Posted on 07/09/2012 3:25:03 PM PDT by South40
Let me break it to you gently. A .223 is no match for an RPG.
I like your thinking and pray you are right Matt. Here is the problem though: people with registered weapons that fail to comply will simply have their bank accounts drained. Rifles are pea shooters compared to RPGs, if it comes to that.
How about 50 .223’s and 25 7.62’s? Would it be long before you could pick up RPG’s off the ground?
90% will give up their guns readily. The others will simply have their bank accounts emptied if they have registered guns and don’t comply. Gun and ammo manufacturers will be sued out of existence and the Blackrobed Tyrants we call judges will pass the rules. It won’t happen overnight, but these will be some of the methods used. Mark my words, the weapons gap between us and them is like a Grand Canyon now.
“Mark my words, the weapons gap between us and them is like a Grand Canyon now.”
I’m sure George Washington had the same thought pass through his head more than once.
Speaking of firearms, I love this story. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2904849/posts
Holy cow, you are absolutely right. I just read it in my copy of the US Constitution.
I think this is what Zero and his flying monkeys are counting on. Harry Reid can convene a Quorum very quickly and get 34 “yes” votes no problem. What are the chances the Repubs won’t get played?
Come and get them, indeed. >:(
US armed forces personnel = about 600,000
US armed civilians = about 90,000,000
An estimated 15,000 armed 'insurgents' embroiled the superior forces of the US military in Iraq for nearly a decade. Our forces retired from that war without achieving a confirmed victory. The same thing occurred in Vietnam, forty years ago.
Even if nine out of ten armed Americans were to lay down or give up their arms, the US military would conceivably be faced with quelling a force of 9,000,000 angry and determined people who would be fighting for their country, their property, their rights, their families, and everything that makes life dear and precious to them.
That is without question, the largest, most determined armed force on the planet.
There would also be mass defections, refusal of orders, and mutiny within the ranks of the federals, which would thoroughly decimate the their ability to wage war upon their own citizens.
Don't think they haven't war gamed this scenario out long ago, and found that they cannot defeat us.
“The hold-outs will be attacked with swat teams and they and their families will be exterminated.”
The SWAT teanm’s familes? Sure. I, for one, wouldn’t just let myself be attacked without giving Hell in return.
I pray you are right, but there is no organized opposing fighting force in the civilian population. Ask yourself how other tyrants have quelled the masses? Why does everyone assume it can’t happen here—the historical record does not support that position. The first step will be to drain the bank account of those not complying—this is all done electronically by the IRS. God help us.
OMG! This is the first time I've heard THAT. I wonder if Jesse Helms was ill or absent on whichever day they handled the two poison pills.
IMO, having talked on the phone with Richard J. Douglas, Chief Counsel of the Committee, after this travesty, I believe Douglas knew exactly what was being done and why it had to be snuck through.
It's hard to imagine that Jesse Helms would have allowed this. Although he was in poor health when he retired in 2003 and three years later it was reported that he had multi-infarct dementia (failing memory and diminished cognitive function)...
Re: small arms would be futile
Tell that to the Russians who were in Afghanistan or our soldiers there now.
Re: small arms would be futile
Tell that to the Russians who were in Afghanistan or our soldiers there now.
Somebody better be watching the schedule for the Executive Calendar every day after this thing gets signed, which we both know will happen.
I might not be available or have time to do so to warn people.
I would only be ranting in regards to the rest of your reply so I'll just leave it at that. You get the gist.
Stealth and perseverance has ensured this thing progressed.
Vigilance and perseverance will ensure its demise.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
this says that anything against the law of the constitution cannot stand.
that is how i will interpret it as i live and breath.
teeman
I never thought it was a lie. I've read enough of your posts to know you're solid and can be counted on and I was around here then too (since before we had to register).
I had not actually followed the link back to the Congressional Record until this post from you. I'm glad I did because I saw the actual language that supposedly made it safe to ratify that treaty and made it possible for honest conservatives to put it through.
It never made sense to me that someone who worked as hard as Jesse Helms did to protect this country from the UN would sign on to this treaty and I'm guessing that he trusted his "treaty lawyer".
Back in 2000 right after this was passed, a FRiend posted the number for Richard J. Douglas, Chief Counsel for the Foreign Relations Committee and I called him.
The first day he was very friendly, told me he just called himself "Jesse Helms' Treaty Lawyer" and told me about all the safeguards for our country and our Constitution provided by "resolutions", "declarations" and "understandings".
I went back to the thread and told everybody we had nothing to worry about, and then the more informed posters told me the UN does not recognize resolutions, declarations and understandings. They also said that the UN had the treaty up on their website with protective language removed.
I called Douglas back and told him that. His reply was that we had it recorded on our copy and that if anything violated our Constitution that our president would simply show what we signed and not comply with constitutional violations. Since "our president" was BJ Clinton I expressed doubt that he would even contest it or that if the UN waited long enough, very few would remember the safeguards and the nation killer would go into effect.
He became very surly and said where was I and all my friends when this was being debated? I pointed out that it hadn't been in the news and had not been debated in the Senate so how were we to know. He replied that it was our duty to know and that if we had done our "homework" we could have stopped it and IIRC that he would have welcomed the support.
That was BS of course as he very well knew or it wouldn't have had to be snuck through which really pissed him off and he ripped on me/us again for not doing our homework and that it wasn't his duty to keep us informed, it was our duty to do our homework.
I asked if that meant we had to keep a person present in the Senate 24/7 or whenever they were in session to make sure we "did our homework" to know what was being done to us. He actually said that if we wanted to know what was going on we should do that!
I just did a search on him and he was running for the Senate in Maryland this year. TG that he lost in the primary, but his resume looks fantastic and I'll bet he'll be back. It makes me wonder just how many of these guys we're infested with. We know about the lefty ones, but what about the ones on "our" side...
That really sums up the liberal viewpoint: “Your elected representatives voted for it somehow, so tough.”
No matter how much of the Constitution, Senate rules, etc. that they violate along the way, they claim “democracy” was upheld, even though this isn’t about Democracy but Constitutionality.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.