• Welcome to H4O! For a reduced ad experience, please login or register with the forum.

Video: Taking Away Our Guns?

crank

The Master Blaster!
Messages
616
Location
Victoria, TX
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyfkQkchlu4&feature=youtube_gdata_player

A buddy of mine (another gun sportsman) sent this to me. Has anyone seen this video. I don't know to beleive it or not. It's a bit long but has a lot of information in it.
I'm not sure this is true. I can beleive this is what our government would want, but not sure if it's this bad.... Yet....
Looking at the news guy, it makes me think it's prank. I would think he would be just the opposite. Judge a book by it's cover?
Anyway...
 

f5moab

Mr. Beretta
Messages
1,986
Location
Hiding in a potato patch in Idaho
Undestand, Obama can sign a treaty all day long but it has no force in law unless it is a sole-executive agreement. This type of agreement is within his powers and is basically a treat as commander if chief of the armed services. Example might be a treaty to patrol the pirate seas along the African coast.
However, congressional executive agreements such as with the UN, requires a 2/3 approval vote by the US senate and the US senate is not going to vote and pass the UN agreement. And even if they did, it would be fought in the US courts since no agreements can conflict with the US constitution.
He could sign a non self-executing agreement, but that is just an agreement that he signs and states he will attempt to get the US senate to approve. This is the most signed agreement and most are never passed or take years and years to even bring to the senate floor.

So I call BS on the video.
 

Steve #1

Well-Known Member
Messages
534
Location
TEXAS
I didn't watch the whole video (I was dry heaving so much I couldn't take it any more.)

The guy in the video is an idiot. People are getting all warped up in this and all it does is make them look stupid.

What this guy is talking about and the document he is quoting have almost nothing to do with each other.

....... So I started trying to explain what was going on but this is so convoluted it's not worth the time I'll make it simple.

September 1961 document = Just a document that was put together by people in the state department. JFK is the president and the cold war is on. From the document a group is put together (think hippies) to come up with a plan primarily for nuclear disarmament (that's the main point of the 61 document). Well they work out a plan. In the meantime Kennedy leaves office (not his choice) now LBJ is the President. In 1966 LBJ finds out about the report this group put together based on the 61 document and is like WTF is this? I'm trying to keep it simple. What he really said was "Because of the unusual circumstances surrounding the establishment of this Group, and in view of the nature of its finding, we do not recommend that this Report be released for publication...such actions would not be in the public interest..a lay reader, unexposed to the exigencies of higher political or military responsibility, will misconstrue the purpose of this project, and the intent... We urge that the circulation of the Report be closely restricted to those who's responsibilities require that they be apprised of its contents... " The conspiracy folks take this as "we need to keep this a secret from the public" what LBJ was implying was that it shouldn't be released because some idiot could think it was some official policy.

So 61 document = nutbags plan to create rainbows and singing birds and a world where we hold hands and sing.


Topic 2: UN arms trade treaty of today.

This has to do with conventional arms, AKA guns (not armaments like the '61 deal).

UN says "Something needs to be done to keep warring nutbags from getting guns. Lets regulate international gun shipments."
US domestic nutbags say "We have the second amendment. Obama is trying to take away my gun."
Lobbiests remind the politicians that the US is a big time gun exporter and the treaty would be bad for business. Like F5 explained, this can't go anywhere without the Senate so there is nothing to worry about.

Stupid gun nuts still have their panties in a wad for no reason.
 

crank

The Master Blaster!
Messages
616
Location
Victoria, TX
Thanks guys.
It looked real suspicious from the git go. The hippy announcer looked and sounded like he was trying to stir the pot. He just didn’t fit the gun packing profile. I guess my brain was lacking oxygen when I posted it.
 

