Is this for real???

[Guest waldo]

Got this in an email. I don't trust many emails but this looks like it could be very serious. Anybody heard of this?

While you were watching the oil spill, the New York failed terrorist bombing and other critical crises, Hillary Clinton signed the small arms treaty with the UN.

OBAMA FINDS LEGAL WAY AROUND THE 2ND AMENDMENT AND USES IT. IF THIS PASSES, THERE COULD BE WAR

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

On Wednesday the Obama administration took its first major step in a plan to ban all firearms in the United States. The Obama administration intends to force gun control and a complete ban on all weapons for US citizens through the signing of international treaties with foreign nations. By signing international treaties on gun control, the Obama administration can use the US State Department to bypass the normal legislative process in Congress. Once the US Government signs these international treaties, all US citizens will be subject to those gun laws created by foreign governments. These are laws that have been developed and promoted by organizations such as the United Nations and individuals such as George Soros and Michael Bloomberg. The laws are designed and intended to lead to the complete ban and confiscation of all firearms. The Obama administration is attempting to use tactics and methods of gun control that will inflict major damage to our 2nd Amendment before US citizens even understand what has happened.

Obama can appear before the public and tell them that he does not intend to pursue any legislation (in the United States) that will lead to new gun control laws, while cloaked in secrecy, his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton is committing the US to international treaties and foreign gun control laws. Does that mean Obama is telling the truth? What it means is that there will be no publicized gun control debates in the media or votes in Congress. We will wake up one morning and find that the United States hassigned a treaty that prohibits firearm and ammunition manufacturers from selling to the public. We will wake up another morning and find that the US has signed a treaty that prohibits any transfer of firearm ownership. And then, we will wake up yet another morning and find that the US has signed a treaty that requires US citizens to deliver any firearm they own to the local government collection and destruction center or face imprisonment. This has happened in other countries, past and present! THIS IS NOT A JOKE OR A FALSE WARNING. As sure as government health care will be forced on us by the Obama administration through whatever means necessary, so will gun control. Read the Article U.S. reverses stance on treaty to regulate arms trade WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States reversed policy on Wednesday and said it would back launching talks on a treaty to regulate arms sales as long as the talks operated by consensus, a stance critics said gave every nation a veto. The decision, announced in a statement released by the U.S. State Department, overturns the position of former President George W. Bush's administration, which had opposed such a treaty on the grounds that national controls were better. View The Full Article Here

Click on the link below for further acknowledgement...U.S. reverses stance on treaty to regulate arms trade | Reuters

[Oh Shoot]

http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/2nd-amendment-issues/40194-u-s-reverses-stance-treaty-regulate-arms-trade.html?pagenumber=

snopes.com: Small Arms Treaty

NRA-ILA :: The UN And International Treaties

[Guest BEARMAN]

Yep, OS....Snopes says.......good research, OS.

[Smith]

Even if it did happen in the future, it would still have to be ratified by Congress.

[Ebow1]

I love how the logic Snopes used that guns would never be banned is that it is unconstitutional. This has yet to be any sort of deterrant against the current administration, I don't know why they think it would be now.

[Guest BEARMAN]

FWIW, Olbumer doesn't have the intestinal fortitude to rock the boat in his first term...but look for this if, God forbid, he gets re-elected for a second term.

Then...all bets are off.

[strickj]

I love how the logic Snopes used that guns would never be banned is that it is unconstitutional. This has yet to be any sort of deterrant against the current administration, I don't know why they think it would be now.

What has the current administration done to restrict guns rights?

If you;re keeping count, we're actually gaining rights with the current administration

[Ebow1]

Oh I know that, I'm just saying that whatever is stopping him from abiding by the 2nd amendment, it certainly isn't the constitution.

[Ebow1]

I wasn't speaking specifically of how the current administration has ignored the 2nd amendment but the constitution in general with all that garbage that hasn't yet gone into affect. Mandating healthcare and taxing those who don't want it being the biggest one. This administrations actions have shown it has no concern for the constitution in general, so why would they listen to it if they ever did attempt any gun reform?

[Guest 6.8 AR]

What has the current administration done to restrict guns rights?

If you;re keeping count, we're actually gaining rights with the current administration

How do you figure that? If you are lumping state legislation and national legislation, okay, but

that is apples and oranges.

