Page 1 of 14 12345611 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 137

Thread: Obama's Plan To Ban All Firearms!

  1. #1
    Funding Member
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    OneWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Online
    Saturday, August 25th, 2012 @ 09:50 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Country
    Vinland Vinland
    Location
    Tulsa,Oklahoma
    Gender
    Age
    43
    Posts
    772
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    4
    Thanked in
    4 Posts

    Obama's Plan To Ban All Firearms!

    Well folks,looks like it's coming.


    WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States reversed policy and said it would back launching talks on a treaty to regulate arms sales as long as the talks operated by consensus, a stance critics said gave every nation a veto.

    The decision, announced in a statement released by the U.S. State Department, overturns the position of former President George W. Bush’s administration, which had opposed such a treaty on the grounds that national controls were better.

    On Wednesday Obama Took the 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. Once the US Government signs these international treaties, all US citizens will be subject to those gun laws created by foreign governments. These are laws that have been developed and promoted by organizations such as the United Nations and individuals such as George Soros and Michael Bloomberg. The laws are designed and intended to lead to the complete ban and confiscation of all firearms.

    The Obama administration is attempting to use tactics and methods of gun control that will inflict major damage to our 2nd Amendment 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 United States) that will lead to new gun control laws, while cloaked in secrecy, his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton is committing the US to international treaties and foreign gun control laws. Does that mean Obama is telling the truth? What it means is that there will be no publicized gun control debates in the media or votes in Congress. We will wake up one morning and find that the United States has signed a treaty that prohibits firearm and ammunition manufacturers from selling to the public. We will wake up another morning and find that the US has signed a treaty that prohibits any transfer of firearm ownership. And then, we will wake up yet another morning and find that the US has signed a treaty that requires US citizens to deliver any firearm they own to the local government collection and destruction center or face imprisonment.

    Source: http://politicalnews.vloggs.com/2010/04/us-treaty-to-regulate-arms-trade/


    This is not a joke nor a false warning. As sure as government health care was forced on us by the Obama administration through whatever means necessary, so will gun control.

    Please forward this message to others who may be concerned about the direction in which our country is headed.

    We are being led like a lamb to the slaughter.

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Patrioten's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Online
    Saturday, June 27th, 2020 @ 10:02 PM
    Ethnicity
    Swedish
    Country
    Sweden Sweden
    Gender
    Politics
    Conservative
    Religion
    Protestant
    Posts
    1,920
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    2
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    13
    Thanked in
    12 Posts
    On Wednesday Obama Took the First Major Step in a Plan to Ban All Firearms in the United States.
    Don't you, like I do, feel like your intelligence is being insulted when you read an article like this? Another day, another conspiracy theory to add to the list of the ones believed by the...whatever movement. Does Obama want to restrict gun ownership? He sure does. Is it reasonable to think that he would sign an international treaty restricting gun rights? Certainly. Should we at every given opportunity interpret the news in the most far out there conclusion possible? That's up to each and everyone to decide. All I will do is to stand on the side and shake my head, what the rest of you choose to do is up to you.

  3. #3
    Funding Member
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    Barreldriver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Last Online
    Tuesday, March 27th, 2012 @ 02:56 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Country
    Confederate States Confederate States
    State
    Tennessee Tennessee
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Posts
    531
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    6
    Thanked in
    6 Posts
    Fist illegality, subjecting the U.S. to foreign gun control laws.

    Second illegality, violation of the Second bloody Amendment.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Neophyte's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Online
    3 Hours Ago @ 08:00 PM
    Ethnicity
    Scandinavian
    Subrace
    Nordic + some Atlantid
    Country
    Sweden Sweden
    Gender
    Age
    47
    Politics
    Blut und Boden
    Posts
    2,032
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    170
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    162
    Thanked in
    103 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Reeder View Post
    Fist illegality, subjecting the U.S. to foreign gun control laws.

