Obama backs-off a ploy?

[E4 No More]

First 100 days: Assault weapons ban - The First 100 Days- msnbc.com

Too long for copy/paste.

[Smith]

as I'm reading through the article this link pops out in red. What in the world! Mr. Cool?! I guess the tingly feelings are still going.

The Obama doctrine: Listening, not just talking

The Mr. Cool presidency turns 100 (days)

Interactive: Compare 13 presidents first 100 days

Slideshow: A look at Obama's 13th week in office

[raydog1]

It won't be long before the Brady Bunch turns on Obama like cannibals eating their young. That will be hilarious! Look for it to happen very soon.

[Magiccarpetrides]

Maybe prices will finally come down?

[Jax970]

Hello everyone,

First, this is my first post. Been reading a while, just not talking.

Second, let me apologize for my first post being a "wet blanket". Before you get too excited about Chairman Obama backing off of an assault weapons ban, read this.

INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION AGAINST THE ILLICIT MANUFACTURING OF AND TRAFFICKING IN FIREARMS, AMMUNITION, EXPLOSIVES, AND OTHER RELATED MATERIALS

I must confess I have not read this. I just now came across it in an email from gunlaws.com.

As I understand it (according to gunlaws.com), Commrade Obama wants to sign some international treaty that restricts guns, relaoding, etc. in a manner that is worse than anything we've feared so far. All sources (I have been reading about this for a while now from several sources) seem to indicate this treaty will supercede our Constitution. How can that be done?

Is there anyone that can shed more light on this "treaty"? If a frontal assault won't work, shouldn't we expect some sort of flanking manuvere?

[Titansfan]

I think it's a ploy and will attack from a different direction. Pay close attention about "straw buyers" and focus on dealers. If dealers are run out of business, then goes the guns. I don't trust Obama no further than I can throw him.

[E4 No More]

I think it's a ploy and will attack from a different direction. Pay close attention about "straw buyers" and focus on dealers. If dealers are run out of business, then goes the guns. I don't trust Obama no further than I can throw him.

You must be a little fella then?

[Guest jackdog]

sorry double post, must be spring fever.

Edited April 24, 2009 by jackdog

[Guest jackdog]

Hello everyone,

First, this is my first post. Been reading a while, just not talking.

Second, let me apologize for my first post being a "wet blanket". Before you get too excited about Chairman Obama backing off of an assault weapons ban, read this.

INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION AGAINST THE ILLICIT MANUFACTURING OF AND TRAFFICKING IN FIREARMS, AMMUNITION, EXPLOSIVES, AND OTHER RELATED MATERIALS

I must confess I have not read this. I just now came across it in an email from gunlaws.com.

As I understand it (according to gunlaws.com), Commrade Obama wants to sign some international treaty that restricts guns, relaoding, etc. in a manner that is worse than anything we've feared so far. All sources (I have been reading about this for a while now from several sources) seem to indicate this treaty will supercede our Constitution. How can that be done?

Is there anyone that can shed more light on this "treaty"? If a frontal assault won't work, shouldn't we expect some sort of flanking manuvere?

This is almost if not the same treaty that the US signed in 1997. I have searched but can not find where when or if it was ever ratified by the US congress.

But I see a global treaty via the administration as their best opportunity to kill the 2nd amendment.

If or should this happen, then we as a freedom loving people still have the option to not just say no ,but hell no and that is what everyone needs to do.

But you are correct about a side door attack. It is pretty clear that a frontal assault on 2A will not work .

[Guest nj.piney]

and welcome to tgo

[Guest mikedwood]

This is almost if not the same treaty that the US signed in 1997. I have searched but can not find where when or if it was ever ratified by the US congress.

You sir are right. It is the same treaty Clinton signed during his term. It was left for the next administration to ratify.

For whatever reason W didn't make it a priority and it was left in limbo. Until now...

I don't think there will be another assault weapons ban, but since law is up for interpretation and that is now AG Holder and the new administration. I think there will be things done but they won't use congress. Unless the climate gets where they can.

There are more than enough laws out there now. And honestly in Oak Ridge I get mad at the PD sometimes cause drugs run wild. But it's not the PD. The PD can arrest them today and they are on bail before the paper work in finished. Then if they don't plea bargin a 20 year charge down to 364 and probation with time served.

So I think less heat needs to be laid on the PD and more on the legal side. I'm getting sick of reading about these 18 and 20 year olds with a huge rap sheet and on probation commiting more and more crimes.

Keep the criminals in jail, espessially the violent ones and don't give plea bargins and probation out like the Easter Bunny giving candy.

[Guest sstouder]

This is almost if not the same treaty that the US signed in 1997. I have searched but can not find where when or if it was ever ratified by the US congress.

But I see a global treaty via the administration as their best opportunity to kill the 2nd amendment.

If or should this happen, then we as a freedom loving people still have the option to not just say no ,but hell no and that is what everyone needs to do.

But you are correct about a side door attack. It is pretty clear that a frontal assault on 2A will not work .

yea its a global arms treaty that most of the eastern world has signed...if enacted it cant supersede the constitution but can create several problems for gun owners..in fact i just read an article about this very treaty today on foxnews.com ive been searching for the link but i cant find it.

but just like you the guy in the article said its clearly a behind the scenes route to try and belittle the second ammendment.

[Tim Nunan]

yea its a global arms treaty that most of the eastern world has signed...if enacted it cant supersede the constitution but can create several problems for gun owners..in fact i just read an article about this very treaty today on foxnews.com ive been searching for the link but i cant find it.

but just like you the guy in the article said its clearly a behind the scenes route to try and belittle the second ammendment.

While treaties don't supersede the Constitution pursuant to Article VI they like the laws created "...shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby,..."

[wjh2657]

1. Treaty has to be ratified by Congress. Obama can't do it alone.

2. If treaty is like the others proposed over the preceding years it will deal with relationship outside of U.S., will not have effect inside U.S. and cannot over-ride U.S. Constitution inside U.S.

3. Will pertain to military arsenal moving between countries more than our guns.

People need to look at what these documents actually work with before they go off deep end start to panic.

AWB is on hold because congressional Reps went to Speaker and let her know they wouldn't vote for it. Made bill mute point. there are currently 63 Democrats in House who are openly pro-gun. Harry Reid is from Nevada, which is very pro-gun so Senate isn't a real rap up for Antis either. There are Radical Anti's (Feinstein and ilk) running their mouths but the Democratic majority House is still predominately pro-gun. We have to stay vigilant but this is not the time for panic .