Even if nothing has happened with any federal legislation attempts, it is and has always been

on his agenda. Why else would Eric Holder and Hillary Clinton run their mouths about it?

[Guest HvyMtl]

Why does this B.S. keep popping up? To anger the ignorant? To sell more guns? To get votes?

Point is - this is not real, and has been discussed in a few previous threads... The treaty does not exist. If it existed, it has not been signed. Had it been signed, it has not been ratified by the Senate. If it had been ratified by the Senate, it still would not apply to the Citizens of the U.S., as per the Supreme Court of the U.S., the Constitution is superior to any treaty signed. So, the treaty could be in full effect, and the 2nd Amendment would still trump, as it is an Amendment to the Constitution...

Original Poster, good on you to ask if this is real or not. Be thankful in the knowledge if it were 100% true, it still would not impact your rights...

[strickj]

How do you figure that? If you are lumping state legislation and national legislation, okay, but

that is apples and oranges.

Even if nothing has happened with any federal legislation attempts, it is and has always been

on his agenda. Why else would Eric Holder and Hillary Clinton run their mouths about it?

Not including state.

By my memory, it's 2-0.

Not sure what is on his perceived agenda. Last I heard his agenda included banning all guns as soon as he takes office....then give it a couple of months....now it'll be that last thing he does

[Guest 6.8 AR]

It's almost certain to show up, either directly or by some other innocuous piece of

legislation that has several layers of fluff, like the Healthcare Bill, which included

taxation. Or it will be like the so called Net Neutrality that to some, even on here,

think that's okay.

A gun bill will be introduced or, at the very least, they will allow

the BATFE to do things that are not legal, until someone catches on. That has

happened before.

[RobD]

What has the current administration done to restrict guns rights?

If you;re keeping count, we're actually gaining rights with the current administration

Um might wanna check your facts on that one....The DOJ is suing the state of Montana over their new gun laws, which are very similar to the ones in TN and TX.

[Guest mosinon]

It's almost certain to show up, either directly or by some other innocuous piece of

legislation that has several layers of fluff, like the Healthcare Bill, which included

taxation. Or it will be like the so called Net Neutrality that to some, even on here,

think that's okay.

A gun bill will be introduced or, at the very least, they will allow

the BATFE to do things that are not legal, until someone catches on. That has

happened before.

What's wrong with net neutrality? You want someone else deciding what you look at on the 'net?

From wikiopedia:

"Network neutrality (also net neutrality, Internet neutrality) is a principle proposed for user access networks participating in the Internet that advocates no restrictions by Internet Service Providers and governments on content, sites, platforms, on the kinds of equipment that may be attached, and no restrictions on the modes of communication allowed.[1][2][3]

The principle states that if a given user pays for a certain level of Internet access, and another user pays for the same level of access, that the two users should be able to connect to each other at the subscribed level of access.:"

I am down with the argument that since the ISP's own the cables the could, in theory, decide what I can and can't read. I further understand that charging for some sites would be profitable for said ISPs.

That noted, I am a free speech kind of person, so I am strongly in favor of net neutrality. I pay for pipes delivering content, not for censors and such.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Wikipedia doesn't define the bill. The 2009 Internet Freedom Act, aka, "Net Neutrality Act"

is bull**** legislation that allows the FCC to regulate the internet without defining those

regulations. If that's what kind of internet you want, so be it.

Why net neutrality's not neutral at all | ZDNet

Blackburn: Net neutrality is 'Fairness Doctrine for the Internet' - The Hill's Hillicon Valley

Hatch signals early GOP blockade against net neutrality legislation - The Hill's Hillicon Valley

You only listened to half the argument. Do you really want the government running the internet? I would just as soon the government stay the heck out of it.

I don't! There are plenty more links to peruse. Most of them are propaganda in favor of a

seemingly good sounding title. The internet isn't a telephone company.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

2-0 what? Please explain. Hillary runs her mouth about the need for gun legislation.

Eric Holder does the same thing at a different time.

Charles Shumer, enough said.

Bobby Rush tried to introduce gun legislation this session and at least it never left committee.

Which 2 are you talking about, strickj? I could have missed something.

[Mike.357]

Yep, OS....Snopes says.......good research, OS.

people cite snopes all the time, they certainly are no less reliable than any other source.

