User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 8:19:18 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
As it is now, congress is practically ceremonial! Obama goes around congress at every turn. If he can do that, why have a congress at all??? I agree with this. They make a lot of noise about things like Benghazi, the IRS hit squads, Fast & Furious, etc but nothing gets done about it. Holder and Obama have lied repeatedly to Congress and they have yet to do anything about it. You can go to a town meeting anywhere in this country and US Senators and Congressmen are being yelled at by their constituents and still nothing is being done. We are much closer to a dictatorship than most people realize. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 8:22:45 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Pakistanis, Nigerians, etc. Military from different nations assigned to UN duty. They won't hesitate to do what they are told. T hat includes shooting civilians who resist what ever the troops are commanded to do. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
What's a "UN military unit"? Pakistanis, Nigerians, etc. Military from different nations assigned to UN duty. They won't hesitate to do what they are told. T hat includes shooting civilians who resist what ever the troops are commanded to do. I see you read Bracken's novels. They're good but let's be realistic if for a moment regarding "UN military units"... Most nation's don't give but a pittance to UN lead missions and those missions don't come charging into nations demanding guns for the most part. In fact the AMISOM mission has more relaxed ROE to swack Islamic terrorists than we do in Afghanistan. Now you're going to say "see, their willing to do anything" But let's keep this in mind Who's going to tell the UN to come here? And where would they land? What stronghold would they be allowed to occupy? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 8:24:29 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: People gripe about SWAT teams raiding their houses.That is mild compared to what could really happen. If a UN military unit finds resistance at a house, they will back off and take it down with a RPG or explosive ordinance. It's not something to joke about. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: In addition to Deer tags being sold at Walmart, they need to sell UN tags. A real economy booster that would be!  People gripe about SWAT teams raiding their houses.That is mild compared to what could really happen. If a UN military unit finds resistance at a house, they will back off and take it down with a RPG or explosive ordinance. It's not something to joke about. So you take the UN serious then? I find the UN to be nothing but a JOKE. A sick joke at that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 8:29:51 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I see you read Bracken's novels. They're good but let's be realistic if for a moment regarding "UN military units"... Most nation's don't give but a pittance to UN lead missions and those missions don't come charging into nations demanding guns for the most part. In face the AMISOM mission has more relaxed ROE to swack Islamic terrorists than we do in Afghanistan. Who's goign to tell the UN to come here? And where would they land? What stronghold would they be allowed to occupy? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
What's a "UN military unit"? Pakistanis, Nigerians, etc. Military from different nations assigned to UN duty. They won't hesitate to do what they are told. T hat includes shooting civilians who resist what ever the troops are commanded to do. I see you read Bracken's novels. They're good but let's be realistic if for a moment regarding "UN military units"... Most nation's don't give but a pittance to UN lead missions and those missions don't come charging into nations demanding guns for the most part. In face the AMISOM mission has more relaxed ROE to swack Islamic terrorists than we do in Afghanistan. Who's goign to tell the UN to come here? And where would they land? What stronghold would they be allowed to occupy? gee, I'd say if there are UN mercenaries in the country we'd be justified in killing every mutherfucking one of them and the Officials that asked/agreed to have them come in, at that time all bets are off. Anyone who suggests that we'd be the seditious ones bearing false witness, the ones guilty of sedition would be the ones who had violated their oath of office. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 8:36:54 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I see you read Bracken's novels. They're good but let's be realistic if for a moment regarding "UN military units"... Most nation's don't give but a pittance to UN lead missions and those missions don't come charging into nations demanding guns for the most part. In fact the AMISOM mission has more relaxed ROE to swack Islamic terrorists than we do in Afghanistan. Now you're going to say "see, their willing to do anything" But let's keep this in mind Who's going to tell the UN to come here? And where would they land? What stronghold would they be allowed to occupy? Quote HistoryQuoted:
I see you read Bracken's novels. They're good but let's be realistic if for a moment regarding "UN military units"... Most nation's don't give but a pittance to UN lead missions and those missions don't come charging into nations demanding guns for the most part. In fact the AMISOM mission has more relaxed ROE to swack Islamic terrorists than we do in Afghanistan. Now you're going to say "see, their willing to do anything" But let's keep this in mind Who's going to tell the UN to come here? And where would they land? What stronghold would they be allowed to occupy? I never read anything from Bracken. What is the title of his book/s? As far as the UN coming here, during Katrina several nations including China and Russia offered to send troops to aid in our recovery. Bush ignored the offer. Do you think Obama wouldn't invite them in situation like Katrina or any national catastrophe, man made or natural? Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
In addition to Deer tags being sold at Walmart, they need to sell UN tags. A real economy booster that would be! People gripe about SWAT teams raiding their houses.That is mild compared to what could really happen. If a UN military unit finds resistance at a house, they will back off and take it down with a RPG or explosive ordinance. It's not something to joke about. So you take the UN serious then? I find the UN to be nothing but a JOKE. A sick joke at that. No, I don't think anybody's military as a joke if they are in the street in front of me or in my city. I also don't take our wide open borders as a joke or the thousands of Muslim OTMs that the Border Patrol has caught in the last ten years. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 8:43:16 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
