Alert: most likely EO on Firearms

Larry Vickers ^ | 12/19/2012 | Larry vickers

[Solson]

Okay 2nd amendment and freedom lovers...here it starts. Also look for prices on stamps and other processes to skyrocket.

Obama will do this and let the courts sort it out. It doesn't help that the GOP, now defunct, hasn't fought any other Obama executive orders.

[Solson]

FYI

[Solson]

FYI

[Vaquero]

someone please give me the acronyms.

EO? FBR? LVO?

I know what the NFA is.

I hate acronyms.

[Bulwyf]

It’s up to the people now.

[Mouton]

If I were that bunch, I’d outlaw everything larger than a pea shooter.

[combat_boots]

He and they have to disarm before they come for our money, land and stuff they want to “redistribute.” The people they want to disarm most completely are White.

[Candor7]

Try this one:

POSHITUS

[Solson]

EO = executive order, FBR = full battle rifle

[Solson]

SBR. = short barreled rifle.

[phockthis]

EO’s only apply to US Citizens.....

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/23398430/060225-—Eric-Williams-Show-—Excerpt

The Fourteenth Amendment - Revisited

First - forget everything you ever knew about the Fourteenth Amendment - then carefully read the below expose:

Take the Amendment’s opening clauses, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state where in they reside...”

Now, consider the same clauses with the central, explanatory clause removed, and it then reads: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside...”

Under the rules of English grammar and punctuation, the second clause, “and under the jurisdiction thereof, “ is an explanatory clause. Explanatory clauses do not add to nor in any way change or alter the meaning of the writing in which they are included; their purpose is to explain. As it is self evident that naturalized persons volunteer into the jurisdiction of the United States as an inherent aspect of their voluntary naturalization, the explanatory obviously was not relevant thereto. Therefore the inclusion of this explanatory clause is to clarify that persons born in the
United States, in deference to the Thirteenth Amendment, do not become and are not, at the moment of their birth in the United States, automatically citizens thereof because such newborn persons are incapable of personally volunteering themselves into servitude. I contend that the inclusion of “persons naturalized” was somewhat obfuscatory.

Please note that when the explanatory words (”, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, “), are omitted, the entire impact and meaning changes, or rather (and more correctly), the true meaning become obfuscated. The explanatory clause, (”, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, “), clearly adds a second criteria necessary to establishing citizenship and clearly indicates that there are two distinctly separate criteria both of which must be met in order for
persons born in the United States to be classified or designated as citizens thereof.

The words, “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, “ clearly provide, recognize and acknowledge that there are persons born in the United States who are not thereby automatically subject to the jurisdiction thereof, and that such persons, by such birth, are not automatically classified or designated to be citizens of the United States.

(I strongly contend that this includes all persons born in the United States of parents when the parents themselves are citizens of the United States. That is, no one becomes a citizen of the United States just because the person is born in the United States. “Born in the United States” and “born under the jurisdiction thereof” are not one and the same as is commonly misunderstood. If the two statements meant the same thing then only one would have been needed. Moreover, the Thirteenth Amendment’s prohibition of involuntary servitude prevents anyone from being designated to be a citizen of the United States based merely on the location of the person’s birth in the United States).

[phockthis]

read the rest of the story at link provided

[ClearCase_guy]

I consider myself to be intelligent, with good reading skills. But it's too early in the morning. I have no idea what you are trying to say.

Can you provide a one sentence conclusion of the point you are making?

[Washi]

The term "semi auto assault rifles" is still ambiguous and has to be defined by someone. Would a semi-auto, synthetic stock, .22 long-rifle apply?

By law, how are executive orders challenged?

Once this predicted edict is made, would any governmental body be able to immediately challenge its Constitutionality/legality, or would a citizen need to be arrested in violation of the order to have standing to challenge its validity?

[Travis McGee]

This would certainly trigger Civil War Two.

[Eye of Unk]

It means Obama cannot legally write ant EO because he fails to qualify as POTUS.

Own guns? Become a birther.

[ClearCase_guy]

Thanks.

I do believe that Obama is not eligible to be president. However, I really think that ship has sailed — no one with political power ever had ther guts to make an issue of it. The GOP walked away from that issue right from the start. After Obama’s election and re-election, I just don’t see the point.

[Travis McGee]

We are being set up to be the national scapegoats.

Turkey: Armenian and Greek Christians.

Russia: "Kulaks" and other "class enemies."

Germany: The Jews

China: The "landlords."

Cambodia: "Intellectuals"

First they have to build the raging hate-on against greedy old violent whites, then they can disarm us, then they can exterminate us.

[justice14]

-It means Obama cannot legally write ant EO because he fails to qualify as POTUS.

Own guns? Become a birther.-

Good luck with that approach.

[B212]

yes, then what is next, red-headed people, Catholics,Protestants, maybe white males.....there is no end to this sort of dictatorial rule...