    Second illegality, violation of the Second bloody Amendment.
    That is the beautiful thing about treaties, that they take precedence over domestic law and are removed from the legislative process. My guess is that we will see more and more of these treaties in all areas where our masters do not want us to have a say; climate change and CO2-reductions, trade agreements, bank and financial markets regulation and, above all, immigration. Thus they will be able to disenfranchise their own peoples while maintaining a veneer of legality.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    RoyBatty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Last Online
    Wednesday, August 23rd, 2017 @ 07:34 PM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    Paleface
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    Gender
    Occupation
    Arbeit Macht Frei
    Politics
    Rightwing / Socialist
    Posts
    2,415
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    17
    Thanked in
    17 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Patrioten View Post
    Don't you, like I do, feel like your intelligence is being insulted when you read an article like this?
    No.

    On the contrary, I find the claims that articles such as this is "rightwing hysteria" to be insulting to my considerable intelligence.

    Another day, another conspiracy theory to add to the list of the ones believed by the...whatever movement.
    It's not a conspiracy theory that Europe is being flooded by muds in order to change the social demographic yet "informed and intelligent" commentators will tell us that it is.

    It's not a conspiracy theory that special interests groups exploit, brainwash and disenfranchise White people in Europe and the USA in favour of "minorities" like homos, liberals, parasitic / social welfare type immigrants, feminazis and other deviants.

    However, the moment any semi-observant White person would make such a claim the "informed and intelligent" commentators and the media immediately squeal "racism", "anti-Semitism" and "rightwing fanaticism".

    Does Obama want to restrict gun ownership? He sure does. Is it reasonable to think that he would sign an international treaty restricting gun rights? Certainly.
    The US has a Constitution which supposedly guarantees its citizens certain rights and freedoms. It's fairly obvious that the Federal Government and the US Legal System have found a number of ways to circumvent the Constitution thereby rendering it to an increasingly worthless (oxymoron lol) piece of paper.

    Gun "control" and restrictions can naturally not be implemented overnight. That's why Obama and his Advisor Army will implement incremental restrictions so as not to arouse too much outrage and public anger. This policy will be continued under following Administrations until it becomes difficult to legally own a weapon.

    I suppose they'll claim that this is being done to "make our streets safer" but ultimately this is really about population control. It's about taking away the already limited power from people to resist the Federal Government. Firearms restrictions is one such measure. Another is control over food supplies via Corporations and Laws which force the small scale producers and farmers out of business.

    Should we at every given opportunity interpret the news in the most far out there conclusion possible? That's up to each and everyone to decide.

    Should we interpret the news to the ultimate logical conclusion that the population is to be disarmed? Certainly we should.

    The trend is obvious and it is clear. The trend is that Obama and his legions of Zionist helpers are moving the process along to restrict the availability of firearms to Citizens, irrespective of whether or not they are responsible, irresponsible or have / not have criminal inclinations.

    The process will be gradual so as not to cause open revolt from certain circles. The intended end result is indeed to disarm the population. Otherwise Obama wouldn't need to tamper with existing State and Federal laws already dealing with firearms.

    All I will do is to stand on the side and shake my head, what the rest of you choose to do is up to you.
    That's very noble and leftwing of you. Now go have a banana.

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Reshki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Last Online
    Saturday, July 2nd, 2011 @ 10:28 PM
    Ethnicity
    Scottish
    Ancestry
    Scotland/Norway/Germany
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Florida Florida
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Machinist
    Posts
    90
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Why do you think so many States have implemented, or are int he process of implementing laws stating that firewrms produced in, and kept in the State (to make sure that the fedgov can't invoke interstate trade laws), are not subject to federal laws?

    Mugabe (obama) is trying to change things too fast, and if he keeps foring things, the States will keep telling him to go f**k himself.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Neophyte's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Online
    3 Hours Ago @ 08:00 PM
    Ethnicity
    Scandinavian
    Subrace
    Nordic + some Atlantid
    Country
    Sweden Sweden
    Gender
    Age
    47
    Politics
    Blut und Boden
    Posts
    2,032
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    170
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    162
    Thanked in
    103 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Reshki View Post
    Why do you think so many States have implemented, or are int he process of implementing laws stating that firewrms produced in, and kept in the State (to make sure that the fedgov can't invoke interstate trade laws), are not subject to federal laws?

