Welcome to CafeMom
join our community and talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

We won't show your age or birthday to anyone unless you want us to!

Obama's/Hillary's Backdoor Control!

blondekosmic15
Report
In process decorating profile page :}
Yesterday at 1:58 AM
Posted by on Jul. 10, 2012 at 1:52 PM
  • 123 Replies
1 mom liked this

 

UN Small Arms Treaty: Barack Obama’s Backdoor Gun Control May Pass

July 10, 2012 9:04 am

There are always enemies of individual liberty. Many, in socialist and globalist circles, hate the fact that the common US citizen can exercise his or her liberty of free speech, worship without government intrusion, and is protected by ‘due process of law’. However, there is no hate in this world among those who promote and prop up tyranny like there is against the 2nd Amendment: the US citizen’s God-given liberty to own firearms.

This is why men, like George Soros, put in an ‘honest day’s work’ attempting to utilize United Nations powers in order to neutralize US sovereignty and the 2nd Amendment with it. According to John Wolverton, II of The New American, Soros is pulling every little string possible to strip your home of its defenses against crime and tyranny:

George Soros is financing the fight to give the United Nations control of your guns.

Through his Media Matters organization, Soros is dumping pro-UN gun control propaganda into the mainstream media to coincide with the United Nations Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty being held in New York July 2–27.”

While it is difficult to sift through the various UN treaties, the ‘small arms treaty’ is a part of a much larger initiative to curtail individual gun rights. In essence, the ‘small arms treaty’, the ‘Law of the Sea’ treaty, and the ‘Arms Trade Treaty’ can be bundled into one giant effort to remove US sovereignty, giving the UN control over the liberties of US citizens, nullifying protections Americans have enjoyed since the birth of the US.

    

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have already vowed to sign such a treaty. In fact, both have largely been working behind closed doors, as they know full-well that Americans would surely show staunch resistance if their agenda committed to ‘open war’.

Douglas J. Hagmann of the HomelandSecurityUS.com reports:

Regardless of how unlikely it would appear that the U.S. Senate would ratify the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty, the antagonism to the right to bear arms in the U.S. by Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and our elected officials cannot be disputed. While seeming to loathe the Second Amendment, the majority of their efforts to enforce gun control appear to be “under the radar” to avoid raising the ire of the advocates of the right to bear arms.”

What does this mean for Americans? All of these ‘treaties’ have a common thread, which boil down to 4 directives. Katie Pavlich, the Editor of TownHall.com, reports:

-Enact tougher licensing requirements, creating additional bureaucratic red tape for legal firearms ownership.

-Confiscate and destroy all “unauthorized” civilian firearms (exempting those owned by our government of course).

-Ban the trade, sale and private ownership of all semi-automatic weapons (any that have magazines even though they still operate in the same one trigger pull – one single “bang” manner as revolvers, a simple fact the anti-gun media never seem to grasp).

-Create an international gun registry, clearly setting the stage for full-scale gun confiscation.

In short, overriding our national sovereignty, and in the process, providing license for the federal government to assert preemptive powers over state regulatory powers guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment in addition to our Second Amendment rights.”

According to various White House insiders, Barack Hussein Obama has not been idle, saying, “I just want you to know that we are working on it,” he continues …“We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar.” Perhaps, this is why the President has been curiously silent on the subject, as he does not want to attract attention to what he is truly doing through the various UN treaties.

Either way, this spells bad news for American gun rights. Anthony Martin of the Examiner.com stated:

As the United Nations prepares its final push to ratify a controversial gun treaty, the U.S. Senate is set to approve the measure which critics say will not only give away U.S. sovereignty but directly attack the individual gun rights of American citizens, according to a report published Thursday at Stand Up America.

Democrats still hold the majority in the Senate.”

If we wish to keep our liberties, then we must send a clear message to our politicians …their jobs will not survive election day if they even consider the ‘small arms treaty’ to be a good idea. The disarmament of the American people will signal the beginning of the end of any semblance of freedom we had left. As the saying goes, ‘Hitler, Stalin, and Mao agree …gun control works.’

http://www.ijreview.com/2012/07/10064-un-small-arms-treaty-barack-obamas-backdoor-gun-control-may-pass/

Posted by on Jul. 10, 2012 at 1:52 PM
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Replies:
mehamil1
by on Jul. 11, 2012 at 12:31 AM
1 mom liked this

Oh Good God that video was awful. 