MaxPF

AGNTSA
Messages
1,394
Location
The dark side of the globe
Any "treaty" would just be a convenient excuse anyway. As Katrina pointed out, if they decide to forcefully confiscate guns, they will. It was completely illegal, and yet no charges were filed and virtually nobody got their guns back. Illegal disarmament and illegal theft of property by the government. If you think it can't happen here you're delusional, because it already has. And the Katrina confiscations conclusively proved two important things: people won't resist, and they can get away with it.
 

f5moab

Mr. Beretta
Messages
1,986
Location
Hiding in a potato patch in Idaho
Any "treaty" would just be a convenient excuse anyway. As Katrina pointed out, if they decide to forcefully confiscate guns, they will. It was completely illegal, and yet no charges were filed and virtually nobody got their guns back. Illegal disarmament and illegal theft of property by the government. If you think it can't happen here you're delusional, because it already has. And the Katrina confiscations conclusively proved two important things: people won't resist, and they can get away with it.

After Katrina, most states passed laws to prevent this. And it was the first time it happened, and hopefully it will not happen again and so far, it has not happened. I am NOT dilusional and I don't like the implication from what appears to be a paranoid redneck. Therefore, as far as I'm concerned any conversations with your are over with. Time to head off to the block button, which is something I should have done a long time ago!
 

Paladine71

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
Messages
1,483
Location
Tallmansville, WV
"...from my cold, dead hands!" I will neither surrender my guns, nor take them from other Americans in violation to the 2nd Amendment. I took an oath to the Constitution, and it is binding.

That is all.
 

MaxPF

AGNTSA
Messages
1,394
Location
The dark side of the globe
After Katrina, most states passed laws to prevent this.

Laws are only useful if they are enforced. Who is going to enforce those laws if the cops/natl guard decide to disregard them?

And it was the first time it happened, and hopefully it will not happen again and so far, it has not happened. I am NOT dilusional and I don't like the implication from what appears to be a paranoid redneck.

First off, it is delusional, not dilusional. This site has a perfectly functional spell check and you still screwed it up. Second, it was not an implication: you have already demonstrated that you believe laws will somehow stop government from committing illegal acts, when in fact it has been shown time and time again that they will disregard any laws they choose to. Thus, you are delusional. And an idiot. Third, I am neither paranoid, nor a redneck, but then again I didn't expect any more from you.

Therefore, as far as I'm concerned any conversations with your are over with. Time to head off to the block button, which is something I should have done a long time ago!

As usual, F5 takes his ball and goes home. I'm surprised he didn't decide to "leave" the forum all together like he has in the past. Of course, he always slinks back, hoping he hasn't alienated too many people with his last petulant outburst :hjob:

Hey, does someone want to quote this so F5 can read it? :wink:
 

backcountryislife

Well-Known Member
Messages
858
Location
Dumont, CO
The problem is... we're a nation of laws.

You can say that the government will do whatever it wants, but you insult yourself in the same breath then... you don't think that other gun owners JUST like yourself are going to put up with that, and that the military (men like us) will follow an unconstitutional order against their own country??

The government may do something that's outside of the constitution, then soon after there will be a suit, it will rise, and it will see the SCOTUS... and their actions would be stopped.

I suppose you're really saying is that, despite this, the whole government is just one big conspiracy against it's subjects & no one will stop them?

If that's your premise, I simply disagree with you.
 

MaxPF

AGNTSA
Messages
1,394
Location
The dark side of the globe
The problem is... we're a nation of laws.

Laws must be enforced to have effect. The government enforces those laws. Thus, who enforces the laws against the government?

You can say that the government will do whatever it wants, but you insult yourself in the same breath then

How do I insult myself?

... you don't think that other gun owners JUST like yourself are going to put up with that,

I don't own any guns. Never have, never will. They're too dangerous. But I respect other poeple's rights to own them.

and that the military (men like us) will follow an unconstitutional order against their own country??

There will be a handful in the military who may refuse to follow the order. Many more will know it's wrong, but will follow the orders anyway because they don't want to get into trouble. The vast majority of young men and women in the military these days would follow such an order unquestioningly, because they simply do not know any better.

The government may do something that's outside of the constitution, then soon after there will be a suit, it will rise, and it will see the SCOTUS... and their actions would be stopped.

Stopped by who? Even IF there is a suit (after the damage is done, mind you), and even if SCOTUS rules in it's favor (which is less likely if it is full of liberal appointees), who is going to enforce the ruling? Once again, we come back to who enforces laws against the government?

