TexasCHLforum.com

Dave2 wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:At what point does Obamas actions (no more work for welfare, failure to deport illegals, just looking at this weeks' news) become "treason"? Or at minimum, failure to uphold his oath...??

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Quite a while ago, in my opinion. If I thought there was really a way to win, I might try taking him to court over it.

So of us believe that we had a treasonous occupier of the White House almost hundred years ago. I'm not sure that it didn't even start before then.

Never before, however, does there seem to be such a blatant contempt for the Constitution. Then again, I don't think that we've ever had a blatant Narcissist either. If others were a bad, they did a better job of keeping it under wraps.

AEA wrote:The NRA may be given the credit and I support them. But I have another suggestion why the US (MaoBama and Hillary) decided to stop this in it's tracks.

MaoBama must have got the word that a overwhelming number of Americans support the 2nd and he decided that this UN treaty (that they supported as an end run to enact more gun control - in the works for many months) was not worth it to him to loose any possibility of being re-elected.

As the election comes closer you will see more of this action by the administration to gain votes. He has already tied the hands of ICE and Border Patrol who can no longer deport illegals and he is trying to eliminate voter ID requirements by many States. Why? Cause he can get those votes!

He is a back stabber and a real conniver to get his way. Probably the same tactics he used to get his "education" and other things in his life.

Basically, he just makes me SICK!

Based on this, you are probably right.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/oba ... 48846.html

Polling is often conducted by campaigns to make sure the candidate's message is in sync with what the voters want to hear.

In other words, he will say anything that will get him votes. What else those remarks get him are pinocchio awards

Birdie wrote:http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/rob ... 8.facebook

The UN may take up the matter at a later date, but for now it is on indefinite hiatus.

Perhaps the hiatus could be a la Rip Van Winkle.

erkfox wrote:People really are paranoid about the UN. Remember all those UN troops billboards here in TX years ago? I dont get it . The UN is one of the most inept and useless organizations ever created. They sit around passing resolutions all the time. Most of them condemning this or that, and none of them ever really getting enforced. I dont sweat it.

People have finally realized that gun control didn't work. Most of the country has changed on gun ownership. I grew up in Illinois and the majority are for CCW now. In the 80s people were happy with the gun laws. It didnt work so people have wised up.The only reason CCW hasnt passed yet is Chicago politicians, and the governor. They had enough votes to pass it last year but not enough to be veto proof all they need is 5 more and they can tell Chicago and the Gov to stuff it. So if a state like Illinois has come around, no way Americans let the UN write gun laws for them.

that the UN, attempting to do anything that it is supposed to do, is inept and irrelevant. They have no power other than what is granted to them by the countries, including our own, that fund the lunacy that the UN perpetrates

But that isn't the point with this treaty. Yes, the UN will draw it up and publish it but it is up to the countries that sign it to police it. The news report this morning said that it would be signed today. When Hillary Clinton signs it, it will become a means toward the end that she, President Obama and a host of other government officials share to get rid of guns in the US. How well that strategy works depends on the political climate and what they can get away with. Obviously, if the President isn't re-elected, the chances of it working are diminished. Notice that I didn't say that they disappear.

I realize that he is just a kook, using his own media to spread his message but he must think that the message will have a chance of success or he won't do it.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-2 ... mberg.html

More than 700 mayors, from both political parties, have joined together to stop the flow of illegal guns into our communities. Mayors know all too well that the debate on the Second Amendment is over. The Supreme Court recognized that the Second Amendment grants citizens the right to bear arms, subject to reasonable restrictions. The question is: What should those restrictions look like?

When you couple that with the UN treaty that gives at least somewhat of an air of legitimacy to gun bans and confiscation, particularly if the Supreme Court get stacked with more Liberal Justices in a second Obama term, the outlook will not be good. We know what level of restrictions that Mayor Bloomberg has imposed on the citizens of NYC. For me, it is the whole climate of the anti-gun groups, not just the UN treaty itself, that is worrisome.

The people not wanting gun control will not matter. Most of the people didn't want Obamacare either and look how that turned out.

http://nation.foxnews.com/un-gun-restri ... grab-flops

While I'd like to believe the opinion of the Washington Times, I continue to worry that it is a tactic to take the public focus off this treaty. "Nothing to see here, people - move along" doesn't account for the fact that the UN and many of our own politicians continue to seek ways to control guns in the US. Based on what has and hasn't happened in the Senate in the past 3 years, the actions of that body hardly seem reasoned and measured, the whole purpose for having it in the first place.