29again
by Gold Member on Jul. 11, 2012 at 2:21 AM
1 mom liked this


Quoting rccmom:


Quoting blondekosmic15:

 

Quoting rccmom:

I don't know. I have a hard time reading an article like this because of its bias. I really doubt a lot of other people hate US citizens because of our freedoms.  Nor do I think people hate the 2nd Ammendment, but some people do not agree on how it is interpreted and applied.

Therefore since the beginning does not make sense, but uses inflammatory rhetoric, it makes me suspicious of the entire article. I will have to research this some and see if there is any real truth to it, but my first guess is that no, there is probably little to no truth to the claims.

The bias is directed @ the gun owner & the 2nd Amendment. Not the President who exhibits a reputation of disrespect for Congress and the Constitution. Unfortunately some who support Barack Obama, his policies attacking our freedoms, will never believe this man is bent on changing America forever and taking our liberties away til it's too late~

Well, the article's bias is directed towards others, not gun owners. If Obama had wanted to enact gun control, he probably would have done it already. I remember when he took office everyone out buying up ammo for fear he was going to take away our guns. Nope, didn't happen, just fear mongering. If the article was correct that you cited, it certainly could have found a more factual and less biased way to talk about it. Stuff like that just puts people like me off, and I'm not even a far left Liberal, just a moderate one.      

Also, luckily for me, we own swords, and I have a cool pair of sais, and no one is regulating those!   

Same here!!  As well as spear, nun-chuckas, fans, kamas, blow-gun, and knives! 

Aren't sais just the most wicked looking things?!?

29again
by Gold Member on Jul. 11, 2012 at 2:25 AM
1 mom liked this


Quoting mehamil1:

I just want to pipe in here and say that as a socialist, I don't hate freedom. 

Otherwise this article is one big massive pile of hyperbole, exageration, and bias. All cooked up to make people upset and angry at an "enemy" that they can't see. At least not clearly. 

Please, continue on. 

I can see the enemy quite clearly.  But then, I have bi-focals, so maybe that helps!  ;)

anjegirl
by on Jul. 11, 2012 at 2:42 AM

This is all being done to promote AGENDA 21 and a new world order---I watched on TV tonite a 30 minute film about this and Fast and Furious and the terrorists in america are our gov---as can be seen in this film which was titled "The secret threat to our guns" I think and it will show many more times on the Home channel on Direct TV and it can be found on the NRA's website I am sure----

matreshka
by Gold Member on Jul. 11, 2012 at 7:02 AM

From my first response I was not talking about violating the second amendment as it pertains to allowing people to form militias to defend themselves but this is a new world from the time of the writing of the constitution.

We shouldn't have such easy access to guns of all sorts in this nation.  It's what can turn a minor scuffle into a major crime with the loss of life, it protects the drug trade and offers nothing of value.  People who need to hunt a deer with a semi-automatic weapon should NOT have a gun in their hands at all.

Quoting kailu1835:

The violent crime rate in the UK as of 2011 was 3.7%.  (The population was approximately 54 million, and there were just over 2 million violent crimes (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/crime-research/hosb1011/hosb1011?view=Binary).

In the US, we had a population of 310.5 million people in 2011 (http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2010/12/30/us-population-2011-310-million-and-growing), and a violent crime rate of 1,246,248 (http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2011/september/crime_091911/crime_091911).  That's a rate of .4%

So the UK's crime rate is almost 9 times our rate.

There are many more people that own guns than there is crime involving guns.  Taking away the constitutional rights of citizens to own guns is not the answer.

 

Quoting matreshka:

That article cited statistics from 2007, and listed 927 murders, when gun control laws were lifted briefly, they have since gone back to tighter gun control. According to the CDC an average of 18,000 murders are committed in the US within the last decade.

As for your second point, if people are the problem, then why give them guns?

Quoting kailu1835:

 I guess that's sort of correct.  The UK has one of the highest violent crime rate in the world, despite having less numbers than just one of our states.  They are considered the Crime Capital of Europe, with higher crimes than America, Canada, Australia and South Africa as well.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5712573/UK-is-violent-crime-capital-of-Europe.html

Taking away guns does not stem violence; violence does not come from gun ownership, but from the people themselves.

Quoting matreshka:

I love that sculpture in the front of the un that is in the picture :)

I understand that the constitution gives us the right to bear arms.  The intent was so that Americans could form militias and defnd themselves before there was a cohesive military system in place.

However, No one can argue that gun violence is NOT out of control in this countr. other nations, like the UK that have gun control do not have the crime rates we do.

Something has to be done about guns and crime.

