0

Squawk of the day - August 13, 2012

"I have read the entire 31-page UN Small Arms Treaty draft. It is a direct attack on lawful American firearms owners and a violation of the U.S. Constitution and 2nd Amendment. Only the most naive Obama supporters would believe otherwise."

For more squawks, pick up a copy of today's Albany Herald.

To submit a squawk, Click here.

Comments

Sister_Ruby 2 years, 3 months ago

An informed Populace is the Government's Worst Enemy. Thank You, Squawker.

P.S. - The fact that Iran is on the Committee on this one is all we should need to know anyway!

1

ObjectiveEyes 2 years, 3 months ago

Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice...

1

Hoodie 2 years, 3 months ago

The President of the United States cannot enact a "complete ban on all weapons for US citizens through the signing of international treaties with foreign nations." The right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed in the Constitution of the United States, and in the 1957 case Reid v. Covert, the U.S. Supreme Court established that the Constitution supersedes international treaties ratified by the U.S. Senate.

There is no "legal way around the 2nd Amendment" other than a further amendment to the Constitution that repeals or alters it, or a Supreme Court decision that radically reinterprets how the 2nd Amendment is to be applied.

1

rightasrain 2 years, 3 months ago

Since when has this so-called 'president' given any respect to the Constitution? Not in this administration! Case in point: according to our Constitution, only Congress has the authority to make treaties; however, Obama once again ignored the Constitution, the powers given to Congress and signed the treaty anyway.

0

PatrickY2K 2 years, 3 months ago

When did Bush follow the Constitution? He bugged telephones without warrants, ignored teaties regarding prisoner rights, and started wars without congressional involvement. I assume you were complainging then, too.

1

Hoodie 2 years, 3 months ago

There was no treaty signed......

0

PatrickY2K 2 years, 3 months ago

The Small Arms Treaty draft is much too vague to say it's attack on the Second Amendment. It acknowledges that individuals need to protect themselves, but it does not say anything about banning guns for personal use. We also are not very close to signing anything, but Sarah Palin said that Obama was going to take away our guns, so it must be true.

I would love for someone to find evidence that Obama is planning to repeal the Second Amendment. He's barely mentioned gun control since being elected, and he didn't say anything about taking away our guns. Again, that was Sarah Palin saying he would. She can't name a magazine that she reads, and doesn't know which Korea is our ally, but she convinced millions that Obama hopes to repeal the Second Amendment.

Please reply and post evidence that we are on the verge of losing our right to bare arms...or just tell me how a treaty that the U.N. is sitll writing can be blamed on Obama.

1

Sister_Ruby 2 years, 3 months ago

If we have no rights to bear arms then we all we would have left was bare arms.

0

wannabnfla 2 years, 3 months ago

i believe the current administration, if re-elected, will do everything in their power to remove that right.

0

PatrickY2K 2 years, 3 months ago

Based on what?!?! I'm asking for any quote, voting record, ANYTHING that is the basis for this opinion!!

0

USTPC 2 years, 3 months ago

Here you go: "As a state senator, Obama supported banning all forms of semiautomatic weapons and tighter state restrictions on firearms, and in the U.S. Senate voted against a law protecting firearms makers and dealers from lawsuits over misuse of their products. But during his presidency, Obama has thus far declined to advance the gun restrictions he touted in his campaign."

Here is the link to the entire article: //thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/07/26/588441/obama-gun-control-should-be-common-sense/?mobile=nc

0

PatrickY2K 2 years, 3 months ago

So he's doing everything in his power to remove our Second Amendment rights?

0

USTPC 2 years, 3 months ago

He obviously is in favor of gun control based on past voting record and comments. He is in favor of banning all semi automatic guns which I take to mean handguns as well as rifles. He is in favor of tighter gun control laws. So yes, I interpret that as being willing and in favor of removing our second amendment rights. The fact that he has been quiet about it during this term does not mean that he has changed his mind about it.

0

USTPC 2 years, 3 months ago

And to eliminate any confusion. If you ban semi-automatic weapons then you in affect violate the second amendment. The idea behind the second amendment was for the citizens of the United States to be able to have weapons to defend the freedoms of our country in the event a domestic or foreign threat tries to take those freedoms away. How do you defend your freedoms when you have a single shot or 3-4 shot bolt action and your oppressors have semi automatic weapons? The answer is you don't. Thus his opinion that semi automatic weapons should be banned is an infringement on the second amendment right to bear arms.

0

waltspecht 2 years, 3 months ago

Get us out of the UN now! Just think of all the money it would save us and take away from the corrupt the UN seems to be harboring and supporting.

3

chinaberry25 2 years, 3 months ago

Yes, we need to get rid of the UN. They are the very ones who are getting us in these incidental wars. Look at Russia, they were making the same mistakes. Got their act together and are laughing through their vodkas at us. We are fools as the Bible tells us. You may not be a Christian, but listen to the Bible's principles, they will steer your right. Even the Koran does not condone what is going on with the world. In a few years we will wake up and it will be too late.

0

FlunkyMonkey 2 years, 3 months ago

"Only the most naive Obama supporters..." Are there any other kind of Obama supporter?

1

bubbasmithredneck 2 years, 3 months ago

Yeah, but nobody needs AK-47's to protect their homes. Some of of those gun laws need to be revised.

1

bigbob 2 years, 3 months ago

How many law abiding citizens have killed someone with an AK-47, none. Criminals would still have them because they don't care about laws. When are people going to figure this out. wow.

0

VietVet1 2 years, 3 months ago

Some gun laws - but how does the UN fit into the equation? And Obama's input..........have mercy on America

0

Sister_Ruby 2 years, 3 months ago

Correction: nobody needs AK-47's to protect their homes......YET. In Albany we're a little closer to that time than some other locations are.

0

USTPC 2 years, 3 months ago

We are closer to needing them than anyone wants to admit.

0

waltspecht 2 years, 3 months ago

If they can smuggle Humans, tons of drugs and all sorts of other things across the border, What makes you think AK's won't be crossing the border if the cash is there? I have often wondered why weapons pass from the US to Mexico, when all the automatic weapons simply cross Mexico's Southern border to be used as barter to buy a trip into the USA?

0

Jimboob 2 years, 3 months ago

Actually the guns are going into Mexico. They need them more down there.

0

waltspecht 2 years, 3 months ago

That is what I was addressing, more weapons cross Mexico's Southern border than it's Northern Border. Plus all the illicet ports of entry into the Country. The traffic from the US South is in quality arms, not automatic arms. It is blown out of proportion to put the blame on us instead of the corrupt Mexican Officials. It is also a fact more M-16's have disappeared from Military and Police armories in Mexico than AR 15's have crossed the border. Plus there is the little problem about the handgrenades.

0

RedEric 2 years, 3 months ago

The Progressives have to take our guns away before they can complete the takeover of our country. They feel their oppression is benign and for our own good. Our freedom has always been far to chaotic for their comfort and economic safety. They have no way to predict what we will do next. The Progressive movement made great strides in the 1920s and 1930s and then WW2 screwed them up. The "Pastors" in town should be talking about what the Progressives have planned for them. Margaret Sanger, a Progressive icon, advocated forced sterilization for "unproductive" people. Remember 28 states had forced sterilization laws and 21 still have them. These are scary people, the Progressives.

0

Jimboob 2 years, 3 months ago

And the conservatives are willing to sell our country to the highest bidder. And that's not scary?

0

Sister_Ruby 2 years, 3 months ago

I don't like to give them the benefit of using THEIR label "Progressives" when what they really are is Communists.

0

RedEric 2 years, 3 months ago

Real conservatives want to return to Personal Resposibility. You will hear that a lot in the next few months. That means, to me, that when a company breaks the law the company is not fined, the CEO goes to jail. CEOs will then get very serious about the law. Also, Sister, progressives are more subtle than communists, but just as brutal. Megadeaths are just one of their tools.

0

FryarTuk 2 years, 3 months ago

Who cares what the UN resolution says, The citizens of the United States of America will never give up the right to keep arms. We need to get out of the UN. It is almost corrupt as the scurrilous ruling rogues at Dougherty County School System. (Through in Darryl Sabb though and there is no way to catch up.) Vote for Ron Paul, he's the only announced candidate willing to take on the UN hinchman. The community organizer and missionary to France would never have enough courage to do it.