gee, I'd say if there are UN mercenaries in the country we'd be justified in killing every mutherfucking one of them and the Officials that asked/agreed to have them come in, at that time all bets are off. Anyone who suggests that we'd be the seditious ones bearing false witness, the ones guilty of sedition would be the ones who had violated their oath of office. You'll have a hard time convincing the sheeple in this country (and even on this website) that their civil rights are just hanging on by a thread with Obama in office and the Congress we now have. Convince them you are defending the US Constitution? No way! |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 8:43:56 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The NRA has strongly opposed this UN treaty since the beginning for the same reasons Alex Jones has - to keep from doing away with the 2A. Obama's efforts to do this besides the UN treaty (WITHOUT US SENATE APPROVAL!) is undeniable. How you and others can dismiss warnings that the disarmament of US citizens is about to happen is unbelievable. Where there is smoke there is fire despite your denial of the obvious. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Alex Jones level nonsense is what's being discussed. The NRA has strongly opposed this UN treaty since the beginning for the same reasons Alex Jones has - to keep from doing away with the 2A. Obama's efforts to do this besides the UN treaty (WITHOUT US SENATE APPROVAL!) is undeniable. How you and others can dismiss warnings that the disarmament of US citizens is about to happen is unbelievable. Where there is smoke there is fire despite your denial of the obvious. The smoke I see here is just coming out of people's asses. That's not really smoke, though - more like a putrid stench of derp. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 8:45:55 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The smoke I see here is just coming out of people's asses. That's not really smoke, though - more like a putrid stench of derp. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Alex Jones level nonsense is what's being discussed. The NRA has strongly opposed this UN treaty since the beginning for the same reasons Alex Jones has - to keep from doing away with the 2A. Obama's efforts to do this besides the UN treaty (WITHOUT US SENATE APPROVAL!) is undeniable. How you and others can dismiss warnings that the disarmament of US citizens is about to happen is unbelievable. Where there is smoke there is fire despite your denial of the obvious. The smoke I see here is just coming out of people's asses. That's not really smoke, though - more like a putrid stench of derp. If you pulled your nose out of where you keep it, maybe you wouldn't be smelling it all the time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 8:47:55 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I never read anything from Bracken. What is the title of his book/s? As far as the UN coming here, during Katrina several nations including China and Russia offered to send troops to aid in our recovery. Bush ignored the offer. Do you think Obama wouldn't invite them in situation like Katrina or any national catastrophe, man made or natural? No, I don't think anybody's military as a joke if they are in the street in front of me or in my city. I also don't take our wide open borders as a joke or the thousands of Muslim OTMs that the Border Patrol has caught in the last ten years. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I see you read Bracken's novels. They're good but let's be realistic if for a moment regarding "UN military units"... Most nation's don't give but a pittance to UN lead missions and those missions don't come charging into nations demanding guns for the most part. In fact the AMISOM mission has more relaxed ROE to swack Islamic terrorists than we do in Afghanistan. Now you're going to say "see, their willing to do anything" But let's keep this in mind Who's going to tell the UN to come here? And where would they land? What stronghold would they be allowed to occupy? I never read anything from Bracken. What is the title of his book/s? As far as the UN coming here, during Katrina several nations including China and Russia offered to send troops to aid in our recovery. Bush ignored the offer. Do you think Obama wouldn't invite them in situation like Katrina or any national catastrophe, man made or natural? Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
In addition to Deer tags being sold at Walmart, they need to sell UN tags. A real economy booster that would be! People gripe about SWAT teams raiding their houses.That is mild compared to what could really happen. If a UN military unit finds resistance at a house, they will back off and take it down with a RPG or explosive ordinance. It's not something to joke about. So you take the UN serious then? I find the UN to be nothing but a JOKE. A sick joke at that. No, I don't think anybody's military as a joke if they are in the street in front of me or in my city. I also don't take our wide open borders as a joke or the thousands of Muslim OTMs that the Border Patrol has caught in the last ten years. You mean like the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy or the floods in Tennessee? Russia and China offered because they're dicks and like being able to stick a finger in our eye, welcome to Diplomacy 101. Its a long way off from having a foreign army on our soil with the intent to occupy and suppress us. Again... how would such an invading force with the intent to overrun this country get here and sustain itself? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 8:53:36 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You mean like the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy or the floods in Tennessee? No, a much larger catastrophe like nation wide civil unrest, financial collapse, etc. Russia and China offered because they're dicks and like being able to stick a finger in our eye, welcome to Diplomacy 101. Not disagreeing, but it was made and ignored. Its a long way off from having a foreign army on our soil with the intent to occupy and suppress us. Again... how would such an invading force with the intent to overrun this country get here and sustain itself? They won't invade, they will be invited and provided for. After all, we are talking about a UN treaty the President had his Secretary of State sign knowing he couldn't get it approved by the US Senate. . |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 8:57:17 AM EDT
[#11]
Many here need to go back and read how Lenin, Stalin, and Trotsky used WWI to over throw the Czar and instigate a Communist regime.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 9:00:20 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Pakistanis, Nigerians, etc. Military from different nations assigned to UN duty. They won't hesitate to do what they are told. T hat includes shooting civilians who resist what ever the troops are commanded to do. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