This treaty, like the opportunist calls for gun control after every tragedy, is not going away. We take our focus of activities regarding it at our own 2nd Amendment peril.

VMI77 wrote:(Snip) HE is important, we're just resources to be managed and harvested, and any good manager knows he's going to lose a little product here and there. The latter is important as thugs are actually more valuable to the State than productive citizens as long as they remain a minority of the population, primarily because they help keep the productive docile and cowed and in need of the State for protection --but this value disappears if the productive class is allowed to eliminate thugs in self-defense, so self-defense is prohibited by the State. In other words, prohibiting self-defense fosters dependency, and dependency is essential to the preservation of the State, because once too many citizens realize they can take care of themselves, the power of the State is threatened with diminishment. That's partly what Obamacare and a lot of the other "entitlement" programs are about --fostering a large enough dependent class to make big government seem necessary and essential.

I don't perceive a difference between us in opinions. I just wasn't as able to say it as eloquently as you did. While a bit graphic, I believe that some of our population has already succumbed in a less physical fashion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IojqOMWTgv8

As a singular citizen, I have a limited opportunity to influence my local government but I can, at least, directly address my mayor and tell her about my concerns. State government is much harder and Federal government is harder still to influence. I believe that the Elites have recognized that World government makes them totally insulated from the influence of even any massive group. This is especially true if they can control (and they seem to be attempting in every way that they can) electronic media. The UN gun control is one of the major hurdles that they have to get past because as long as guns exist to the extent that they do in the US and elsewhere, there is always the chance of a spontaneous armed rebellion. The new world order could be threatened.

I think that there are other forces besides the NRA working to defeat this UN treaty but to avoid derailing this thread, I won't mention them here. We all need to hope that the combined efforts are successful at that defeat.

Kythas wrote:

chasfm11 wrote:Go through our States and look at similar situations. NJ, for example, is nearly as likely to punish you for defending yourself as the UK. You must retreat if attacked and you have to be able to demonstrate that you retreated. Then look at the crime rate in cities like Newark or Camden. They are right up there with the big boys - NYC, Chicago. Trust me, if you walked through Newark, your chances of being a victim of a crime are very high. But use a gun to defend yourself in Newark and wait until you see the jail sentence waiting for you. Heck, you'd get punished for for having it.

I have a friend of mine from New Jersey. She told me that you do not stop for red lights in Newark after dark. You slow down at the intersection, look both ways, then go if traffic is clear. Otherwise you have a good chance of getting carjacked - or worse.

This was several years ago that she told me that. I understand things have gotten better under Mayor Corey Booker, who seems to be a fairly conservative Democrat. Newark experienced an entire day without murders recently - the first murder free day in over 40 years.

An improvement in the crime rate is good news. We haven't lived there in a while but have good friends who do live nearby Newark. Unfortunately, nothing has changed at the State level to help those who want to protect themselves. While Southern NJ is much more of a redneck mentality where guns and self defense are acceptable, almost all of the geography above Trenton might as well be annexed to NY and Mayor Bloomy. They have about the same mentality.

I flew out of Newark airport a lot - often several days a week. The good news for me wais that I found ways to get there without having to go through any major part of the city. I often arrived home late at night and would likely not have survived those return trips if it weren't for the bypass routes. I'd put Newark up against Chicago's worst sections any day. Camden may be worse.

If the UN gun control were ever passed and implemented in the US, I believe that there would end up being a lot more Newarks and Camdens. I believe that they exist as they are because there is little or no deterrent to the rampant crime

Another aspect

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/ ... 0-19-00-59

According to the report, "in the absence of guidelines and clear responsibility for security outsourcing, the U.N. has hired companies well-known for their misconduct, violence and financial irregularities - and hired them repeatedly."

This effectively allows the companies to define the U.N.'s security strategy "and even its broader posture and reputation," the report said.

Sure makes me feel warmer about the whole UN gun control topic.

Dick Morris repeated his concern on F&F this morning, saying that Hilliary is going to sign the treaty this month and that the NRA is testifying before the UN today.

Heartland Patriot wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

74novaman wrote:2) I am concerned what they would view as "legitimate". For example, I'm sure they don't think I need a magazine over 10 rounds, the ability to carry a gun outside of my own home, the ability to own an "evil assault rifle", etc.

I think the term has already been defined, more or less, by the UK. "Legitimate" self-defense means using no more force than your assailant....so, if he's not got a knife, you can't use a knife; if he's got a knife, you can use a knife, but not a gun; and if he's got a gun, well, too bad for you, because only criminals are allowed to have guns.

