Obama Takes First Step Banning All Firearms

Wednesday, November 11, 2009

On Wednesday the Obama administration took its first major step in a plan to ban all firearms in the United States. The Obama administration intends to force gun control and a complete ban on all weapons for US citizens through the signing of international treaties with foreign nations. By signing international treaties on gun control, the Obama administration can use the US State Department to bypass the normal legislative process in Congress. Before US citizens even understand what has happened, Obama can appear before the public and tell them that he does not intend to pursue any legislation (in the US) that will lead to new gun control laws, while secretly Sec of State Hillary Clinton commits the US to international treaties and foreign gun control laws.

Posted by L_RContrarian at 02:55 PM | 43 COMMENTS | permalink | Comment on This Entry

Front Page
News Weblog
Comments
Flagged Comments
User Blogs
Write a Blog Entry
Edit Account
Stats Page
RSS Feed
Back Page

Subscriptions

RSS Feed

Author Info

L_RContrarian

Conservate Not Politically

Private E-mail
No Home Page

Joined 2009/06/21
Visited 2009/11/20

Status: user

Go to the Hospital in IL, Lose Your Gun Rights (7 comments) ...

Questions Remain in Bizarre Florida Paramilitary Operation (4 comments) ...

Book: Feds Twist Law to Criminalize Legal Activity Media Aid (6 comments) ...

Obama: Al Qaeda Greatest Threat to US (140 comments) ...

US Troops Wearing UN Colors (10 comments) ...

US Treasury Takes Donations to Pay Down Debt (59 comments) ...

Paul Backer's Suit Changes TSA Screenings (19 comments) ...

Does the Hasan Case Have a Smelly Stench of Oswald and 9-11? (45 comments) ...

Obama Takes First Step Banning All Firearms (43 comments) ...

StopTheShot Lawsuit Judge: Bring NJ (3 comments) ...

JPW Special: Tenpenny Debates Dr Tom Betz -Univ Texas Austin (5 comments) ...

Vaccines For Obesity, Smoking and Nano-Technology (17 comments) ...

Police, Military Train To Intern Flu Vaccine Refusniks (18 comments) ...

BaltChronicle: HouseRes Designates Venezuela Sponsor Terror (1 comments) ...

Special Features

Daily Nooner

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

Can't happen with the 2nd Amendment--regardless of Obama's stupid treaty party.

#1 | Posted by MURPHY at 2009-11-11 03:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

Yawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwnnnnnnnnnnnn
nnnnnn

#2 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2009-11-11 03:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

I'm curious, Murph. Is this the right leadership saying this or you? I ask because they have been stating that the Health Care Bill will never pass. They now claim it's dead in Senate.

Naivety perhaps?

#3 | Posted by L_RContrarian at 2009-11-11 03:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

So hard to tell Wingnut paranoia from The Onion these days.

#4 | Posted by Corky at 2009-11-11 03:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

That bullshit still works on you stupid fucks?

Really?

Man you guys are scared so fucking easily. No wonder the GOP preys on you stupid fucks. You'll be afraid of ANYTHING.

Sucks to be your pathetic pussified ass.

#5 | Posted by Manypaths at 2009-11-11 03:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

Notice how angry the left is lately. I wonder why?

#6 | Posted by mysterytoy at 2009-11-11 03:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

Seems to me the left is crashing after their euphoric Obama high.

#7 | Posted by mysterytoy at 2009-11-11 03:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

Angry? No. Just a little tired of the stupidity displayed by you and others on the right that piss their pants out of fear every single day on this site.

I thought you pansy asses were suppossed to be tough. But no. Still running scared screaming "They are going to take my guns"

Fools.

#8 | Posted by Manypaths at 2009-11-11 03:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

If he did, he'd be committing political suicide.

#9 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2009-11-11 03:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

I'll believe this when I see it...

this reaching.

#10 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2009-11-11 03:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

Relax guys. It's just L_RContrarian pissing himself. Nothing more.