What's a "UN military unit"? Pakistanis, Nigerians, etc. Military from different nations assigned to UN duty. They won't hesitate to do what they are told. T hat includes shooting civilians who resist what ever the troops are commanded to do. Yeah, the UN mission to Yugoslavia saw a lot of UN troops shooting people who resisted them. That's why the Serbs trying to carry out ethnic cleansing in Srebrenica were fired upon and driven off by the Dutch soldiers protecting the UN safe zone there. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 9:01:55 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
You mean like the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy or the floods in Tennessee? No, a much larger catastrophe like nation wide civil unrest, financial collapse, etc. Russia and China offered because they're dicks and like being able to stick a finger in our eye, welcome to Diplomacy 101. Not disagreeing, but it was made and ignored. Its a long way off from having a foreign army on our soil with the intent to occupy and suppress us. Again... how would such an invading force with the intent to overrun this country get here and sustain itself? They won't invade, they will be invited and provided for. After all, we are talking about a UN treaty the President had his Secretary of State sign knowing he couldn't get it approved by the US Senate. . Soo... you'v been on this since since 2009, have over 3000 posts and have never heard of Matthew Bracken's novels? You literally just wrote a symopsis of one of his books. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 9:05:55 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So you are saying Obama can ignore the US Constitution by altering laws passed by Congress and enforce treaties he signs without US Senate ratification? So he can ignore Congress and do what he pleases? I think you need to learn the difference between a dictatorship and a republic. We are losing our republic and moving more toward a dictatorship every day. People like you are helping it move that way. 
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
You've gone off the deep end. The President has always had the power to sign treaties without Senate ratification. They aren't binding until the Senate ratifies it. Obamacare has nothing to do with whether the President can sign a treaty or not.
Treaties do not give the government any powers that it does not already have. Christ, man. For someone who claims to be defending the constitution, you sure know jack and shit about it. So you are saying Obama can ignore the US Constitution by altering laws passed by Congress and enforce treaties he signs without US Senate ratification? So he can ignore Congress and do what he pleases? I think you need to learn the difference between a dictatorship and a republic. We are losing our republic and moving more toward a dictatorship every day. People like you are helping it move that way.
How the hell did you get any of that from my post?
The Executive has the power to sign treaties. They have no legal weight until the Senate ratifies them... Treaties do not give the government any power that the government does not already have. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 9:07:32 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So honestly believe we can change the course of our govt by voting correct? Lmao! It's worked out great so far! I don't understand your line of thinking, the system is broken and riddled with fraud. I don't buy that you're that blind and or stupid. So will you explain it or continue to just troll like the swede? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Funny - I didn't see anything about "the government" in there, and allegiance to the government hasn't been in any of the Oaths I've taken.
Funny, but last I checked the US government was that legal entity created under the auspices of, and in accordance with the Constitution. Groups advocating the overthrow of that are the very definition of Domestic Enemy, except in special derp circles where that somehow equals "patriot" and people entertain fantasies where the municipal, county, state, and federal governments conspire with the Negroes and mooselimbs to bring the UN in and take guns from white people. You've no understanding of what is being discussed. A domestic enemy is one who requests, no demands, an US serviceman to violate his oath to the Constitution and actively maneuvers to destroy the Constitution himself.........Over throwing a government actively destroying the Constitution is a patriotic act. We are supposed to be a nation of laws, not executive orders, regulations written by bureaucrats, we have strayed way far from what our founders intended. None dare call the response to tyranny treason. Sad you don't get it at all. The is no talk about getting rid of the const. replacing the fed gov with something else. Is it an overthrow to get a government to return to its proper position as when it was made? I would assume, if in the unlikely event sort of thing ever occurred, that we could agree that the governemnt (federal in this case) is no longer within its boundaries, and no actively (through force) trying to deprive the people of the very rights in the document you speak of. Do you agree on this point. Effecting such a change through violence? Yes, at that point you are getting rid of the Constitution. So honestly believe we can change the course of our govt by voting correct? Lmao! It's worked out great so far! I don't understand your line of thinking, the system is broken and riddled with fraud. I don't buy that you're that blind and or stupid. So will you explain it or continue to just troll like the swede? What I believe is irrelevant. If you believe that the only path is violence, then that's your belief. Just don't claim that its Constitutional, because it's not. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 9:09:33 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's right. Take Executive Orders, for example. What are they but "dictates"? What about war? Isn't declaring war the purview of congress? How then is the War Powers Act constitutional? How about regulation? Isn't it mandated that federal law be passed by both houses of congress and signed by the president? Such laws can then be challenged in federal court to ensure they pass constitutional muster. As it is now, congress is practically ceremonial! Obama goes around congress at every turn. If he can do that, why have a congress at all??? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You've gone off the deep end. The President has always had the power to sign treaties without Senate ratification. They aren't binding until the Senate ratifies it. Obamacare has nothing to do with whether the President can sign a treaty or not.
