Posted on 11/14/2012 8:05:17 AM PST by lbryce
CANX the Second Amendment? I can’t see the required number of States going along with that amendment to the Constitution.
BTTT for future reading...
HE IS INVITING A FOREIGN INVASION, because he knows we won't give them up.
Why not? States gave up their right to vote via the 17th.
And in the present configuration of US Politics....
They will pull out all the stops...
They will not succeed--- not even close
Amending the Constitution is a mammoth undertaking....
And with 30 Republican governors taking their seats....
... NOPE!
So they decide a "work-around" with the UN treaty....
...or some other outside-in capitulation of sovereignty...
... perhaps cession of Constitutional authority to some nefarious outside "agency"
I still say -- NOPE!
Pretty sure "We the People..."
...Will prevail in the preservation of our Constitution and national sovereignty
My humble only.... thx
Get a grip everyone. No treaty can userp the Bill of Rights.
Period.
Col. Travis during the battle of the Alamo...pulled his saber from the scabbard and drew a line in the sand.
Give up your weapons, so too goes your freedom.
So, what is the fuse that sets off the powder keg?
You standing around with your fingers in your ears will slow them down not one iota...
Oh my gosh...couldn't we only hope! Not sure round your parts, but here in the republic, foreign invaders will have their @$$e$ handed to them.
Love to see a foreign force traipse through the bayous of Louisiana, Piny Woods of Texas, Smokey mountains of Eastern Tennessee/NC.
Heck, while they are at it, comprise their U.N. force of multiple muzzie nations to boot.
“So, what is the fuse that sets off the powder keg?”
I honestly believe that there will be some kind of “manufactured” national tragedy that the government will use to convince people to agree to much stricter gun control. This will of course lead to tighter and tighter restrictions until eventually, the people who are pro-freedom will be in such a minority that the gov’t will feel emboldened enough to completely ban all/most firearms. Then the gov’t will be free to label those with guns as “terrorists” and there will be Gitmo type gulags all over this country.
Obozo could draw up an executive order tomorrow that would institute an assault weapons ban. Limit mag capacity, limit amount of weapons purchases per month, ban online ammo sales and institute a stiff tax on all guns and ammo.
This, he could do...immediately. Seeing as executive orders have a shelf life, they would work through the U.N. and or congress to craft legislation or treaty (via U.N.) crippling the private gun industry worldwide.
Lastly, Obozo certainly has his eye on the supreme court. Yet one more avenue to ensure an enduring war on the 2nd amendment.
Not a pretty picture from where I sit.
Our rights come from God, no man can “cancel” them. One could only “cancel” humans that believe in God. They are more than welcome to come try to cancel me. I’ll take as many as I can with me.
I honestly believe that there will be some kind of manufactured national tragedy that the government will use to convince people to agree to much stricter gun control.
You could be right, the question that comes to me is this. What kind of tragedy could be so BIG and so Mind and Opinion changing to convince the population to go along with the repeal of the 2nd amendment?
Bigger than the weekly slaughter that happens in Chicago or any of the big cities? An assassination plot? We’ve had those too and they couldn’t get their gun control.
There really is a reason that the country is arming, just remember that.
Uh huh.
No law can suspend habeas corpus, yet, NDAA 2012 does. They just have to call you an Enemy Combatant first.
Eminent Domain is for the government to build roads, bridges, and federal installation and not for suspending private property rights; yet, the Supreme Court said it does. The government can take your property to sell, give away, collect more taxes, whatever, for any reason at any time.
The Constitution does not give the federal government power to tell you what to or not to buy. Yet, the Supreme Court said they can. They just have to call it taxation first.
If you dont think treaties are made law then you need to read up on our DOT (Department of transportation) rules and regulations, they are UN driven.
They don’t need to simply set aside the 2nd, they only need to regulate it out of practical use.
To create a situation to suspend firearm possession is real simple: Use noise. Marxists always use noise. It goes like this: Create the treaty to regulate unlawful international firearms sales and dangerous weapons. Regulate Assault Weapons as Dangerous Weapons. Let some yahoo someplace like Texas or North Carolina fail to turn in their AR-15 or AK-47. Let the local police handle the manner knowing violence may result. Once violence results, add in the National Guard, just a few soldiers. Let them come under attack then claim the UN has a special force under the treaty that has been specifically trained to handle this type of situation. They arrive to more upset and noisy people. Before you know it, even more UN troops must arrive to handle those situations. Make constant press releases about this violent person/group and that one and keep reassuring the American people that Obama has it all under control but there is so much hate and violence which proves the gun treaty is warranted.
In all that resulting noise people till forget just who started what. Half this nation will be all for the treaty and the gun confiscations and the UN presence.
I can see your scenario happening. So perhaps can others and have plans to counter them.
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.