    Mugabe (obama) is trying to change things too fast, and if he keeps foring things, the States will keep telling him to go f**k himself.
    It will be the same story as when the South was desegregated: federal courts and federal troops. I am not sure about what US law says, but I strongly doubt that the application of international treaties are within the purview of state and municipal courts. It will, if "they" know what they are doing, not be up to the elected representatives of the people; it will be done trough the federal courts, the DOJ and, in the end, the federal law and enforcement agencies.

    The states can pass all the laws they want, it will not matter more than it did regarding segregation. Just as with desegregation the disarmament of the US population will be done through legal means, not political. If you control the legal process, i.e. the supreme court, you can do almost anything you want without ever having to have a vote.

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Patrioten's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Online
    Saturday, June 27th, 2020 @ 10:02 PM
    Ethnicity
    Swedish
    Country
    Sweden Sweden
    Gender
    Politics
    Conservative
    Religion
    Protestant
    Posts
    1,920
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    2
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    13
    Thanked in
    12 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by RoyBatty View Post
    No.

    On the contrary, I find the claims that articles such as this is "rightwing hysteria" to be insulting to my considerable intelligence.
    Who are you quoting here. I'd simply call it hysteria. Hysteria isn't necessarily ideologically specific. You agree with the article yet you call yourself a right-wing socialist. I consider myself to be pretty right-wing, probably more so than most on this forum including yourself, yet I do not find that the article makes a compelling case with it's claim of Obama wanting to ban all firearms. That small but important word is what makes the difference here. The reality is terrible enough for it to need any help from fictional conclusions.

    It's not a conspiracy theory that Europe is being flooded by muds in order to change the social demographic yet "informed and intelligent" commentators will tell us that it is.

    It's not a conspiracy theory that special interests groups exploit, brainwash and disenfranchise White people in Europe and the USA in favour of "minorities" like homos, liberals, parasitic / social welfare type immigrants, feminazis and other deviants.

    However, the moment any semi-observant White person would make such a claim the "informed and intelligent" commentators and the media immediately squeal "racism", "anti-Semitism" and "rightwing fanaticism".
    For ideological reasons it is very handy for the left to dispell public concerns with their policies by calling them conspiracy theories. It serves a tactical purpose in discrediting those who express such views to further their ideas. For me it's not about what I can gain by expressing my dissent against articles like these being presented as credible, but what we lose by doing so, combined with their ridicilousness.

    The push for gun control on behalf of the democrats and Obama is obvious. As a Swede I know what gun-control means and I very much oppose it. But I don't have to jump on the band-waggon of crack-pot theories that point in this direction to see the malevolence of the intent and agenda of the left. I can be more discerning than that and still be aware of the problems at hand.

    The leftist handling of the nationalist movement has left a bitter taste in my mouth when it comes to unsupported claims that find support due to ideological blinders that leaves people not questioning the material as long as it is presented by an ideologically friendly source. When pravda tells us that a mildly nationalistic party is going to send the immigrants off to the gas chambers if they get 1 seat in the parliament through insinuations or flat out accusations the reader is supposed to eat it up, close ranks and leave any considerations of its reasonableness at the door. I am very much against the creation of such a climate amongst ourselves as I can see the results it has in the other camp.

    Again, the reality at hand, clear for anyone with two eyes to see, is terrible enough for it to be needing any dramatic rewrites by our own ideological peers.


    The US has a Constitution which supposedly guarantees its citizens certain rights and freedoms. It's fairly obvious that the Federal Government and the US Legal System have found a number of ways to circumvent the Constitution thereby rendering it to an increasingly worthless (oxymoron lol) piece of paper.

    Gun "control" and restrictions can naturally not be implemented overnight. That's why Obama and his Advisor Army will implement incremental restrictions so as not to arouse too much outrage and public anger. This policy will be continued under following Administrations until it becomes difficult to legally own a weapon.