Treaties do not give the government any powers that it does not already have. Christ, man. For someone who claims to be defending the constitution, you sure know jack and shit about it. So you are saying Obama can ignore the US Constitution by altering laws passed by Congress and enforce treaties he signs without US Senate ratification? So he can ignore Congress and do what he pleases? I think you need to learn the difference between a dictatorship and a republic. We are losing our republic and moving more toward a dictatorship every day. People like you are helping it move that way.
That's right. Take Executive Orders, for example. What are they but "dictates"? What about war? Isn't declaring war the purview of congress? How then is the War Powers Act constitutional? How about regulation? Isn't it mandated that federal law be passed by both houses of congress and signed by the president? Such laws can then be challenged in federal court to ensure they pass constitutional muster. As it is now, congress is practically ceremonial! Obama goes around congress at every turn. If he can do that, why have a congress at all??? Wow. Just... wow. Do you know what an Executive Order is? It's an Order that the head of the Executive gives to the Executive Branch. You know, like when a CEO tells his department head to do something... It's completely kosher. Congress has delegated powers to the Executive. That's how. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 9:10:09 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Many here need to go back and read how Lenin, Stalin, and Trotsky used WWI to over throw the Czar and instigate a Communist regime. Of all the people in this thread who should be commenting about other people's lack of reading... |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 9:11:20 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted:
Rusted Ace - The Heavy Brigade http://ijusthaveafewnotes.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/slow-clap.gif Yes.....yes indeed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 9:12:22 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So you take the UN serious then? I find the UN to be nothing but a JOKE. A sick joke at that. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: In addition to Deer tags being sold at Walmart, they need to sell UN tags. A real economy booster that would be! |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 9:13:36 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The smoke I see here is just coming out of people's asses. That's not really smoke, though - more like a putrid stench of derp. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Alex Jones level nonsense is what's being discussed. The NRA has strongly opposed this UN treaty since the beginning for the same reasons Alex Jones has - to keep from doing away with the 2A. Obama's efforts to do this besides the UN treaty (WITHOUT US SENATE APPROVAL!) is undeniable. How you and others can dismiss warnings that the disarmament of US citizens is about to happen is unbelievable. Where there is smoke there is fire despite your denial of the obvious. The smoke I see here is just coming out of people's asses. That's not really smoke, though - more like a putrid stench of derp. Gentlemen, he has lost the argument. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 9:17:02 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The smoke I see here is just coming out of people's asses. That's not really smoke, though - more like a putrid stench of derp. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Alex Jones level nonsense is what's being discussed. The NRA has strongly opposed this UN treaty since the beginning for the same reasons Alex Jones has - to keep from doing away with the 2A. Obama's efforts to do this besides the UN treaty (WITHOUT US SENATE APPROVAL!) is undeniable. How you and others can dismiss warnings that the disarmament of US citizens is about to happen is unbelievable. Where there is smoke there is fire despite your denial of the obvious. The smoke I see here is just coming out of people's asses. That's not really smoke, though - more like a putrid stench of derp. I doubt the Jews believed they were being put in cattle cars just to be taken to death camps. Not saying we are about to be disarmed but better to be suspicious of the .Gov than not. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 9:20:00 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Of all the people in this thread who should be commenting about other people's lack of reading... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Many here need to go back and read how Lenin, Stalin, and Trotsky used WWI to over throw the Czar and instigate a Communist regime. Of all the people in this thread who should be commenting about other people's lack of reading... That putrid stench of derp in your nose has also affected your reading and thinking. You need to park your nose someplace else.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 9:23:33 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Wow. Just... wow. Do you know what an Executive Order is? It's an Order that the head of the Executive gives to the Executive Branch. You know, like when a CEO tells his department head to do something... It's completely kosher. Congress has delegated powers to the Executive. That's how. You need to check again. I haven't found where Congress or the US Constitution gave Obama the authority to seize all food, water, infrastructure, etc during wartime or peacetime with an executive order. http://www.examiner.com/article/obama-executive-order-would-seize-us-infrastructure-citizens-for-nat-l-defense |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 9:26:42 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
UN troops are whining tools. They wouldn't last against a typical Arfcommer. The only backbone the UN has is the US military. We should pull out of the UN, it's a waste of our tax dollars and not worth the lives of our men. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: In addition to Deer tags being sold at Walmart, they need to sell UN tags. A real economy booster that would be! Typical ARFcommer would need to get out of his momma's basement first and somehow fit in to that PC he has been polishing but never bothered to put on, somehow huff and puff out to the back yard and in to his tree fort before the rest of the "UN Troop" gets there. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 9:30:07 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You guys are great. But the REAL picture of what would happen is this (assuming this was real): - The bad guys would come knocking, probably by surprise (at night, early in the morning, etc.). - Most people would cower before the uniforms and weaponry (no matter how courageously they talk on the internet) and grudgingly hand over their guns and ammo. - The few who resisted would be made examples of why we should not resist. You do not want them to make an example of you. - The random dude who got brave (or drunked up) and actually got off a shot at them would be met with overwhelming force. That would be real ugly, and all over the 10 o'clock news as a warning to others. - There would be small groups of resisters who might actually pull off a few raids, but they would be quickly located and neutralized by superior forces and technology. - It would be all over inside of a month or two, because they could not afford to allow it to happen slowly and let us get organized. People would bitch and moan, but they would comply, because they are unorganized, outnumbered and outgunned. Just look at what happened in Australia. Your post addresses the real threat to our Second Amendment liberty, or any liberty for that matter. That threat is political complacency. Do you want the right to own a gun, or exercise your religion, or speak freely, or be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures? Then get involved and stay vigilant. Be active in your political party. Stay informed. Write letters and call your elected officials. Do not fall prey to the false theory that government is controlled by "them" and thus tune out. Rather, become one of "them." The "them" are just ordinary folks who care enough to turn off the T.V. and get involved. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 9:33:43 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Gentlemen, he has lost the argument. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Alex Jones level nonsense is what's being discussed. The NRA has strongly opposed this UN treaty since the beginning for the same reasons Alex Jones has - to keep from doing away with the 2A. Obama's efforts to do this besides the UN treaty (WITHOUT US SENATE APPROVAL!) is undeniable. How you and others can dismiss warnings that the disarmament of US citizens is about to happen is unbelievable. Where there is smoke there is fire despite your denial of the obvious. The smoke I see here is just coming out of people's asses. That's not really smoke, though - more like a putrid stench of derp. Gentlemen, he has lost the argument. There is no argument. Nobody has even tried to make a case. We just get vague accusations of treaty language that does not exist, orders that do not exist, and mysterious "UN forces" that do not exist. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 9:34:37 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You need to check again. I haven't found where Congress or the US Constitution gave Obama the authority to seize all food, water, infrastructure, etc during wartime or peacetime with an executive order. http://www.examiner.com/article/obama-executive-order-would-seize-us-infrastructure-citizens-for-nat-l-defense Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Wow. Just... wow. Do you know what an Executive Order is? It's an Order that the head of the Executive gives to the Executive Branch. You know, like when a CEO tells his department head to do something... It's completely kosher. Congress has delegated powers to the Executive. That's how. You need to check again. I haven't found where Congress or the US Constitution gave Obama the authority to seize all food, water, infrastructure, etc during wartime or peacetime with an executive order. http://www.examiner.com/article/obama-executive-order-would-seize-us-infrastructure-citizens-for-nat-l-defense I believe that's because you haven't looked and only read Examiner tripe. Executive orders specify where their authority for the particular order comes from. The Defense Act of 1955, if I recall correctly, is the big one that delegated a lot of emergency powers to the Executive. If you actually want to know, go find the actual order that article is scared of and read it on the Federal Register. That will tell you exactly which laws delegated the powers being exercised in the order. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 9:35:15 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The smoke I see here is just coming out of people's asses. That's not really smoke, though - more like a putrid stench of derp. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Alex Jones level nonsense is what's being discussed. The NRA has strongly opposed this UN treaty since the beginning for the same reasons Alex Jones has - to keep from doing away with the 2A. Obama's efforts to do this besides the UN treaty (WITHOUT US SENATE APPROVAL!) is undeniable. How you and others can dismiss warnings that the disarmament of US citizens is about to happen is unbelievable. Where there is smoke there is fire despite your denial of the obvious. The smoke I see here is just coming out of people's asses. That's not really smoke, though - more like a putrid stench of derp. Ok...forget all the insane Alex Jones nonsense and tinfoil idiocy. Forget UN deathsquads roaming small-town USA. Forget all that. Do you think it's possible, given the track record of evidence we have, that the Obama administration *might* attempt to use, misconstrue, shoehorn or generally mangle the intent of this treaty to further his gun control aims in the US? Not asking if its possible, practical or if the treaty says blah blah blah. Just asking if you feel Big O might use it as a means, no matter how much of a reach, to attempt another erosion of our rights? Sorry if you've answered this elsewhere already. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 9:42:43 AM EDT
[#29]
OK So bring UN troops in would probally end up like the ObamaCare website? I can deal with that...