Move along, unless you're into that kind of thing of course.

#11 | Posted by Manypaths at 2009-11-11 03:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

#6 many
LOL. What's really the problem, Many???

Dang that rightwing Reuters site that have made it up.

#12 | Posted by L_RContrarian at 2009-11-11 03:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

*** Obama Takes First Step Banning All Firearms ***

......does this CONSPIRACY THEORY mean that we are done with the Birth Certificate one ?.......

......or his SECRET MUSLIM RELIGION ?.......

......or the HIGHWAY FROM MEXICO CITY TO CANADA that destroys our national sovereignty somehow ?.......

.......or the IN GOD WE TRUST being removed from coins by Obama ?......

......or giving up on RASMUSSEN POLLS ?......

How can you consider yourselves to be the Party of God and Family Values when you lie constantly, deliberately, and without shame.

#13 | Posted by skizziks at 2009-11-11 04:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

A link to a site starting in "tparty2010" isn't going to garner much credibility around here.

#14 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2009-11-11 04:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

Pure, unadulterated bullshit.

Why are retarded wingnuts always afraid somebody is gonna try and take their guns?

What happened to that 'cold, dead hands' mantra?

#15 | Posted by Dave at 2009-11-11 04:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

LOL to the fake left usual suspect: many, frank, skizz, larry, corky, ?. The real left would go to Reuters and find out what the he** is going on instead of dishing out vitriol, brainless ad-hominems.

#16 | Posted by L_RContrarian at 2009-11-11 06:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

November 07, 2009
The "Cop Killer" FN Five-seveN

The media is wasting very little time informing us that the weapon used by Major Nidal Malik Hasan in his rampage at Fort Hood was a "cop killer."

Ft. Hood terrorist used a cop killer FN-Five Seven tactical pistol20 round clip -- Examiner

'Cop Killer" Gun though to Be Used in Ft. Hood Shooting, Offiicals Said -- ABC News

Fort Hood shootings: gunman used 'cop killer' weapon in massacre at US Army base -- UK Telegraph

Ironically, there is no known record of that weapon even being used to kill a police officer in the United States, and there is a distinct possibility that Sgt. Kimberly Munley, wounded while engaging Hasan, may have been the first American law enforcement officer ever shot with a Five-seveN.

How did the Five-seveN get it's "cop killer" reputation, then?

It was created in a Brady Campaign press release in February of 2005

#17 | Posted by L_RContrarian at 2009-11-11 06:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

Obama Urges Senate to Ratify CIFTA Treaty

#18 | Posted by L_RContrarian at 2009-11-11 06:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

Wait'll they try to come for them...

#19 | Posted by nanc at 2009-11-11 06:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

Not scared to use MP. Not scared to use.

#20 | Posted by The_Chapel at 2009-11-11 06:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

Oh ok big boy.

You want to compare kill shots?

#21 | Posted by Manypaths at 2009-11-11 06:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

I'll bet I own more fire arms than all of you.

I'll bet I use mine to kill more than all of you combined.

But you see, I understand nobody is going to come after my firearms. You pussies on the other hand? Well, it's pretty clear that you are scared shitless over your own shadow.

I voted for Obama and my guns aren't going anywhere.

Ha ha.

#22 | Posted by Manypaths at 2009-11-11 06:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

Hey butch, you are the one calling a woman out and using crude language so.....

If you come for mine, be prepared for max resistance.

I'm just saying.

Wussy. ;0)

#23 | Posted by The_Chapel at 2009-11-11 06:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

I'll bet I use mine to kill more than all of you combined

#25 | Posted by Manypaths at 2009-11-11 06:30 PM | Reply | Flag: RATS IN MY TRAILER ARE SLOW

#24 | Posted by The_Chapel at 2009-11-11 06:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

"You want to compare kill shots?"

And lastly.......you cannot make this stuff up folks. It volunteers itself. Talk about your internet psycho.