What sources do you trust? Scripps Howard, Fox News, CBS? Where is a legitimate source saying that the thing is real?

[Guest Catdaddy]

As I understand it, the current healthcare legislation allows somewhat broad authority to the government to regulate what they consider "unhealthy behavior". We all know they deem gun ownership to be unhealthy- not to mention handling lead....next it will be powder, cuprous oxide on vintage jacketed ammo....

[mikegideon]

2-0 what? Please explain. Hillary runs her mouth about the need for gun legislation.

Eric Holder does the same thing at a different time.

Charles Shumer, enough said.

Bobby Rush tried to introduce gun legislation this session and at least it never left committee.

Which 2 are you talking about, strickj? I could have missed something.

And, what would these people be doing if Obama packed up and went back to Kenya tomorrow?

[mikegideon]

Wikipedia doesn't define the bill. The 2009 Internet Freedom Act, aka, "Net Neutrality Act"

is bull**** legislation that allows the FCC to regulate the internet without defining those

regulations. If that's what kind of internet you want, so be it.

Why net neutrality's not neutral at all | ZDNet

Blackburn: Net neutrality is 'Fairness Doctrine for the Internet' - The Hill's Hillicon Valley

Hatch signals early GOP blockade against net neutrality legislation - The Hill's Hillicon Valley

You only listened to half the argument. Do you really want the government running the internet? I would just as soon the government stay the heck out of it.

I don't! There are plenty more links to peruse. Most of them are propaganda in favor of a

seemingly good sounding title. The internet isn't a telephone company.

I read all 3. The Canadian guy in the first article is, at least, technically competent to speak about the issues. He gets to his point in the last paragraph. he doesn't want the government taking away "his right" to manage bandwidth based on content type. We do that all the time on private networks to make sure email is snappier than all the real big stuff, like audio files. Should your ISP be able to decide which files are delivered with a higher priority? That's the whole question. The FCC's position is NO.

Marsha doesn't understand the technology, and is once again trying to love up to the music community (it's what she does). Once again, she has things flipped upside down. Net Neutrality will help the music industry move their product.

Orrin is just sticking up for the big boys. Like Marsha, he doen't have a clue about how packet based networks function, or how they're managed. Personally, I don't care if Comcast throttles back the bandwidth hogs. I really don't care either way.

All three are against net neutrality for their own reasons, but it doesn't change the definition of net neutrality.

[Ebow1]

Gun ownership won't be targeted as unhealthy behavior through the healthcare bill. Once everybody is paying for everybody's healthcare, they'll start telling us what to eat, when and how to exercise, and those who don't abide will be imposed a fine. They'll use the argument that you are a bigger healthcare expense because you eat meals you actually enjoy.

[Guest thorn]

As I understand it, the current healthcare legislation allows somewhat broad authority to the government to regulate what they consider "unhealthy behavior". We all know they deem gun ownership to be unhealthy- not to mention handling lead....next it will be powder, cuprous oxide on vintage jacketed ammo....

Yep. "Constitution?... We don't need no... stinkin' Constitution!" Executive Order-- Establishing the National Prevention, Health Promotion, and Public Health Council | The White House

[mikegideon]

Gun ownership won't be targeted as unhealthy behavior through the healthcare bill. Once everybody is paying for everybody's healthcare, they'll start telling us what to eat, when and how to exercise, and those who don't abide will be imposed a fine. They'll use the argument that you are a bigger healthcare expense because you eat meals you actually enjoy.

The insurance companies have been moving in that direction for awhile... underwriting health risks. It won't come in the form of them force feeding you rice cakes, or making you go to the gym. For example, in the company I work for, if you do X number of 'healthy" things per year, your coverage sucks a little less.

No policy is worth its salt if there isn't significant voluntary compliance. They don't have the manpower to follow you around and slap quarter pounders out of your hand . Will the average American comply with stupid laws that can't be enforced?

[G27]

2-0 what? Please explain. Hillary runs her mouth about the need for gun legislation.

Eric Holder does the same thing at a different time.

Charles Shumer, enough said.

Bobby Rush tried to introduce gun legislation this session and at least it never left committee.

Which 2 are you talking about, strickj? I could have missed something.

Off the top of my head there's National Park carry...