Blue hat: turn over your rifle! Me... It is a cigarette lighter, BH: It looks like a rifle... Me: no sir... it is a cagarette lighter if Lord Barry comes I can light his cigarettes... BH: Oh all right, carry on... have a good day |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 9:48:14 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ok...forget all the insane Alex Jones nonsense and tinfoil idiocy. Forget UN deathsquads roaming small-town USA. Forget all that. Do you think it's possible, given the track record of evidence we have, that the Obama administration *might* attempt to use, misconstrue, shoehorn or generally mangle the intent of this treaty to further his gun control aims in the US? Not asking if its possible, practical or if the treaty says blah blah blah. Just asking if you feel Big O might use it as a means, no matter how much of a reach, to attempt another erosion of our rights? Sorry if you've answered this elsewhere already. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Alex Jones level nonsense is what's being discussed. The NRA has strongly opposed this UN treaty since the beginning for the same reasons Alex Jones has - to keep from doing away with the 2A. Obama's efforts to do this besides the UN treaty (WITHOUT US SENATE APPROVAL!) is undeniable. How you and others can dismiss warnings that the disarmament of US citizens is about to happen is unbelievable. Where there is smoke there is fire despite your denial of the obvious. The smoke I see here is just coming out of people's asses. That's not really smoke, though - more like a putrid stench of derp. Ok...forget all the insane Alex Jones nonsense and tinfoil idiocy. Forget UN deathsquads roaming small-town USA. Forget all that. Do you think it's possible, given the track record of evidence we have, that the Obama administration *might* attempt to use, misconstrue, shoehorn or generally mangle the intent of this treaty to further his gun control aims in the US? Not asking if its possible, practical or if the treaty says blah blah blah. Just asking if you feel Big O might use it as a means, no matter how much of a reach, to attempt another erosion of our rights? Sorry if you've answered this elsewhere already. There is nothing Obama would not use to further his aims. The threat is from Obama and his buddies, not the lizard men at the UN and anyone in a blue helmet. I think the most fucked up thing about the weird delusional anti-UN thing here, is how it takes people's eye off the real threats - the ones that sit on Capital Hill and 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 9:53:04 AM EDT
[#31]
I'm not sure if I am to laugh or weep that so many people buy this bullshit about the UN boogeyman coming to take our guns.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 9:55:02 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm not sure if I am to laugh or weep that so many people buy this bullshit about the UN boogeyman coming to take our guns. After reading shit like this I will believe anything. http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1561893_And_So_It_Begins__New_York_Sending_Out_Gun_Confiscation_Notices.html |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 9:56:43 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
After reading shit like this I will believe anything. http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1561893_And_So_It_Begins__New_York_Sending_Out_Gun_Confiscation_Notices.html Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I'm not sure if I am to laugh or weep that so many people buy this bullshit about the UN boogeyman coming to take our guns. After reading shit like this I will believe anything. http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1561893_And_So_It_Begins__New_York_Sending_Out_Gun_Confiscation_Notices.html That's pretty obvious. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 9:57:07 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's pretty obvious. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm not sure if I am to laugh or weep that so many people buy this bullshit about the UN boogeyman coming to take our guns. After reading shit like this I will believe anything. http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1561893_And_So_It_Begins__New_York_Sending_Out_Gun_Confiscation_Notices.html That's pretty obvious. LOL |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 10:08:21 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The DoI has nothing to do with the Constitution. It was a declaration of independence. You may recall that we had an entire other government in between the DoI and the Constitution. The DoI talks about when you should revolt, not about the legalities. There are methods outlined in the Constitution for resolving issues with the government. Using extra-Constitutional methods to remove the government is unconstitutional. It may be moral, though not in the foreseeable future in my opinion, but that does not make it constitutional. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Effecting such a change through violence? Yes, at that point you are getting rid of the Constitution. No. Read the DOI, which came first. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, …. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. Broadly speaking, the Constitution defines the foundations and boundaries for government. What it it does not do is define the sentiments of liberty and freedom which are necessary to create such a representative republic in the first place… and that is what essence of this conversation is about. Elimination of a dictatorship or advocating for rebellion against domestic aggression does not eliminate the Constitution; actually, it underlines why the USC exists to begin with - as a firewall against government oppression of our founding principles. Moreover, I don't think anyone here is talking about eliminating the government structure defined by the USC. ETA: I should add that Alex Jones is a lunatic, and that the article referenced is drivel. The DoI has nothing to do with the Constitution. It was a declaration of independence. You may recall that we had an entire other government in between the DoI and the Constitution. The DoI talks about when you should revolt, not about the legalities. There are methods outlined in the Constitution for resolving issues with the government. Using extra-Constitutional methods to remove the government is unconstitutional. It may be moral, though not in the foreseeable future in my opinion, but that does not make it constitutional. Extra-Constitutional methods - and more importantly, when and why they may be needed - are exactly the point of the DOI. I think that the point of this thread isn't that a bunch of rednecks want to topple a democratically-elected government that abides by the USC. The point of this discussion a scenario where a despotic administration has seized the levers of federal power and redress at every level, and is using that power to inflict pain and hardship on the populace. In other words, a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. The situation we are discussing is exactly what the DOI addresses. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 10:13:37 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
After reading shit like this I will believe anything. http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1561893_And_So_It_Begins__New_York_Sending_Out_Gun_Confiscation_Notices.html Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I'm not sure if I am to laugh or weep that so many people buy this bullshit about the UN boogeyman coming to take our guns. After reading shit like this I will believe anything. http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1561893_And_So_It_Begins__New_York_Sending_Out_Gun_Confiscation_Notices.html 
So what happens in NYC (assuming that letter is real) is analogous to what the UN is capable of?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 10:15:50 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So what happens in NYC (assuming that letter is real) is analogous to what the UN is capable of? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm not sure if I am to laugh or weep that so many people buy this bullshit about the UN boogeyman coming to take our guns. After reading shit like this I will believe anything. http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1561893_And_So_It_Begins__New_York_Sending_Out_Gun_Confiscation_Notices.html