 


 


Carpy
by Platinum Member on Jul. 11, 2012 at 7:16 AM
1 mom liked this
Quoting matreshka:

From my first response I was not talking about violating the second amendment as it pertains to allowing people to form militias to defend themselves but this is a new world from the time of the writing of the constitution.

We shouldn't have such easy access to guns of all sorts in this nation.  It's what can turn a minor scuffle into a major crime with the loss of life, it protects the drug trade and offers nothing of value.  People who need to hunt a deer with a semi-automatic weapon should NOT have a gun in their hands at all.

Quoting kailu1835:

The violent crime rate in the UK as of 2011 was 3.7%.  (The population was approximately 54 million, and there were just over 2 million violent crimes (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/crime-research/hosb1011/hosb1011?view=Binary).

In the US, we had a population of 310.5 million people in 2011 (http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2010/12/30/us-population-2011-310-million-and-growing), and a violent crime rate of 1,246,248 (http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2011/september/crime_091911/crime_091911).  That's a rate of .4%

So the UK's crime rate is almost 9 times our rate.

There are many more people that own guns than there is crime involving guns.  Taking away the constitutional rights of citizens to own guns is not the answer.

 

Quoting matreshka:

That article cited statistics from 2007, and listed 927 murders, when gun control laws were lifted briefly, they have since gone back to tighter gun control. According to the CDC an average of 18,000 murders are committed in the US within the last decade.

As for your second point, if people are the problem, then why give them guns?

Quoting kailu1835:

 I guess that's sort of correct.  The UK has one of the highest violent crime rate in the world, despite having less numbers than just one of our states.  They are considered the Crime Capital of Europe, with higher crimes than America, Canada, Australia and South Africa as well.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5712573/UK-is-violent-crime-capital-of-Europe.html

Taking away guns does not stem violence; violence does not come from gun ownership, but from the people themselves.

Quoting matreshka:

I love that sculpture in the front of the un that is in the picture :)

I understand that the constitution gives us the right to bear arms.  The intent was so that Americans could form militias and defnd themselves before there was a cohesive military system in place.

However, No one can argue that gun violence is NOT out of control in this countr. other nations, like the UK that have gun control do not have the crime rates we do.

Something has to be done about guns and crime.

 


 


I don't have a semi auto to hunt deer.  I have a semi auto to protect myself and home if needed.  Yep, something needs to be done about me, I am just gunning down innocent people left and right.

matreshka
by Gold Member on Jul. 11, 2012 at 8:43 AM

Now what is going to happen when that semi-aitomatic weapon gets wrestled away from you and used agaisnt yoU?  I agree with protecting ourselves especially as women, and I am sure you have been through all of the arms usage classes and have knowlege of your weapon, but its is more likely that a gun you own will be used against you if something like a home invasion happens.

For me, I choose as much as possible not to live in fear, nor to bear a weapon against anyone.  I have PTSD from violence, and I can tell you that guns do nothing to make a society any safer.

Quoting Carpy:

Quoting matreshka:

From my first response I was not talking about violating the second amendment as it pertains to allowing people to form militias to defend themselves but this is a new world from the time of the writing of the constitution.

We shouldn't have such easy access to guns of all sorts in this nation.  It's what can turn a minor scuffle into a major crime with the loss of life, it protects the drug trade and offers nothing of value.  People who need to hunt a deer with a semi-automatic weapon should NOT have a gun in their hands at all.

Quoting kailu1835:

The violent crime rate in the UK as of 2011 was 3.7%.  (The population was approximately 54 million, and there were just over 2 million violent crimes (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/crime-research/hosb1011/hosb1011?view=Binary).

In the US, we had a population of 310.5 million people in 2011 (http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2010/12/30/us-population-2011-310-million-and-growing), and a violent crime rate of 1,246,248 (http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2011/september/crime_091911/crime_091911).  That's a rate of .4%

So the UK's crime rate is almost 9 times our rate.

There are many more people that own guns than there is crime involving guns.  Taking away the constitutional rights of citizens to own guns is not the answer.

 

Quoting matreshka:

That article cited statistics from 2007, and listed 927 murders, when gun control laws were lifted briefly, they have since gone back to tighter gun control. According to the CDC an average of 18,000 murders are committed in the US within the last decade.

As for your second point, if people are the problem, then why give them guns?

Quoting kailu1835:

 I guess that's sort of correct.  The UK has one of the highest violent crime rate in the world, despite having less numbers than just one of our states.  They are considered the Crime Capital of Europe, with higher crimes than America, Canada, Australia and South Africa as well.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5712573/UK-is-violent-crime-capital-of-Europe.html

Taking away guns does not stem violence; violence does not come from gun ownership, but from the people themselves.