0

USTPC 2 years, 3 months ago

A vote for Ron Paul is the same as a vote for Obama because it takes away a vote for Romney. Ron Paul may have some good ideas but he does not have the support to win the presidency so a vote for him is wasted.

0

FryarTuk 2 years, 3 months ago

A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for sanity. A vote for the missionary to France and the community organizer is a vote for insanity. You're doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different results.

0

Sherwood_Eagle_Alum 2 years, 3 months ago

Maybe so, but to vote for somene that has no chance of winning is a waste of your time and gas. Of to be idealistic... I'll take realist for $200 Alex.

0

Sherwood_Eagle_Alum 2 years, 3 months ago

*Oh to be idealistic... Just noticed that autocorrect changed "oh" to "of."

0

USTPC 2 years, 3 months ago

I am not saying Paul would not be a good president. I am saying that by voting for him you are improving the chances of Obama being re-elected and personally i will take my chances with Romney versus another 4 years of Obama.

0

Cartman 2 years, 3 months ago

The UN treaty was a sneaky way to get gun control passed. It was a con job. Thank goodness that 2/3 of the Senate is required to ratify treaties. A couple of weeks ago, 51 Senators sent the White House a letter that they would not sign it. It is now dead in the water. Thanks to the NRA for getting the word out so this didn't slip in under the radar.

0

Sister_Ruby 2 years, 3 months ago

Obama's not interested in protecting this country's Constitution. Rather, He's mostly interested in demolishing it.

He's mostly interested in His NEXT job after His Presidency........Chairman of the U.N. which should lead Him ultimately to the Position of Anti-Christ.

0

LuLu 2 years, 3 months ago

Ummmm..... NOBODY except YOU has mentioned race. Or pork.

Besides, he GOT the job BECAUSE he's black.

He's going to LOSE the job because he's RED.

0

hotdog 2 years, 3 months ago

He got the job because the people voted for him....he will lose the job for the same reason if it happens LuLu...period....and just because the word is not there in the open most people know what people are implying....you are probably one of the ones who wants to 'take our country back'....The natives probably want to do the same

1

USTPC 2 years, 3 months ago

Wow, really? Criticising Bush is okay but if I criticize the current president I am a racist? Way to play that card. I do not give a rat's a@@ what color our president is as long as he or she protects the constitution of the United States Of America and works to serve the best interests of the citizens that voted him or her into office. Our current president has done nothing to improve the conditions of the majority of us in this country and has done everything he could possibly do to undermine the constitution of the United States Of America. That is why he is criticized and why he should not be re-elected. Has absolutely nothing to do with him being Black.

0

Sister_Ruby 2 years, 3 months ago

Absolutely but that's as far as His supporters can get in their thought process in defending Him. Besides, He's half white anyway but it seems that little fact gets forgotten.

It illustrates the proverb "when you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail".

0

B4it 2 years, 3 months ago

Exactly USTPC and SIster. Well said!

0

PatrickY2K 2 years, 3 months ago

It might not be racism, but I don't remember conservatives expressing their concern when Bush was ignoring the Constitution in the name of national security. They bugged phones and seized personal records without warrants. He started wars, but didn't call them wars, so he didn't have to ask for Congress's permission. We tortured prisoners, again, in the name of national security.

Why wasn't the Tea Party concerned about fiscal responsibility when Bush was increasing spending, lowering taxes on the wealthy, and showing no concern for balancing the budget?

...and I would love to see what would happen if the Obama administration tried to tell everyone to remove their belts and shoes before boarding a plane. "Rights violation!!"

It might not be racism, just very "selective concern."

1

waltspecht 2 years, 3 months ago

All Politicians seem to forget they represent all the people, not just those that voted for them. Although that is what it has been corrupted into. Somehow they have got to realize they represent 100% of the Citizens, not just the 55% that voted them into office.

0

VSU 2 years, 3 months ago

When you can't think of anything intelligent to say like Willie for example, just pull out the race card and call everybody racist because they disagree with the Presidents policies. Odd nobody said anything when people dis-agreed with past presidents, but let them dis-agree with your precious Obuma it's racism.