I suppose you're really saying is that, despite this, the whole government is just one big conspiracy against it's subjects & no one will stop them?

I'm saying the government is full of men who either don't believe the laws apply to them, or more likely they recognize that the laws apply to them but they also know they don't have to obey them because nobody will enforce the laws against them. American history has proven time and again that this is the case.

If that's your premise, I simply disagree with you.

Disagreement doesn't change the reality of the situation.
 

backcountryislife

Well-Known Member
Messages
858
Location
Dumont, CO
Laws must be enforced to have effect. The government enforces those laws. Thus, who enforces the laws against the government?



How do I insult myself?



I don't own any guns. Never have, never will. They're too dangerous. But I respect other poeple's rights to own them.



There will be a handful in the military who may refuse to follow the order. Many more will know it's wrong, but will follow the orders anyway because they don't want to get into trouble. The vast majority of young men and women in the military these days would follow such an order unquestioningly, because they simply do not know any better.



Stopped by who? Even IF there is a suit (after the damage is done, mind you), and even if SCOTUS rules in it's favor (which is less likely if it is full of liberal appointees), who is going to enforce the ruling? Once again, we come back to who enforces laws against the government?



I'm saying the government is full of men who either don't believe the laws apply to them, or more likely they recognize that the laws apply to them but they also know they don't have to obey them because nobody will enforce the laws against them. American history has proven time and again that this is the case.



Disagreement doesn't change the reality of the situation.

The reality of the situation according to you... but according to me, and I'd guess the vast majority of the country, we're a nation that lives MOSTLY true to the constitution, with some hiccups from time to time.
You seem to feel that this isn't the case, and you can disagree just like I can, but your claimed version of reality is no more real than my version. I'm a student of history as well, a student of supreme court cases throughout our history & the fact that once a law/ act is ruled unconstitutional we generally undo/ end what was being done. I see little thing where small groups or individuals do things that I personally feel are contrary to the general ideals of the constitution, but in general I'd say that's not the norm. Some in gov would LOVE to think they're above the law, and SOME truly are... but again, nowhere NEAR on the scale it seems to me that you're referring to.

To directly go against the 2nd amendment of the US constitution would be such a huge step, I just don't see it happening. Either way... I've got a mine & many other hiding places... someone who comes to my house with the intent of removing weapons will have a significant project on their hands, and I don't think I'm alone in this.


Btw, my comment about you "insulting yourself" was incorrect, sorry about that. I assumed you were a gun owner, and in turn should have said that you insult gun owners, if you think that some or most of us would allow anyone to go against the constitution & remove our firearms without a fight.

btw, who enforces laws against the gov... the court system. The WHOLE point of the way the founders structured our government was with checks & balances, including our ability to vote in representatives, and their ability to override BO assuming he's the one in power, or whoever in the exec branch needs to be overridden.


Btw, as a right/center person I will admit I'm often surprised by SCOTUS decisions... Citizens United V fec is one that AMAZES me. Not a chance in hell that our founders, or any "living document" believers would have ever agreed with that. You think the court is liberal... that decision goes so far the other way that I just can't agree. On the other hand they upheld OC... which was a game more of semantics than anything, but another one I can't say I agree with, but they opened a door to another way to eliminate it, so hopefully we can capitalize on that.
 
Last edited:

MaxPF

AGNTSA
Messages
1,394
Location
The dark side of the globe
btw, who enforces laws against the gov... the court system. The WHOLE point of the way the founders structured our government was with checks & balances, including our ability to vote in representatives, and their ability to override BO assuming he's the one in power, or whoever in the exec branch needs to be overridden.

I'm not going to respond to the rest of your post, except to say I disagree with most of it. Particularly with living "mostly" true to the Constitution which Isn't the case (the 10th Amendment has been so trampled on by the feds that it may as well not exist).

The courst system does NOT enforce the laws. They interpret the laws. In the end, if a person, group of people, or government entities/agencies choose not to follow the courts' interpretation of a law, the only remaining method of enforcing the ruling is by force. Since only government entities have the monopoly on the legal use of force when it comes to enforcing laws, who enforces the laws against those same government entities?

A good example is the subpoena Congress submitted to Attorney General Eric Holder, requiring the Justice Department to turn over all documents regarding the Fast and Furious scandal. Holder has not turned over the documents, and has stonewalled the investigation. If you or I tried to do this we would have long since been arrested, a warrant for the documents issued, and any documents or computers we own would have been seized. Right now, Congress is threatening to hold Holder in contempt, but it is a hollow threat - after all, who is going to arrest the Attorney General?

Do you see the problem? That is but one of the most recent in a very long stream of events where members or agencies of government have ignored the rule of law. And, more often than not, there are no repercussions for their actions. We're not turning into a country where rules and laws only apply to the people, we have already reached that point.
 

Steve #1

Well-Known Member
Messages
534
Location
TEXAS
I'm saying the government is full of men who either don't believe the laws apply to them, or more likely they recognize that the laws apply to them but they also know they don't have to obey them because nobody will enforce the laws against them. American history has proven time and again that this is the case.


"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."
Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2
 

backcountryislife

Well-Known Member
Messages
858
Location
Dumont, CO
Do you see the problem? That is but one of the most recent in a very long stream of events where members or agencies of government have ignored the rule of law. And, more often than not, there are no repercussions for their actions. We're not turning into a country where rules and laws only apply to the people, we have already reached that point.


You don't see a difference between asking for some papers though, and the government coming house to house to come steal our guns? Really? That's a HUGE stretch.


As to the tenth... absolutely... it has been trampled like a kitten in a mosh pit, that one I'll agree with 100%... but again I just don't see that (differences in semantics about which powers were given to the fed gov/ states) being on par with soldiers coming to our homes to steal our weapons.

As to the courts... I worded wrong, correct, they don't "enforce" technically, but when they make a decision... as a rule that tells the executive what to do, and as a rule, they listen.

All I can say is thus far they haven't come around to confiscate them. You think they will. I think they won't. We're going to disagree because between your opinion & mine is a gulf so vast that there's no chance of us agreeing.
 

MaxPF

AGNTSA
Messages
1,394
Location
The dark side of the globe
You don't see a difference between asking for some papers though, and the government coming house to house to come steal our guns? Really? That's a HUGE stretch.

They already did it during Katrina. My point is that no law against confiscating weapons will stop them if they choose to do it again during the next disaster or crisis.

As to the tenth... absolutely... it has been trampled like a kitten in a mosh pit, that one I'll agree with 100%... but again I just don't see that (differences in semantics about which powers were given to the fed gov/ states) being on par with soldiers coming to our homes to steal our weapons.

SEMANTICS??? Is that what you call it? The Constitution is very clearly written, despite debates to the contrary. Congress doesn't violate the 10th repeatedly because of a debate over semantics. It's deliberate overreach, plain and simple.

As to the courts... I worded wrong, correct, they don't "enforce" technically, but when they make a decision... as a rule that tells the executive what to do, and as a rule, they listen.

Only if they choose to.

All I can say is thus far they haven't come around to confiscate them. You think they will. I think they won't. We're going to disagree because between your opinion & mine is a gulf so vast that there's no chance of us agreeing.

Fine with me. I'm getting bored with this discussion anyway.
 

Neo

Badfish
Messages
1,658
Location
Brookings, OR
we are so screwed , with Drones getting a green light to survail us within our borders and the other erosion of rights under the patriot act and homeland security overstepping the constitution . our handguns and long rifles wont stand a chance to a missle fired from a predator . they can pry it from my cold dead hand ...
 

Green 1

Matty Patty Pookie Bear
Messages
1,149
Location
Ferris,Texas
we are so screwed , with Drones getting a green light to survail us within our borders and the other erosion of rights under the patriot act and homeland security overstepping the constitution . our handguns and long rifles wont stand a chance to a missle fired from a predator . they can pry it from my cold dead hand ...

I do not believe they will take my guns in my lifetime.
 
Top