Quoting matreshka:

I love that sculpture in the front of the un that is in the picture :)

I understand that the constitution gives us the right to bear arms.  The intent was so that Americans could form militias and defnd themselves before there was a cohesive military system in place.

However, No one can argue that gun violence is NOT out of control in this countr. other nations, like the UK that have gun control do not have the crime rates we do.

Something has to be done about guns and crime.

 


 


I don't have a semi auto to hunt deer.  I have a semi auto to protect myself and home if needed.  Yep, something needs to be done about me, I am just gunning down innocent people left and right.


shimamab
by on Jul. 11, 2012 at 8:51 AM
1 mom liked this
Well, my whole fam are ninjas....with Navy SEAL training and we have a toy closet full of swords, light sabers, Nerf guns, and super soakers ;) Lol, don't tread on me!!

Quoting 29again:


Quoting rccmom:



Quoting blondekosmic15:


 


Quoting rccmom:


I don't know. I have a hard time reading an article like this because of its bias. I really doubt a lot of other people hate US citizens because of our freedoms.  Nor do I think people hate the 2nd Ammendment, but some people do not agree on how it is interpreted and applied.


Therefore since the beginning does not make sense, but uses inflammatory rhetoric, it makes me suspicious of the entire article. I will have to research this some and see if there is any real truth to it, but my first guess is that no, there is probably little to no truth to the claims.


The bias is directed @ the gun owner & the 2nd Amendment. Not the President who exhibits a reputation of disrespect for Congress and the Constitution. Unfortunately some who support Barack Obama, his policies attacking our freedoms, will never believe this man is bent on changing America forever and taking our liberties away til it's too late~


Well, the article's bias is directed towards others, not gun owners. If Obama had wanted to enact gun control, he probably would have done it already. I remember when he took office everyone out buying up ammo for fear he was going to take away our guns. Nope, didn't happen, just fear mongering. If the article was correct that you cited, it certainly could have found a more factual and less biased way to talk about it. Stuff like that just puts people like me off, and I'm not even a far left Liberal, just a moderate one.      


Also, luckily for me, we own swords, and I have a cool pair of sais, and no one is regulating those!   

Same here!!  As well as spear, nun-chuckas, fans, kamas, blow-gun, and knives! 

Aren't sais just the most wicked looking things?!?

Posted on CafeMom Mobile
shimamab
by on Jul. 11, 2012 at 8:52 AM
1 mom liked this
Sounds like an adult movie title ;)

Quoting Kate_Momof3:

Quite possibly the Best Thread Title EVER..

Posted on CafeMom Mobile
rccmom
by Gold Member on Jul. 11, 2012 at 11:21 AM


Quoting 29again:


Quoting rccmom:

 

Quoting blondekosmic15:

 

Quoting rccmom:

I don't know. I have a hard time reading an article like this because of its bias. I really doubt a lot of other people hate US citizens because of our freedoms.  Nor do I think people hate the 2nd Ammendment, but some people do not agree on how it is interpreted and applied.

Therefore since the beginning does not make sense, but uses inflammatory rhetoric, it makes me suspicious of the entire article. I will have to research this some and see if there is any real truth to it, but my first guess is that no, there is probably little to no truth to the claims.

The bias is directed @ the gun owner & the 2nd Amendment. Not the President who exhibits a reputation of disrespect for Congress and the Constitution. Unfortunately some who support Barack Obama, his policies attacking our freedoms, will never believe this man is bent on changing America forever and taking our liberties away til it's too late~

Well, the article's bias is directed towards others, not gun owners. If Obama had wanted to enact gun control, he probably would have done it already. I remember when he took office everyone out buying up ammo for fear he was going to take away our guns. Nope, didn't happen, just fear mongering. If the article was correct that you cited, it certainly could have found a more factual and less biased way to talk about it. Stuff like that just puts people like me off, and I'm not even a far left Liberal, just a moderate one.      

Also, luckily for me, we own swords, and I have a cool pair of sais, and no one is regulating those!   

Same here!!  As well as spear, nun-chuckas, fans, kamas, blow-gun, and knives! 

Aren't sais just the most wicked looking things?!?

I want to come to your house to play! Kamas are so cool, but we don't have any. We do have throwing knives and shuriken as more long distance weapons.

I've been studying sais with my sensei for about 6 mos now. I really like how they are used in fighting, particularly against a sword. Lots of fun! 

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Welcome to CafeMom
join our community and talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

We won't show your age or birthday to anyone unless you want us to!