VMI, there was a case in the UK some while ago where a group of three (IIRC) thugs were taken to court by a man's mother on his behalf, because he was a little too (permanently) messed up to do it for himself. They beat him pretty much senseless IN HIS OWN APARTMENT. However, he tried to fend them off for a few minutes, with his bare hands...and because he did that, the judge wouldn't allow the case to proceed because of it. So, you either have to simply take it, or simply take it; if you lose, you lose...and if you win, you lose because the "justice" system will convict YOU of injuring the others if you defend yourself successfully. I will ask the question again: why is it always okay to START trouble, but never okay to end it? Can any of our legal minds please answer this question for me, in a manner that a mere layman and mechanic can understand? Because otherwise, all I smell is a collectivist rat carcass by the name of Marx stinking the place up...

This is real easy to explain. The enemy of the statists is anyone who is willing to think for themselves. Someone willing to defend themselves IS thinking for themselves. Someone who does that is far more of a danger to the government than a petty thug and will be treated as such. Ever notice that tax evasion is punished more consistently and more harshly than many other crimes? Laws, especially in the UK are prosecuted according to the impact on the State, not individuals or the population.

Go through our States and look at similar situations. NJ, for example, is nearly as likely to punish you for defending yourself as the UK. You must retreat if attacked and you have to be able to demonstrate that you retreated. Then look at the crime rate in cities like Newark or Camden. They are right up there with the big boys - NYC, Chicago. Trust me, if you walked through Newark, your chances of being a victim of a crime are very high. But use a gun to defend yourself in Newark and wait until you see the jail sentence waiting for you. Heck, you'd get punished for for having it.

Another fellow paranoid

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2 ... in-arms/3/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

FORBES online
by Larry Bell Op/Ed 6/07/2011 @ 2:04PM

Have no doubt that this plan is very real, with strong Obama administration support. In January 2010 the U.S. joined 152 other countries in endorsing a U.N. Arms Treaty Resolution that will establish a 2012 conference to draft a blueprint for enactment. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has pledged to push for Senate ratification.

I haven't seen any news about the conference yet. We can hope that it won't be a Bilderberg clone and be done in secret.

gringo pistolero wrote:Any politician voting to ratify a treaty that opposes the constitution proves they're no friend of the constitution.

Any government employee acting to enforce treaties or laws that that oppose the constitution proves they're no friend of the constitution.

It doesn't matter if they're foreign or domestic.

I believe that "no friend of the Constitution" is a fitting descriptor for too many of our elected officials and many more of the unelected bureaucrats. The prevailing logic seems to be that "getting something done" takes precedence of any thing that is in the Constitution.

The amazing part to me is that several of them stood in front of microphones and said that they were just carrying out the will of the people and that "everybody" wanted them to do what they are doing. That sort of flies in the fact of the reaction that Congresspeople got when they were still bothering to hold town meetings and the audience got in their faces about the spending, the debt and the failure to observe the Constitutional boundaries. I just assumed that the people at those meetings didn't know their own will.

I'm making a habit out of writing e-mails and personally calling the offices of my Federal and State representatives on a variety of subjects. None of them will be able to talk about "everybody" now with issues like the UN treaty.

I have a reasonable feeling about Senator Cornyn on this issue. I'm not so sure about KBH, considering her lame duck Status. I have to admit being queasy when almost anything comes to a vote in the Senate. Too many of the members are no friend to anyone but themselves and those who are "contributing" to them.

SewTexas wrote: maybe I'm being paranoid again, but we seem to have a DC that is in love with Europe already...they jumped on to the Rights of the Child and thus far it's only been the Far Right (homeschoolers, military, and Christians) that has kept some sane folks from signing. Again, I bet none of them have actually read it and understood the ramifications. (this is another one I think could impact gun owners, can't remember)

As fodder for our mutual paranoia

http://www.infowars.com/soros-promotes- ... ownership/

Joe Wolverton, II
The New American
Saturday, July 7, 2012

In another section the ATT includes “controls on a comprehensive list of weaponry, including small arms and light weapons.” Predictably, all these controls are couched comfortably in talk of “human rights” and ending senseless killings by rogue regimes.