#25 | Posted by The_Chapel at 2009-11-11 06:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

#28 | Posted by The_Chapel at 2009-11-11 06:35 PM | Reply | Flag: Talks about himself a lot....
Internet psycho?
Who cares-just another "chumpel"...

#26 | Posted by frankf55 at 2009-11-11 07:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

Do you idiots on the right REALLY believe you're gonna have the chance to put up a fight-if the Gov decides to take your guns?.
You think "Internet Tough Guy" routines are gonna scare "gub'mint goonsquads", come to pull your precious substitute dicks from your hands?

Silly rtards......
Da "gub'mint" gots LOTS AND LOTS of "stand off" weapons-you can be obliterated-without putting anyone(except your neighbors)-at risk....

#27 | Posted by frankf55 at 2009-11-11 07:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Angry? No. Just a little tired of the stupidity displayed... Fools."
#9 | Posted by Manypaths

You should go back and copy/paste all your posts today onto a page and read what anger and stupidity really is. Instead of ranting and raving try dialog. Even better try some intelligent dialog. But if you did that then you wouldn't be the leftist tool that you really are.

#28 | Posted by KBM at 2009-11-11 09:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

International treaties must be approved by the Senate.

Remember Kyoto?

HAR~! HAR~!

#29 | Posted by vernon at 2009-11-12 12:16 AM | Reply | Flag:

Treaties don't over-ride the Constitution.

#30 | Posted by Axiom at 2009-11-12 06:08 AM | Reply | Flag:

Ammo sales must have slowed a bit this quarter.

Buncha pants pissers.

#31 | Posted by morris at 2009-11-12 12:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

What people seem to forget is that the 2nd amendment was created at in a time where there was a very real possibility of a town or city having to group together into a militia and fight off a government that was not representative of the peoples will. Nowadays, it is still one of our key freedoms, but if you think about it a bunch of hunters with rifles and the occasional automatic weapon will not be able to fight one of the most advanced armies on earth. Also, it the argument for the 2nd amendment becomes stupid at times. Does John Smith really need that Uzi or AR-15 to hunt bambi and take care of his groundhog problem? O f course not! There is no real reason to need to own those kind of weapons except to flaunt authority and show how tough you are.

#32 | Posted by Acaeton at 2009-11-12 12:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

GD IT! The Constitution is not a living document. IT IS SET IN STONE! Well except the part about freedome of speech, separation of church and state, cruel and unusual punishment, freedom of assembly, due process of the law. IN THOSE CASES the constituion is a living document that must be updated for every manufactured crises that comes to our attention.

Signed

The Right.

#33 | Posted by truthhurts at 2009-11-12 12:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

Obama does not care about gun control one way or the other. Obama cares about Obama. If he feels that banning guns by whatever means necessary will improve his persona on the world stage, he will do it. As for the Constitution, Obama, like many other D.C. policians, considers it as nothing more than a nuisance to be used when convenient and ignored when it does not support his position.

#34 | Posted by bogey1355 at 2009-11-12 02:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Obama can appear before the public and tell them that he does not intend to pursue any legislation (in the US) that will lead to new gun control laws, while secretly Sec of State Hillary Clinton commits the US to international treaties and foreign gun control laws."

Yeah. Right.

In the United States, the term "treaty" has a different, more restricted legal sense than exists in international law. U.S. law distinguishes what it calls treaties from treaty executive agreements, congressional-executive agreements, and sole executive agreements. All four classes are equally treaties under international law; they are distinct only from the perspective of internal American law. The distinctions are primarily concerning their method of ratification. Whereas treaties require advice and consent by two-thirds of the Senate, sole executive agreements may be executed by the President acting alone. Some treaties grant the President the authority to fill in the gaps with executive agreements, rather than additional treaties or protocols. And finally, congressional-executive agreements require majority approval by both the House and the Senate, either before or after the treaty is signed by the President.

Currently, international agreements are executed by executive agreement rather than treaties at a rate of 10:1. Despite the relative ease of executive agreements, the President still often chooses to pursue the formal treaty process over an executive agreement in order to gain congressional support on matters that require the Congress to pass implementing legislation or appropriate funds, and those agreements that impose long-term, complex legal obligations on the U.S.

The likelihood of congress not taking action to address any executive agreement with such sweeping impact as banning private ownership of guns is virtually nil. Too many legislators would be sent packing by voters for not overturning such an agreement.

#35 | Posted by MACV1972 at 2009-11-12 11:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

Does John Smith really need that Uzi or AR-15 to hunt bambi and take care of his groundhog problem? O f course not! There is no real reason to need to own those kind of weapons except to flaunt authority and show how tough you are.

#32 | Posted by Acaeton at 2009-11-12 12:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

What a fucking ignorant retard.

Do you know ANY FUCKING THING about an AR-15?

Clearly not.

It fires a .22 calibre slug -- same tiny bullet used in the 'first' rifles and pistols that children (those with responsible parents -- not liberals) learn with.

AR-15 is also only semi-automatic.

But to a limp dick like you it looks very ScArY !!!!!!

EEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!

Run away and hide under your blanky.

#36 | Posted by vernon at 2009-11-13 08:54 AM | Reply | Flag:

..."or the IN GOD WE TRUST being removed from coins"

#13 | Posted by skizziks

Should have never been put on the money in the first place.

#37 | Posted by ZOT at 2009-11-13 09:01 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Do you know ANY FUCKING THING about an AR-15?"

They don't. They don't know butts from muzzles either. I always have to crack up when some article written by a journalist who doesn't have the faintest knowledge of firearms tries to promote some kind of gun ban. Our little "progressive" friends pick it up and quote it as gospel too. It's all par for the course with this administration though...they have car czars who have never done an oil change, pay czars who have never held a real job, and a president with 140 some days experience in the Senate.....go figure.

#38 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2009-11-13 01:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

The guy that fuckin wrote that article is retarded. That pretty much sums it up.

Those stories in reuters are a LONG WAYS from banning guns in the US. Unless of course your intention was to live in another country and buy guns from the US.

#39 | Posted by KnightHawk at 2009-11-13 09:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

It fires a .22 calibre slug -- same tiny bullet used in the 'first' rifles and pistols that children (those with responsible parents -- not liberals) learn with.

.223 Remington/5.56 NATO

It can be chambered to just about any calibre, and there are drop in kits too.

The thing is that the appearance of the gun doesn't change it's functionality. During the previous assault weapons ban, they only banned what amount to cosmetic modifications.

It was still perfectly fine to purchase a semi-automatic rifle, so long as it wasn't scarey looking.

polymaggs.com

www.redbeachrelicsrifles.com

Acaeton -- I wonder if you can tell me the difference between those two guns, aside from appearance and calibre of round they use.

#40 | Posted by Axiom at 2009-11-13 09:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

The stupidity among the rightwingers here is astounding.

#41 | Posted by jackass at 2009-11-13 09:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

Armed people are free. No state can control those who have the machinery and the will to resist, no mob can take their liberty and property. And no 220-pound thug can threaten the well-being or dignity of a 110-pound woman who has two pounds of iron to even things out People who object to weapons aren't abolishing violence, they're begging for rule by brute force, when the biggest, strongest animals among men were always automatically "right." Guns ended that, and a social democracy is a hollow farce without an armed populace to make it work. L. Neil Smith

#42 | Posted by L_RContrarian at 2009-11-14 10:38 AM | Reply | Flag:

FRANK55: "Do you idiots on the right REALLY believe you're gonna have the chance to put up a fight-if the Gov decides to take your guns?"

Why not ask the Taliban - LOL

#43 | Posted by MSgt at 2009-11-14 10:57 AM | Reply | Flag: