Posted on 10/06/2004 12:16:58 PM PDT by KoneZone
My first Topic Post, I hope I did OK. The Antigunners are at it again and we had better pay attention. They have America in mind and if you think it's only guns they want then look out.
If ever something was meant for C-SPAM, this be it.
Actually increase your numbers. Figure that maybe 10% of those that resist will get away and repeat it again and again.
There are some people I know that will never be taken without at least a battalion of troops hitting their position.
The Second Amendment is the law of the land, right?
So any "officer" enforcing an order contrary to the Constitution would no longer be involved in "Law Enforcement," but instead piracy or thuggery.
Less than half of Law Enforcement Officers are thugs or pirates -- way, way less than half, I'd bet.
Therefore count on at least half of the LEO's to resist any unconstitutional confiscation scheme.
So, does that mean that when the UN turns those two groups into "insurgents" and "freedom fighters" here in the US of A, that they'll come to love us?
Such a deal.....
It cannot. The Senate has the power to approve treaties sent to it by the President. However, once approved a treaty merely has the force of law. The very authority to exist, let alone approve the treaty, is derived from the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land. Since the 2nd Amendment is part of the Constitution, no treaty with any nation or combination of nations can revoke our RKBA.
And how do they plan on enforcing this treaty?
I don't know. I would suspect via a tax on the manufacture and sale of guns, gun accessories and all components of ammunition...all of which is a good reason to have plenty of these things, along with reloading tools, stockpiled ahead of time.
If they try the direct route of controlling our guns (i.e. controlling us), then one of our former presidents had an answer for that:
" At what point shall we expect the approach of danger? By what means shall we fortify against it? Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant to step the ocean and crush us at a blow? Never! All the armies of Europe, Asia, and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth in their military chests; with a Buonaparte for a commander, could not by force take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in the trial of a thousand years.
At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we ourselves must be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide."
Abraham Lincoln
January 27, 1838
We can only be defeated by the likes of John Kerry and Hillary Clinton, 5th columnists that are more interested in the acquistion and maintanence of their own power and wealth than in our liberty. Let's all do our part to make sure that no such treaty comes before the Senate, by making sure that Kerry continues to represent the people of Assachusetts after January 20.
Well isn't that special. As a Life Member I should feel special that Wayne the money grubber LaPierre wants me to pay for a debate between him and some limp wristed Euroweenie?
Eigth years of Clinton, and I saw him get off his knees once and complain. What wayne has to say I have heard many times.
You also have to factor in how many LEO's are on the 'forcefully resisting confiscation' side and would either refuse to participate in the confiscation or actively fight it.
You have been reading FreeRepublic for almost a year and you’re having trouble figuring this one out.
The Lame Stream Media has no interest in letting the general public know what the UN’s real agenda is.
The left wing elite want the public in the dark.
Pay Per View is a way for the NRA to get the word out to those who want to know what is going on.
National TV time is way too expensive to buy. This way the program pays for itself.
It was a rhetorical question. I know all too well how Leftist the media is. I live just 30 miles from the Los Angeles Times.
If push comes to shove, there's just one thing to remember: Blue Helmet=Target.
They could take NY, Chicgao, LA but think about 40 million or more millita rising up.
Pussy Communist Act?
My opinion is that they would not go for outright confiscation. It would go something like this:
1- Kerry or whoever passes gun ban by executive order, to be effective on date X.
2- Up until date X, there is a nationwide amnesty to allow turning in guns with no questions asked.
3- Citizens are warned that after date X, if they still retain any banned guns they will be felons.
4- Date X comes and goes. Only about 10% of the estimated supply of banned guns have been turned in. They expect this.
5- BATFE begins monitoring and controlling the sale of all ammo in calibers usable in banned guns, along with reloading equipment.
6- When you order that next case of ammo, it is noticed.
7- Now if you ever take your nice rifles out of the closet to shoot or admire, better hope no one rats you out.