In order to avoid being labeled a “human rights abuser,” the United States (along with all member states) is ordered by the UN to comply with the ATT. To compel this compliance, the ATT empowers the UN to force Congress to:

• Enact internationally agreed licensing requirements for Americans

• Confiscate and destroy unauthorized firearms of Americans while allowing the U.S. government to keep theirs

• Ban the trade, sale, and private ownership of semi-automatic guns

• Create and mandate an international registry to organize an encompassing gun confiscation in America

Heartland Patriot wrote: NOW you get what I'm talking about...its not about the firearms in the USA directly, but about indirectly limiting or eliminating outside sources of firearms and ammunition into the USA. SUPPLY AND DEMAND. They reduce the supply, demand initially stays level or rises, and so do the prices...this then forces the demand back down, which is what the end goal is...the fewer folks that own guns, the fewer young folks that grow up around guns...and the cycle gets repeated, in a regressing pattern until the collectivist statist goal of disarmament is achieved. I'm not making any jokes about tinfoil hats because I'm not crazy, those leftists ARE control freaks and they really DO want us all disarmed, the misplaced faith of people such as gdanaher in either the benevolence or incompetence of the UN notwithstanding. Dictatorial regimes don't want the "peasantry" armed, having them disarmed makes it easier to bully them, or round them up, or starve them out, ala Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, or Mao.

The supply/demand stuff doesn't always work. Drugs, for example, seem always to find a supply route, no matter how illegal they are. Even the police in D.C. admit that there are lots of guns on the streets in spite of the bans.

There appears to be a secondary goal in these kinds of situations and that is to make criminals out of all who would resist. That also makes it easier to stifle to competition in a totalitarian state. People may still get guns but they can be put into prison if detected. It adds a whole new dimension to "concealed is concealed".

My tin foil hat remarks are simply my feeble attempt to inject a little humor into the matter. I agree that the Liberal/Progressive types are control freaks but I'm finding that most of them are also very hypocritical about that control, too. They want to control others but rail if they are similarly controlled. They also want others to pay taxes to support their outlandish programs but stiffen at the thought of someone raising THEIR tax burden.

74novaman wrote:http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs ... ade-treaty

“The Arms Trade Treaty will not in any way handicap the legitimate right of self-defense,” Acting Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Rose Gottemoeller said in a tweet.

Now, some thoughts:

1) The fact they used the term "legitimate right of self defense" makes me smile. Shows how far the debate in this country over gun control has come from the "sporting purpose" days.

2) I am concerned what they would view as "legitimate". For example, I'm sure they don't think I need a magazine over 10 rounds, the ability to carry a gun outside of my own home, the ability to own an "evil assault rifle", etc.

3) The mere fact that they would bother coming out and saying that we shouldn't worry about what this treaty would do to 2nd amendment rights in the US tends to make me actually worry about what its going to do. It's one thing to hear the usual "UN wants to take our guns" talk. Its another when this administration with a demonstrable history of lying through their teeth starts telling me there is nothing to worry about.

This is something worth watching, at least.

How about some more interesting thoughts:

1. Glocks, Sigs and others come from European countries with what are essentially retail outlet in the US. How will this treaty affect that supply of guns?

2. I've always feared that they would use the ammo supply to control guns. No where do I see that mentioned. I cannot believe or imagine that controlling ammo hasn't be discussed.

3. "those who violate human rights or are subject to UN arms embargoes" The UN has accused the US of human rights violations in the past. Human rights violations is one of the areas where the UN just doesn't get it wrong, they have it completely backward.


I'm sorry but hearing "there, there, not to worry" from Asst. Secretary of State Gottemoeller, when she is pretty much surrounded by openly anti-gun people isn't very reassuring. I ran her bio and didn't find anything like her being a very good friend of the Brady bunch. Either that or her online persona has been pretty carefully scrubbed.

74novaman wrote: Barring some unforeseen miraculous turn around, I really think Obama is toast in November. He's down in polling across all age groups and races. When you just look at "likely" voters instead of "registered" voters, it starts looking even worse for him.

I believe that it is a huge mistake to think that our problems begin and end with our current President. He is a rabid advocate but not the only one.

http://www.dailypioneer.com/nation/2648 ... nment.html
The Pioneer 09 December 2011 00:06 Staff Reporter

The whole world government, world law set has many of the same characteristics as the Climate Change movement. It appears to be as devoid of logic, reason and basis but mirrors the same level of constant clamor by a small minority. The gun control item is but one line item on that agenda.

Taking it one step further, I believe those who believe in American exceptionalism and are advocates for strict Constitutional adherence are being targeted. We are an impediment to the new world order. So be it. And I don't believe any of that is going to change, regardless of who gets elected. We are but pawns in the Bilderberg game.

Does anyone have any spare tin foil? I managed to get a hole in my hat.