So what happens in NYC (assuming that letter is real) is analogous to what the UN is capable of? Well, someone asked where the UN would land... |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 10:16:22 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So what happens in NYC (assuming that letter is real) is analogous to what the UN is capable of? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm not sure if I am to laugh or weep that so many people buy this bullshit about the UN boogeyman coming to take our guns. After reading shit like this I will believe anything. http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1561893_And_So_It_Begins__New_York_Sending_Out_Gun_Confiscation_Notices.html
So what happens in NYC (assuming that letter is real) is analogous to what the UN is capable of? I am saying if this can happen in New York I will believe anything is possible
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 10:21:40 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Extra-Constitutional methods - and more importantly, when and why they may be needed - are exactly the point of the DOI. I think that the point of this thread isn't that a bunch of rednecks want to topple a democratically-elected government that abides by the USC. The point of this discussion a scenario where a despotic administration has seized the levers of federal power and redress at every level, and is using that power to inflict pain and hardship on the populace. In other words, a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. The situation we are discussing is exactly what the DOI addresses. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Effecting such a change through violence? Yes, at that point you are getting rid of the Constitution. No. Read the DOI, which came first. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, …. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. Broadly speaking, the Constitution defines the foundations and boundaries for government. What it it does not do is define the sentiments of liberty and freedom which are necessary to create such a representative republic in the first place… and that is what essence of this conversation is about. Elimination of a dictatorship or advocating for rebellion against domestic aggression does not eliminate the Constitution; actually, it underlines why the USC exists to begin with - as a firewall against government oppression of our founding principles. Moreover, I don't think anyone here is talking about eliminating the government structure defined by the USC. ETA: I should add that Alex Jones is a lunatic, and that the article referenced is drivel. The DoI has nothing to do with the Constitution. It was a declaration of independence. You may recall that we had an entire other government in between the DoI and the Constitution. The DoI talks about when you should revolt, not about the legalities. There are methods outlined in the Constitution for resolving issues with the government. Using extra-Constitutional methods to remove the government is unconstitutional. It may be moral, though not in the foreseeable future in my opinion, but that does not make it constitutional. Extra-Constitutional methods - and more importantly, when and why they may be needed - are exactly the point of the DOI. I think that the point of this thread isn't that a bunch of rednecks want to topple a democratically-elected government that abides by the USC. The point of this discussion a scenario where a despotic administration has seized the levers of federal power and redress at every level, and is using that power to inflict pain and hardship on the populace. In other words, a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. The situation we are discussing is exactly what the DOI addresses. And even in such a scenario, the violent overthrow of the government is not constitutional. Which was a statement that you, for some bizarre reason, objected to... |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 10:22:07 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And just when I think I have enough guns, ammo, magazines, and stuff here comes something like this again. There's no such thing as enough. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 10:28:57 AM EDT
[#41]
Shh..........dont get a panic buying frenzy started
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There's no such thing as enough. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
And just when I think I have enough guns, ammo, magazines, and stuff here comes something like this again. There's no such thing as enough. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 10:41:26 AM EDT
[#42]
The only backbone the UN has is the US military. We should pull out of the UN, kick the fuckers out of the US, and repurpose the building. it's a waste of our tax dollars and not worth the lives of our men.
FIFY. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 10:43:14 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I predict they will run out of UN troops before they run out of people with guns to turn in. See sig line..VVV
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 10:44:46 AM EDT
[#44]
I dont think the UN is capable of blowing their noses collectively without help.........
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm not sure if I am to laugh or weep that so many people buy this bullshit about the UN boogeyman coming to take our guns. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 10:45:07 AM EDT
[#45]
Once again (if true) the U.N. steps on it's collective dick. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 11:12:06 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The DoI has nothing to do with the Constitution. It was a declaration of independence. You may recall that we had an entire other government in between the DoI and the Constitution. The DoI talks about when you should revolt, not about the legalities. There are methods outlined in the Constitution for resolving issues with the government. Using extra-Constitutional methods to remove the government is unconstitutional. It may be moral, though not in the foreseeable future in my opinion, but that does not make it constitutional. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Effecting such a change through violence? Yes, at that point you are getting rid of the Constitution. No. Read the DOI, which came first. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, …. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. Broadly speaking, the Constitution defines the foundations and boundaries for government. What it it does not do is define the sentiments of liberty and freedom which are necessary to create such a representative republic in the first place… and that is what essence of this conversation is about. Elimination of a dictatorship or advocating for rebellion against domestic aggression does not eliminate the Constitution; actually, it underlines why the USC exists to begin with - as a firewall against government oppression of our founding principles. Moreover, I don't think anyone here is talking about eliminating the government structure defined by the USC. ETA: I should add that Alex Jones is a lunatic, and that the article referenced is drivel. The DoI has nothing to do with the Constitution. It was a declaration of independence. You may recall that we had an entire other government in between the DoI and the Constitution. The DoI talks about when you should revolt, not about the legalities. There are methods outlined in the Constitution for resolving issues with the government. Using extra-Constitutional methods to remove the government is unconstitutional. It may be moral, though not in the foreseeable future in my opinion, but that does not make it constitutional. The Declaration Of Independence is one of the three Charters Of Freedom. And don't forget, the Colonies didn't start the Revolution they just told England they weren't going to put up with their oppression any more. A similar act will most likely spark RW 2.0. The government is operating outside the legal boundaries of the Constitution yet you want those who are oppressed by their actions to not even consider working in a way that YOU consider outside of the legal boundaries of the Constitution. Double standard? 