8- Possession becomes a sentencing enhancer for any crime. Laws are loosened to allow searches for weapons without a warrant.
9- Sooner or later you'll get a visit. You know you will. So you bury them.
10- What the hell good are they now? Welcome to UN America.
As I always say to any and all with some interest in political issues that I find it extremely ironic that "America's" push for internationalism and the assistance in the creation of supranational institutions in the Twentieth Century is finally coming round to bite us all. In fact, it’s almost poetic justice. What “we” have done is coming back to haunt us and our interests. It would be extremely funny if it the situation were not so bloody serious.
We marshaled (pun intended) support for the original version of the EEC (European Economic Community), (then EC > EU), EBRD (European Bank for Reconstruction and development), World Bank, IMF, U.N. and a whole host of other nascent international organizations. It should be duly noted that none of these organizations would have survived, let alone would have "prospered" without US assistance and backing in the post World War II period. As proponents of the liberal international “idealist” global regime constantly remind us all, we “felt” the need to rebuild Europe which in many parts showed effects of a significant World War, among other concerns they floated. We have all been repeatedly bludgeoned by the media and the mainstream historians with the virtues of globalism in general and the establishment of all of the new international institutions in the Twentieth Century in particular.
Did we really need to adopt the grand strategy that was actually employed (IE: Morgenthau’s et. Al.’s creation of the pan European institutions) in the post World War II period? Or were there other "arm's length" approaches possible that were not employed? Put another way, did "our" participation in the building of supranational/transnational institutions betray our own long term national interests when we assisted with the creation of international institutions in the Twentieth Century?
Lest we forget, we footed the entire now ungratefully unpaid-for bill for European reconstruction (excepting Finland). And to add insult to financial injury, we encounter significant political resistance from some quarters when we legitimately defend ourselves from attack from a determined, unpredictable and ever lurking terrorist enemy. The American taxpayer has been crucified on the altar of liberal internationalism for the better part of the last 60 years and no one seems to notice or much less care. As a bonus, American taxpayers (wittingly or not) through the involuntary tax system, are forced to fork over cash and loans for a wide array of foreign assistance programs, including but not limited to, governmental and nongovernmental grants, international loans and guarantees and direct foreign aid. The so-called international community now seeks to reward our generosity and beneficence by seeking to remove our personal American Right to lawfully keep and bear firearms.
If the U.S. wanted to pull out of them all and let the entire international system tank, we could stand on our own two feet. We have the national resources, we have the military, and we have our own National Constitution that is preeminent above and beyond the interests of any other. We need to re-think the development of international institutions in the last 200 or so years, with a particular emphasis on the last 60 years. Some fairly significant questions arise that have been buried by the mainstream media and historians.
Are our best interests being served? Are our vital, National strategic interests being served? Should our National Security and National Economic Security be vouchsafed to these benighted international organizations? What are the disadvantages to our being enmeshed in the present international system? Do international and global institutions protect American Citizens and their interests in the same manner that the U.S. National Constitution does? Can we trust the international institutions to preserve our rights? Do they take individual Liberty and Freedoms as seriously as the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights? Are there any other options available that can replace or retire the present international order? Can Sovereign Nation States break free from the present international regime and conduct diplomacy, trade and negotiations on a more bilateral or informally collaborative basis? How do the advent of multinational and global business enterprises compromise national laws and tend to reinforce the developing international regime?
From a reform standpoint, other questions naturally arise. For example, what political party could effect significant and lasting “regime change” in the international political and economic system? Or more generally, what can be done to move in a less unipolar, Globalistic direction, and move toward a more multipolar (at least) National world order that reinforces National Sovereignty and national laws over and above global and international regimes? If “push came to shove” could we take on the entire international system and win?
In the final analysis and at the most basic level, are individual American’s rights potentially threatened by the U.N. and/or any other pretentious world body?
You bet.
"Sooner or later you'll get a visit. You know you will. So you bury them."
After they have been shot...right? Or before?
Oh you mean the guns. No they wont be buried.
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.