but I can tell you that Valerie Jarrett gets a copy, maybe the first one. So does [David] Axelrod, but as he’s not on the premises, I don’t know all of what he gets. But I’ve said all I can about this. Just understand that the level in which this administration is involved in monitoring and reporting open source communications for political gain, under the pretext of national security is staggering.”

Drones over America

The bipartisan move to make all U.S. real estate a battle ground was instrumental for a number of reasons, from the use of drones to the implementation of many of Obama’s executive orders. “Especially the drones,” said my source. He added that drones are being used not as they should, but as personal weapons for the advancement of this administration’s domestic goals. And don’t think that some aren’t armed. They are, and for a reason.

“Here’s something to look for, a trial balloon of sorts,” stated my source. “Pick a state in the desert southwest, and consider a hideous threat to our national security. Now, wait for Obama, Napolitano and representatives of other agencies appear in a solemn news conference saying that they saved the country from a nearly successful attack on our soil by using an armed drone to strike a target on the ground before the terrorist attack could succeed. And the majority of Americans will applaud with pride. It will all be staged, although the true facts confined to only the highest levels of government.”

The purpose of such an exercise? Condition Americans to believe we need both surveillance and armed drones flying over our skies to keep us safe.

Connecting the dots

“As I said when you first wrote about our conversation, Obama and his crew don’t have any obvious plans of going anywhere in 2013. They have no plans to accept any Supreme Court decision striking down ‘Obama-Care,’ and intend to implement certain aspects by executive edict, regardless of the decision.  I am obviously limited to the extent of my direct experiences and sources, but Obama is surrounded by a very loyal group of people in positions of extreme power. The DHS in particular is working on turning inward on Americans who disagree or stand in the way of his policies. People need to understand that the DHS is Obama’s personal army. The DOJ, EPA, other government and non-government agencies and his economic advisors are all working together to changing this country. They’re all power hungry and lack morality. They’ll stop at virtually nothing to see that our country is changed and broken beyond repair.

The financial sector is out of control and lining the pockets of our elected leaders. Think Jon Corzine and Jamie Dimon.  Our debt is unsustainable. The class divide, due to crony capitalism is getting worse. From my vantage point, considering the people I overhear and am in touch with, these events are not only anticipated, but are being orchestrated in a deliberate, controlled manner.

Whatever the event, they intend to extend their stay another four years to finish what’s been started. We will be a Marxist nation and a Banana Republic.”

False Flag – always an option

My source continued:  “As we’ve discussed, I heard something that troubled me deeply, and still does. As Obama’s approval rating dips, desperation becomes more of an issue. There is much discussion about the racial divide in this country, and as we talked about, there is an anticipation over the Trayvon Martin case. Depending on how things go, they are determined to inflate this into a much larger issue, and plan to fan the flames of racial division to cause a much broader divide resulting in a chaos on the streets.

But a back-up plan might be in the works. Remember, this is just rumor, just talk, but it makes sense. Something that would cause deep sympathy for Obama and even the First Family – a false flag operation where Obama or his family would not be in any actual danger, but it would appear that way. Some sort of a threat or incident against them carried out by a person or group fitting the fictitious threat categories identified earlier. Perhaps by a pro-Second Amendment, constitutionalists and racists as well – making the most out of the fantasy threats to our country. Something that will fool a whole lot of people and justify police-state like practices. Something that will change the hearts and minds of as many people as possible, perhaps convincing them that there is a danger and Obama is right. Just the thought of such a thing is chilling.”

Concluding, my source reminded me of the quote by Adolph Hitler’s Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels: “The bigger the lie, the more people will believe it.”

Note: My source promised more information about the “pass” given to illegal immigrants shortly. There’s more behind this than votes.
%wp-print | Email Article Email Article | In Pursuit of the Truth...

Comments are closed.
Copyright © 2012 Northeast Intelligence Network - All Rights Reserved

clshade

Re: United Nations doesn’t approve of our Second Amendment
« Reply #28 on: June 20, 2012, 08:54:10 AM »
Sure, pastordennis.

None of that surprises me and I agree with it.

What I do not agree with is the insinuation that the UN is the "Power Elite" or that this behavior is unique to the Obama administration.

The UN, like almost every other aspect of modern political and economic reality, is certainly a tool of the power elite but they are certainly not defined by or limited to it. The primary interest the "power elite" has in the UN has to do with directing peace and conflict around the world to maximize their own profit and power.

As far as the underhanded tactics of DHS and the Obama administration....

Why are we so short sighted? Obama scares you because you don't agree with him but that entire article could have been written by a liberal during the Dubya years when DHS was created. But even Bush didn't start this behavior. J. Edgar Hoover? McCarthyism?