You really sound like some of the bureaucrats that come up with the rules of engagement for our military that heavily favor our foes.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 11:15:51 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Declaration Of Independence is one of the three Charters Of Freedom. And don't forget, the Colonies didn't start the Revolution they just told England they weren't going to put up with their oppression any more. A similar act will most likely spark RW 2.0. The government is operating outside the legal boundaries of the Constitution yet you want those who are oppressed by their actions to not even consider working in a way that YOU consider outside of the legal boundaries of the Constitution. Double standard?
You really sound like some of the bureaucrats that come up with the rules of engagement for our military that heavily favor our foes.
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Effecting such a change through violence? Yes, at that point you are getting rid of the Constitution. No. Read the DOI, which came first. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, …. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. Broadly speaking, the Constitution defines the foundations and boundaries for government. What it it does not do is define the sentiments of liberty and freedom which are necessary to create such a representative republic in the first place… and that is what essence of this conversation is about. Elimination of a dictatorship or advocating for rebellion against domestic aggression does not eliminate the Constitution; actually, it underlines why the USC exists to begin with - as a firewall against government oppression of our founding principles. Moreover, I don't think anyone here is talking about eliminating the government structure defined by the USC. ETA: I should add that Alex Jones is a lunatic, and that the article referenced is drivel. The DoI has nothing to do with the Constitution. It was a declaration of independence. You may recall that we had an entire other government in between the DoI and the Constitution. The DoI talks about when you should revolt, not about the legalities. There are methods outlined in the Constitution for resolving issues with the government. Using extra-Constitutional methods to remove the government is unconstitutional. It may be moral, though not in the foreseeable future in my opinion, but that does not make it constitutional. The Declaration Of Independence is one of the three Charters Of Freedom. And don't forget, the Colonies didn't start the Revolution they just told England they weren't going to put up with their oppression any more. A similar act will most likely spark RW 2.0. The government is operating outside the legal boundaries of the Constitution yet you want those who are oppressed by their actions to not even consider working in a way that YOU consider outside of the legal boundaries of the Constitution. Double standard?
You really sound like some of the bureaucrats that come up with the rules of engagement for our military that heavily favor our foes.
I like the way you think, do you have a news letter? a blog? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 11:16:14 AM EDT
[#48]
I like how he showed an M7 smoke grenade launcher and tried to call it a grenade launcher they were going to use against you to blow you up. lol
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 11:29:46 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Declaration Of Independence is one of the three Charters Of Freedom. And don't forget, the Colonies didn't start the Revolution they just told England they weren't going to put up with their oppression any more. A similar act will most likely spark RW 2.0. The government is operating outside the legal boundaries of the Constitution yet you want those who are oppressed by their actions to not even consider working in a way that YOU consider outside of the legal boundaries of the Constitution. Double standard?
You really sound like some of the bureaucrats that come up with the rules of engagement for our military that heavily favor our foes.
Telling the British that they were independent and no longer under British rule is, in fact, starting the Revolution... Double standard? No, I said that changing the government through violence is operating outside of the Constitution. A statement which many seem to take issue with for some bizarre reason. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2013 11:32:13 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Wow. Just... wow. Do you know what an Executive Order is? It's an Order that the head of the Executive gives to the Executive Branch. You know, like when a CEO tells his department head to do something... It's completely kosher. Congress has delegated powers to the Executive. That's how. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You've gone off the deep end. The President has always had the power to sign treaties without Senate ratification. They aren't binding until the Senate ratifies it. Obamacare has nothing to do with whether the President can sign a treaty or not.
Treaties do not give the government any powers that it does not already have. Christ, man. For someone who claims to be defending the constitution, you sure know jack and shit about it. So you are saying Obama can ignore the US Constitution by altering laws passed by Congress and enforce treaties he signs without US Senate ratification? So he can ignore Congress and do what he pleases? I think you need to learn the difference between a dictatorship and a republic. We are losing our republic and moving more toward a dictatorship every day. People like you are helping it move that way.
That's right. Take Executive Orders, for example. What are they but "dictates"? What about war? Isn't declaring war the purview of congress? How then is the War Powers Act constitutional? How about regulation? Isn't it mandated that federal law be passed by both houses of congress and signed by the president? Such laws can then be challenged in federal court to ensure they pass constitutional muster. As it is now, congress is practically ceremonial! Obama goes around congress at every turn. If he can do that, why have a congress at all??? Wow. Just... wow. Do you know what an Executive Order is? It's an Order that the head of the Executive gives to the Executive Branch. You know, like when a CEO tells his department head to do something... It's completely kosher. Congress has delegated powers to the Executive. That's how. Where in the Constitution does it give Congress that authority? |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