0

Cartman 2 years, 3 months ago

Obama is the most dishonest and corrupt president in US history. Pelosi and Reid are just as destructive and power-mad. Eric Holder, Rahm Emmanuel, and Timothy Geitner are effective socialist tools. To critisize any of these, triggers the knee-jerk accusation of racism. That's it? That shallow, pathetic, and inappropriate and vile attack is all you have? Nowadays, those who shout Racist! are the worst racists. And it has lost its sting. You have diluted the accusation so much, that it does not cause anyone to be taken aback. You are akin to the boy who cried "wolf". It's worn out. Try something else.

0

PatrickY2K 2 years, 3 months ago

You've got name-calling down. I would love to hear some evidence of the alleged dishonesty or corruption - "I heard it on Fox News" is not evidence.

When responding please remember, I didn't call you a racist - I just want to hear about the dishonesty and corruption. If you believe that you've lost rights in the last three years, please cite examples.

1

USTPC 2 years, 3 months ago

The one I can think of is Obamacare. He used every political string, backdoor meetings, and lie that he could think of to get it passed. I am sure there are more but that is one off the top of my head. I mean come on, you cannot have forgotten already that it passed before it was even finalized and that the majority of the congress did not get a chance to read or dissect it prior to it passing. If that is not dishones or corrupt then what is?

0

Cartman 2 years, 3 months ago

I'll try to go from memory. This means that I will leaving out much. During his 2008 campaign, he would make up delightful stories to endear him to the audience. One was a story that his uncle or some other family member liberated the Auschwitz death camp during WWII. He did have relatives that served in WWII, but Auschwitz was liberated by the Soviets. Do you recall the Dem campaign against drilling in the Gulf? Remember the Republican chant was "drill baby drill"? Shortly after taking office, Obama authorized a $10b grant to Brazil so that a Brazilian oil company could drill off their shore. Later turns out that George Soros owned a sizeable stake in that oil company. I also recall Obama stating that his presidency would be the most transparent in history. During the Obamacare debates, Republican congressmen were not allowed into the committee rooms during discussions. In fact, any Democratic congressman caught sharing information with a Republican colleague was threatened with being expelled from future meetings. The Cornhusker kickback was only the most memorable of vote "purchasing" in order to pass the Obamacare debacle. The General Motors "bailout" took property not only from shareholders, but from bondholders in an uprecedented government grab of private property - simply to hand over 20% ownership,in exchange for nothing, to the UAW pension fund. This was clearly political payback for the Union's support using taxpayer funds. Recently, it was disclosed that non-union GM jobs and pensions were simply abandoned under the plan. When GM reformed, dealerships owned by know Republicans were shut off, while dealerships owned by known Democrats remained on GM support. Obama has generally spent money like a drunken sailor with a credit card, while the repayment of these debts were purposefully timed to occur after the election. Meanwhile in the past several months, he has the audacity to campaign about how we cannot continue to run up debts and leave it to future generations. Using his "executive power" he has instructed his attorney general, Eric Holder to not defend the DOMA. He has also recently ordered immigration laws to ignored and simply not be enforced anymore by federal border agents. The US Justice Department has been under orders to not pursue actions against black political fringe groups regardless of the facts. This was confirmed by a now ex-Asst US Attorney who stepped down because of the order to back off the New Black Panther voting interference in Philadelphia in 2008. The US already had a default judgment against the NBPs and was told to back off and walk away. I'm fixing to hit the word limit. Do your own research. Check any source you trust that isn't slanted one way or the other. Ignore NBC, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, Fox. If I suggest something, you will just blatantly declare it as suspect. Heck. Go to Snopes or NY Times. Search Obama dishonest or Obama lie and see what pops up.

1

USTPC 2 years, 3 months ago

Good response Cartman. Don't forget the millions upon millions of taxpayer dollars he and Michelle have used for personal vacations and expenses while at the same time telling the American people these are tough times and you need to "tighten your belt" and cut back on the extras. But I guess that just means us and not our leaders.

0

FryarTuk 2 years, 3 months ago

Had enough? No argument here to defend Obama's record. George W. Bush was just as bad if not worse, given that he sent our soldiers to their death in a contrived war. Robamny will be just as bad. It's time to get off the treadmill and vote for a candidate who will change how business is done. Vote for Ron Paul, he aint no missionary to France and he aint no community organizer.

0

VSU 2 years, 3 months ago

Nobody is going to vote in Ron Paul so forget about it.

0

Sign in to comment