This. Shit. Is. Not. New.

America seems to be "losing its way" not because this kind of crap is happening more and more but simply because we are finding out about it more and more. Blaming the current administration for it is short sighted, wrong, and ineffective. Holding it blameless is also short sighted wrong and ineffective.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely. DC is no exception. The UN is trying to be a bigger, "better" forum to (idealistically, vainly) get around the power that concentrates around wealth. Didn't work because the "power elite" just use it as another forum to confuse everyone into thinking that their agenda is the US's agenda. That way the US is the target and takes the blame for their bad behavior around the world. The US people then feel threatened and raise the best armed forces the world has ever seen... which are then directed according to the interests of the power elite.

Used to be England when it was the largest Empire. Now its us. Would have been Germany had they won the war.

The UN is one of the few international organizations that is somewhat able to fight the interests of the "power elite" and your hatred and distrust of the UN, along with your confusing the aims of the power elite with your distrust of the current administration, plays ~right~ into their hands. The fear serves the "power elite". The short sightedness serves them. The nationalistic pride and stubbornness serves them.  The paranoia, the outrage, the rampant conspiracy theories - while arising from justified shattering of trust - serves them.

If you think this was ever a "free" country ask a Native American or a Hawaiian. If you think this country ever valued integrity of ideals over money ask a Native American, a Hawaiian, a black man in the Jim Crow south, a woman prior to 1920, a non-land owning male at the time the country was formed.

It has always been a house of cards ripe for manipulation by the power elite. Blaming the Obama administration for also being a house of cards is just stupid and short sighted. Expecting them NOT to be a house of cards is also stupid and short sighted.

10hotindaglock

Re: United Nations doesn’t approve of our Second Amendment
« Reply #29 on: June 20, 2012, 02:18:47 PM »
If the u.n. is not trying to hurt this country why are they trying so hard to work hand in glove with our president to take our gun rights away.why are the negotiations being kept quite.our president has already told one of his hilary they will be working under the radar on gun control i can't  help but wonder why.what's wrong with our constitution now that our government is trying so hard to banish it.even openly saying it on t.v. if we didn't have to worry about the u.n. why did our president give up and hand our soverign rights over to them.the u.n. knows our president will play ball with theme.I happen to see no problem with my constitutional rights yet they are being picked away one by one.we already have foreign troops in american uniform trainning on u.s. soil playing so called war games.don't know about anybody else but pastor d getting behind you might be the only sanctuary we have when the s.h.t.f. god bless america.

pastordennis

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 349
  • Total likes: 0
  • Isaiah 55:11
  • Referrals: 1
    • View Profile
Re: United Nations doesn’t approve of our Second Amendment
« Reply #30 on: June 25, 2012, 09:30:13 PM »
UN Arms Trade Treaty Eyes “Legally Owned Weapons”
Posted on June 23, 2012 by Cowboy Byte
Print Friendly

The United Nations is preparing to finalize the terms of the Arms Trade Treaty at an upcoming July conference. Their hope is that the treaty will “create a level playing field for the global arms trade, bringing to it more accountability, openness and transparency.”

Level playing field, transparency…President Obama would definitely approve.

The target of the ATT, you ask? In addition to the Second Amendment, it seems everything from small arms and light weapons to tanks, heavy artillery, helicopters and aircraft. In a report by the UN Coordinating Action on Small Arms titled, “The Impact of Poorly Regulated Arms Transfers on the Work of the UN,” (not available online) CASA pointed to recent events in Libya, Syria and Sudan for the justification of ‘heavier conventional weapons’ being included. In terms of the small arms and light weapons, well, they’re primarily used in “modern day intra-state conflicts.”

pastordennis

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 349
  • Total likes: 0
  • Isaiah 55:11
  • Referrals: 1
    • View Profile
Re: United Nations doesn’t approve of our Second Amendment
« Reply #31 on: June 25, 2012, 09:32:51 PM »
The United Nations is preparing to finalize the terms of the Arms Trade Treaty at an upcoming July conference. Their hope is that the treaty will “create a level playing field for the global arms trade, bringing to it more accountability, openness and transparency.”

Level playing field, transparency…President Obama would definitely approve.

The target of the ATT, you ask? In addition to the Second Amendment, it seems everything from small arms and light weapons to tanks, heavy artillery, helicopters and aircraft. In a report by the UN Coordinating Action on Small Arms titled, “The Impact of Poorly Regulated Arms Transfers on the Work of the UN,” (not available online) CASA pointed to recent events in Libya, Syria and Sudan for the justification of ‘heavier conventional weapons’ being included. In terms of the small arms and light weapons, well, they’re primarily used in “modern day intra-state conflicts.” The point to take away is that the treaty would apply uniformly to both democratic states and dictatorial regimes, the latter of which makes up the majority of UN member states.

Nearly a year ago, U.S. Senators took concern with the scope of the ATT, which threatens Second Amendment rights. 

The CASA report claims that “states have an inherent right to individual or collective self-defense” and that “the ATT does not aim to impede or interfere with the lawful ownership and use of weapons.” Yet, because of the ‘problem of diversion’ – transfer of weapons to the illicit market without proper control – “the arms trade must therefore be regulated in ways that would…minimize the risk of misuse of legally owned weapons.”

How does a treaty not interfere with the lawful ownership and use of weapons while at the same time putting forth regulations that minimize the risk of misusing those weapons? Only the United Nations would devise such a power-grabbing, contradictory document. A document, which, by the way, also makes the erroneous assumption that the majority of its member states have the ability to regulate activity at borders that are often so porous they only have true definition on a map.

In the Senators’ letter to the president and Sec. Clinton, they also express concern over what participation in negotiations means:

    “Your Administration agreed to participate in the negotiation only if it “operates under the rule of consensus decision-making.” Given that the 2008 resolution on the treaty was adopted almost unanimously - with only the U.S. and Zimbabwe in opposition - it seems clear that there is a near-consensus on the requirement for the “highest possible standards,” which will inevitably put severe pressure on the United States to compromise on important issues."

Commenting on the CASA report, Heritage’s Dr. Ted Bromund writes:

    “Of course, CASA isn’t just concerned with lawful ownership; it’s also campaigning against “community attitudes” that “contribute to the powerful cultural conditioning that equates masculinity with owning and using a gun, and regards gun misuse by men as acceptable.”

    All this just goes to show that the U.N. regards gun ownership—even under national constitutional protection and for lawful activities—as a cultural failure that it needs to redress and that it has no patience at all with the idea that self-defense is an inherent right.”

This coming from an organization that allowed Gaddafi to chair the Human Rights Commission. Gotta love the hypocritical morality police.

And when all is said and done, part of the reason they’re putting forth this treaty is because:

    “Whether it is maintaining international peace and security, protecting human rights, providing humanitarian aid, promoting social and economic development, conducting peacekeeping, assisting in crime prevention and criminal justice, empowering women, protecting children, improving public health or building safer cities, all too often armed insecurity fuelled by poorly regulated arms transfers prevents us from reaching the goals laid out for us by Member States.”

Whatever helps them sleep at night, right?

clshade

Re: United Nations doesn’t approve of our Second Amendment
« Reply #32 on: June 26, 2012, 12:54:42 PM »
Doesn't threaten the second amendment ~at all~ depending on how the treaty actually gets written. Go read the documentation for yourself instead of depending on hard right fear tactics and knee-jerk reactions.

I say again, since it might not have been clear when I mentioned it before, CURRENT federally mandated background checks on CURRENTLY unregulated firearms (i.e. not NFA regulated) more than suffice to fill the terms the treaty is likely to lay out based on the suggestions currently published. If you doubt this go ahead and try buying a FA AK47, a silencer, an RGP, some grenades, an attack helicopter, some artillery or perhaps a military naval vessel. Or look at the statistics on how many legally obtained and owned firearms are used in the commission of war-like, terroristic and criminal acts in the US.

Read the UN documentation yourself. I don't care what Dick "How Can I Take Advantage of This?" Politico says.

This treaty will probably have jack-diddly to do with Joe Gun Owner or the current infrin... I mean implementation of the 2nd Amendment amendment in the US. Our gun ownership rights are already properly infring... damn, I mean regulated for the UN. Thinking that this UN treaty is focused on private ownership in the US and blindly opposing it as such is - at this point - extremely myopic.

Note that I did say "probably." Its worth watching how it shakes out in July. Until then its all smoke and bullsh!t because there are no concrete terms to be discussed anyway.

clshade

Re: United Nations doesn’t approve of our Second Amendment
« Reply #33 on: June 26, 2012, 01:08:11 PM »
Having said that, the treaty might not be in the interest of larger US goals and tactics. Or rather larger international banking and business interests that tend to use the US as their cudgel's interests....

Seeing as the US government armed and supported  the Taliban, Iran and Saddam Hussein during the Cold War this treaty might make such behavior a little harder to do. If you support that kind of thing then, no, this treaty is not a good thing. So far, pouring arms into hotspots in order to further your own interests hasn't turned out to be overly stabilizing or in anyone's longer term interests - though it did help make "us" the "winners" of the Cold War. Very much at the expense of the locals who were brandishing our weapons... as history has played out since then.

Oh, and none of those arms made it to those hotspots via private sales venues in the US. They came directly from the CIA. That's why the scope of this treaty - probably - doesn't bother with legal domestic arms sales in the US.

pastordennis

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 349
  • Total likes: 0
  • Isaiah 55:11
  • Referrals: 1
    • View Profile
Re: United Nations doesn’t approve of our Second Amendment
« Reply #34 on: June 26, 2012, 10:31:57 PM »
Last week it was reported that the State Department and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton were deeply involved in the scandal known as Operation Fast and Furious, or Project Gunwalker. Today, however, new evidence has surfaced indicating that not only was Hillary deeply involved in the scandal but was one of the masterminds behind it. According to investigative citizen journalist Mike Vanderboegh, sources close to the development of the Gunwalker scheme state that early on, Hillary and her trusted associated at State, Andrew J. Shapiro, devised at least part of the framework of what would later become Operation Fast and Furious. It was Shapiro who first described the details of the proposed scheme early in 2009 just after the Obama Administration took office. Vanderboegh relates the following:

    My sources say that as Hillary’s trusted subordinate, it was Shapiro who first described to the Secretary of State the details of what has become the Gunwalker Scandal. The precise extent to which Hillary Clinton‘s knowledge of, and responsibility for, the Gunwalker Plot, lies within the memories of these two men, Shapiro and Steinberg, sources say. The sources also express dismay that the Issa committee is apparently restricting itself to the Department of Justice and not venturing further afield. The House Foreign Affairs Committee, they say, needs to summon these two men and their subordinates — especially at the Mexico Desk at State — and question them under oath as to what Hillary Clinton knew about the origins of the Gunwalker Scandal and when she knew it. There is one other thing those sources agree upon. The CIA, they say, knows “everything” about the “Mexican hat dance” that became the Gunwalker Scandal.

The ‘Steinberg’ mentioned in the quote above is Hillary Clinton’s former Deputy Secretary of State, who was appointed directly by Barack Obama and was considered from the start to be an ‘Obama man’ whose objective was to carry out the wishes of the President in the State Department. Hillary had said of Steinberg,

    Clinton said Steinberg had been a “fixture” at meetings with the National Security Council (NSC) and frequently represented the US State Department at the White House.

That statement is key. Hillary herself stayed out of all meetings dealing with strategy concerning the euphemism the Administration used to designate Gunwalker, ‘strategy meetings on Mexico and the problem of drug and gun trafficking.’ Hillary’s absence would give the impression that she had no connection to the scheme while making sure that her views were represented by Steinberg and Shapiro, both of whom were fully complicit with the details that developed concerning how to pad statistics on U.S. guns in Mexico. According to sources, Hillary was obsessed with gun statistics that would prove that ’90% of the firearms used by Mexican criminals come from the United States.’ As previouly reported, that meme, repeated incessantly by Democratic Senators, Barack Obama, certan members of the ATF, Janet Napolitano, and Hillary Clinton was patently and blatantly false. The fact that they all knew it was false is borne out by the lengths to which each of the above named co-conspirators went to attempt to ‘prove’ that the 90% figure was true. Again, Vanderboegh relates the following:

    My sources say that this battle of the “statistics” was taken very seriously by all players — the White House, State and Justice. Yet, WHY was this game of statistics so important to the players? If some weapons from the American civilian market were making it to Mexico into the hand of drug gang killers that was bad enough. What was the importance of insisting that it was 90 percent, 80 percent, or finally 70 percent? Would such statistics make any difference to the law enforcement tactics necessary to curtail them? No. This statistics mania is similar to the focus on “body counts” in Vietnam. Yet if Vietnam body counts were supposed to be a measure of how we were winning that war, the focus on the 90 percent meme was certainly not designed to be a measure of how we were winning the war against arming the cartels, but rather by what overwhelming standard we were LOSING. Why? Recall what the whistleblower ATF agents told us right after this scandal broke in the wake of the death of Brian Terry: “ATF source confirms ‘walking’ guns to Mexico to ‘pad’ statistics.”

Thus, from the beginning the scheme was to pad statistics on U.S. guns in Mexico in order to be in a strengthened position to call for gun bans and strict gun control at a time when it was politically unpopular. Further, the scheme would involve a made-up statistic, out of thin air–90%–which then had to be proved by using civilian gun retailers along the southern border as unsuspecting pawns to walk U.S. guns into Mexico by ATF agents, straw purchasers, and others with connections to Mexican drug cartels. And the evidence points to the fact that Hillary Clinton was one of the original Administration officials who was ‘in the loop’ on the scheme from the very beginning. Be sure to catch my blog at The Liberty Sphere. Visit my ministry site at Martin Christian Ministries. Subscribe by clicking the links at the top of the page, or below, and you will receive free notifications of new articles plus a free newsletter. A FREE, COMPREHENSIVE EDUCATION IN CONSERVATIVE POLITICS. You will find it each week at WFHT-AM 1390 in Orlando-Avon Park, Florida on the weekly program ‘A Voice for Freedom.’Join Lori Hendry, Ginger Carlisle, and Lin DiCesare each Saturday morning from 11 AM to 12 Noon for interesting guests and news of vital importance to conservatives. Those living outside the station’s listening area can tune in via Livestream on the Internet. Oh, and yours truly will provide a rundown of the top political stories of the week plus searing and insightful commentary from a conservative perspective.

clshade

Re: United Nations doesn’t approve of our Second Amendment
« Reply #35 on: June 26, 2012, 10:57:19 PM »
Sure.

And how do you suppose that is working out for them?

 :rofl:

pastordennis

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 349
  • Total likes: 0
  • Isaiah 55:11
  • Referrals: 1
    • View Profile
Re: United Nations doesn’t approve of our Second Amendment
« Reply #36 on: June 26, 2012, 11:06:51 PM »
hurting

pastordennis

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 349
  • Total likes: 0
  • Isaiah 55:11
  • Referrals: 1
    • View Profile
Re: United Nations doesn’t approve of our Second Amendment
« Reply #37 on: July 04, 2012, 07:40:53 PM »
Have you ever wondered what happened to the 56 men who signed the Declaration of Independence ?

    Posted by GIT-R-DONE on July 4, 2012 at 7:09pm
    View Blog

Five signers were captured by the British as traitors, and tortured before they died.

Twelve had their homes ransacked and burned. Two lost their sons serving in the Revolutionary Army; another had two sons captured.

Nine of the 56 fought and died from wounds or hardships of the Revolutionary War.

They signed and they pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor.

What kind of men were they?

Twenty-four were lawyers and jurists. Eleven were merchants; nine were farmers and large plantation owners; men of means, well educated, but they signed the Declaration of Independence knowing full well that the penalty would be death if they were captured.

Carter Braxton of Virginia, a wealthy planter and trader, saw his ships swept from the seas by the British Navy. He sold his home and properties to pay his debts, and died in rags.

Thomas McKeam was so hounded by the British that he was forced to move his family almost constantly. He served in the Congress without pay, and his family was kept in hiding. His possessions were taken from him, and poverty was his reward.

Vandals or soldiers looted the properties of Dillery, Hall, Clymer, Walton, Gwinnett, Heyward, Ruttledge, and Middleton.

At the battle of Yorktown, Thomas Nelson, Jr., noted that the British General Cornwallis had taken over the Nelson home for his headquarters. He quietly urged General George Washington to open fire. The home was destroyed, and Nelson died bankrupt.

Francis Lewis had his home and properties destroyed. The enemy jailed his wife, and she died within a few months.

John Hart was driven from his wife's bedside as she was dying. Their 13 children fled for their lives. His fields and his gristmill were laid to waste. For more than a year he lived in forests and caves, returning home to find his wife dead and his children vanished. So, take a few minutes while enjoying your 4th of July holiday and silently thank these patriots. It's not much to ask for the price they paid.

Remember: freedom is never free! I hope you will show your support by sending this to as many people as you can, please.It's time we get the word out that patriotism is NOT a sin, and the Fourth of July has more to it than beer, picnics, and baseball games

pastordennis

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 349
  • Total likes: 0
  • Isaiah 55:11
  • Referrals: 1
    • View Profile
Re: United Nations doesn’t approve of our Second Amendment
« Reply #38 on: July 04, 2012, 07:42:26 PM »
The U.N. can kiss off. Ive got 168 grns. of americam lead for all of them

SpeedTek

  • Trade Count: (+44)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4749
  • Total likes: 126
  • Car Nut, Machinist, Gunsmith & Monkey
  • Referrals: 2
    • View Profile
    • X-Ring on the WWW
Re: United Nations doesn’t approve of our Second Amendment
« Reply #39 on: July 04, 2012, 10:04:44 PM »
The U.N. can kiss off. Ive got 168 grns. of americam lead for all of them

Now they know how many they have to confiscate off you.



Political Correctness is FOS
I collect M1 Carbines, PM me if youre selling!
& Bolt Action 308s also 10/22 Rugers.
Buying STOCK Ruger 10/22 parts and bits, PM me.
Now doing Vintage VW Parts!