    I suppose they'll claim that this is being done to "make our streets safer" but ultimately this is really about population control. It's about taking away the already limited power from people to resist the Federal Government. Firearms restrictions is one such measure. Another is control over food supplies via Corporations and Laws which force the small scale producers and farmers out of business.
    Why must an obvious push for gun control be combined with tabloid-worthy headlines of unsubstantiated sensationalism? That's the issue in question here.

    Should we interpret the news to the ultimate logical conclusion that the population is to be disarmed? Certainly we should.
    Alright.

    The trend is obvious and it is clear. The trend is that Obama and his legions of Zionist helpers are moving the process along to restrict the availability of firearms to Citizens, irrespective of whether or not they are responsible, irresponsible or have / not have criminal inclinations.

    The process will be gradual so as not to cause open revolt from certain circles. The intended end result is indeed to disarm the population. Otherwise Obama wouldn't need to tamper with existing State and Federal laws already dealing with firearms.
    Restricting gun ownership, certainly, but banning them all? Proof please.


    That's very noble and leftwing of you. Now go have a banana.
    Maybe I can join you then, my socialist comrade.

  9. #9
    Eala Freia Fresena
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    Ocko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Last Online
    Sunday, April 12th, 2020 @ 07:31 PM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    Friese
    Ancestry
    Friesland
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Montana Montana
    Location
    Glacier park
    Gender
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    selfemployed
    Politics
    rightwing
    Religion
    none/pagan
    Posts
    2,926
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    48
    Thanked in
    46 Posts
    He is stirring up a hornets nest.

    either he feels very secure about it or he is utterly stupid.
    weel nich will dieken dej mot wieken

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    RoyBatty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Last Online
    Wednesday, August 23rd, 2017 @ 07:34 PM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    Paleface
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    Gender
    Occupation
    Arbeit Macht Frei
    Politics
    Rightwing / Socialist
    Posts
    2,415
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    17
    Thanked in
    17 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Patrioten View Post
    Who are you quoting here. I'd simply call it hysteria. Hysteria isn't necessarily ideologically specific. You agree with the article yet you call yourself a right-wing socialist. I consider myself to be pretty right-wing, probably more so than most on this forum including yourself, yet I do not find that the article makes a compelling case with it's claim of Obama wanting to ban all firearms. That small but important word is what makes the difference here. The reality is terrible enough for it to need any help from fictional conclusions.
    OK, I'll reconsider my previous impressions about the article and rephrase things slightly:

    I don't necessarily agree with it 100% as it is written and yes, I concede that you have a valid point that this article as it is written shouldn't be interpreted as "fact".

    However, the only logical explanation (to me) for the Obama's of this world to start tinkering with gun ownership laws would be to take away gun rights from citizens in the same ways that they take away all other rights, freedoms and the ability of people to live independently of The State's control.

    They want to make people more dependent upon the State than they already are. They want to assert the State's Authority over the populace as much as possible. First they start stripping away people's rights and freedoms. Then they reward "good doggie" citizens with the odd morsel for obedient behaviour.

    Gun control is part of this overall population control package. The logical end-game in all this would, in my opinion, be to eventually remove firearms from the hands of the citizenry in order to entrench the State's power over them even further. Yes I realise that The State already controls them whether or not they have guns but by removing guns completely it'll only make that control more absolute.

    For the time being The State knows better than to agitate the citizenry too much with too outrageous type measures but once they have absolute control there'll be nothing holding them back from doing whatever they feel like.

    Power Corrupts - Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely.

    To sum up, the article may be alarmist and not necessarily the absolute truth (as things currently stand) but it's also not something that should be dismissed outright and derided. In a worst case scenario (and it's usually best to plan according to this possibility) the predictions of the author may very well come true.

Page 1 of 14 12345611 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Obama Administration Unveils Internet ID Plan
    By Roderic in forum The United States
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Saturday, April 16th, 2011, 03:32 PM
  2. "Anti-defamation" Plan to Make Ban on Criticizing Religions Mandatory
    By Eugenicus in forum Articles & Current Affairs
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: Saturday, March 14th, 2009, 02:04 PM
  3. SouthernBoy's Firearms Thread
    By SouthernBoy in forum Self-Defense & the Art of War
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: Saturday, September 3rd, 2005, 09:53 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •