This is true, no one ever does take responsibility.
|
This is true, no one ever does take responsibility.
Hello again, tom:
Really?? Didn't I hear you agree with Congressman Issa, when he said that Fast & Furious was a PLOY, so that Obama could round up all the guns during his second term??Quote:
I have no responsibility in 'whipping up hysteria'
Nahhh... That must have been the other Tom.
Excon
No I never said the President's goal was to round up guns. However ,the President does want stricter FEDERAL laws regarding guns and certain types of guns... and yes I agree with Issa that F&F was part of the strategery of making his and Evita's case that the gun violence in Mexico is being supported by US gun exports.
The fact that he supports UN treaties that would also limit American's rights to guns is more than enough proof that is his goal .
It's called bankruptcy NK. They sunk 401K's into the business, CDs, and liquidated assets.
It was 2.5 mil to purchase the existing 1000 square foot gun shop from the previous owner. Another 2 mil to update it from a 1970s era sup to a modern era shop. Then we expanded to the tune of a
22000 square foot shop complete with a state of the art 6 lane gun range. Building and stocking that was not cheap. Our store, Brighton Arms, was in existence for 12 years before we were forced to close. Oh and life is expensive as well. My in-laws have an adult son who is physically and mentally handicapped and had been turned down hy government agencies for medical assistance.
Do you want a full financial statement NK?
No argument there, but you saw an imperial presidency under Bush but Obama has been far worse in bypassing congress and the people. Open your eyes.Quote:
It IS true, that when I walk out of my house every morning, I see an entirely different country than you do.
Oh, and Steve, you're my friend too and I take no offense to you. If I did I'd call you and give you a piece of my mind. I respect educated discussions until they are dumbed down hy name calling and degridation of others beliefs. We have a member here that's very good at that.
FactCheck.org : NRA Targets Obama
Obama Will 'Evaluate' Bill Limiting Online Ammunition Sales, White House Says
Ammunition Shortage Feared by Gun Owners in Obama Presidency - Yahoo! Voices - voices.yahoo.com
Shoot Bambi, not Gabby.Quote:
He also said in the debate, "I think we can provide common-sense approaches to the issue of illegal guns that are ending up on the streets. We can make sure that criminals don't have guns in their hands. We can make certain that those who are mentally deranged are not getting a hold of handguns. We can trace guns that have been used in crimes to unscrupulous gun dealers that may be selling to straw purchasers and dumping them on the streets."
Government Stockpiles Ammo and Riot Gear: Is Obama Preparing U.S. For Martial Law? | The Dubuque Town Crier
Is this facts, or CRAZY talk?
That's your evidence ?A blogger when can't even spell conservative right ?Quote:
Is this facts, or CRAZY talk?
LOL, you are sharp today. That's why I threw that one in at the end. Don't get snarky, just asked a question. I have a reason to be snarky since LUCK for the COLTS underperformed last night and Drew Breeze is my opposition QB!!
This is a fact for sure. Homeland security has already placed an order for over 1.2 billion bullets. Yes that's billion with a B.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/160088
What could they be up to ?
What is your definition of an assault rifle ? And why is it your business if someone owns one or not?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Let's get more to the point, there is no need for the general population to own automatic weapons. Such weapons are designed for warfare
AR-15, AK-47. An adult male friend of mine has an IQ of 85-90 (professional testing was done), has no sales resistance, has nearly maxed out several credit cards, has a hair-trigger temper, has creepy friends, and has always wanted to own an AK-47. He went to a gun shop after legally obtaining a FOID card, and bought his long-dreamt-of AK-47 plus ammunition for it. I hope I don't read about him in the newspapers some day.Quote:
Originally Posted by califdadof3
Why is it my business? Because I value my safety and the safety of friends and loved ones. And of society in general.
http://www.guns.com/us-army-departme...tems-7468.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by califdadof3
Quote:
This may mean ammunition shortages along with the associated price hikes for some of the most common types of ammunition in service. The M855 as well as the HST .40 bullet has proven themselves in the field as effective ammunition. Both of these larger purchases, however, may lead to domestic runs on ammunition.
A bullet led recovery, quite a strategyQuote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Seems they have had this arrangement since 2000.
Quote:
"Since 2000, we have delivered more than 11 billion rounds of ammunition in support of our nation's warfighters while modernizing the facility, increasing capacity, improving productivity and efficiency, and doing so in a safe and responsible manner."
That was the military. Im glad when they get ammo shipments. What I was referring to was Homeland Security. It is their contract that bothers me.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
WHy do they need 1.2 billion rounds? I understand wartime for our troops. But Homeland Security is domestic.
DHS should be dismantled... there is no reason for a super bureaucracy when it's sub agencies have not been dismantled .
Could it be they anticipate manning the borders with something more than a steel fence that the "enemy" cuts holes inQuote:
Originally Posted by califdadof3
Ever see what drug dealers are armed with?
Many times. And you still don't need 1.2 billion rounds for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Hello again,
Look.. Everybody knows the bullets are for FEMA so they can round us up and put us in concentration camps.
excon
Your ex-military. And happy early veterans day. What do you imagine that 1.2 billion rounds of ammo could do?Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello dad:
Well, they're doing a lot of warring.. They got the DEA. They're involved in hot wars in Mexico, Honduras - well ALL OVER Latin America..Quote:
What do you imagine that 1.2 billion rounds of ammo could do?
They got the CIA who's waring all over the Middle East and who knows where else? Then there's the FBI, the Secret Service, the Border cops, Customs, and probably lots more cop types than we know about...
It DOES sound like a lotta bullets - but they got a lotta cops! What do YOU think they're for?
Excon
Truthfully the only thing they can be for is population control. The agencies you mentioned have a separate budget. Homeland security appears to be beefing up for some reason. I know they are getting a lot of toys but that still doesn't account for it. It's a hard one to call. The only other reason is that they want to dry up the supply of ammo so they can bring in the new traceable ammo they have been wanting for so long. Right now its all a shell game. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
So homeland security is about fighting the drug war?
No that's is the DEA. Different agency.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
No that wasn't the inference
I am thinking that this "Arms Treaty" has to do with the proliferation of Military arms and weaponry that isa traded ;like so many bags of wheat are. I am also thinking that the U.N. would have a controlling say in what types of weapons and how many, let's say, the U.S. could sell to Egypt and Iran.
I don't think you have any thing to worry about.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Paragraph 2 is full of independent clauses. Consider this:
This Constitution and the laws of the United States shall be made in pursuance thereof;... "
The use of two independent clauses joined by a semicolon suggest that each clause has its own subject and predicate. Two ideas can be closely connected but are not the same idea.
It seems clear that the pursuit must be in favour of the Constitution.
Surely you can give the Founding fathers more credit than that.
Tut
Yes, they were terribly smart people. Where are they now when we need them??
When you are signed on to the UN then it is expected that you ratify the treaties the UN signs, if this needs an amendment to your Constitution then that is the path
Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, includes the Treaty Clause, which empowers the President of the United States to propose and chiefly negotiate agreements between the United States and other countries, which become treaties between the United States and other countries after the advice and consent of a supermajority of the United States Senate.
Article Six of the United States Constitution establishes the Constitution and the laws and treaties of the United States made in accordance with it as the supreme law of the land,
So it is often forgotten that these clauses can override another clause
It is not a presumption that if you are a UN member that you sign on to their ridiculous treaties. Heck ;if they don't like it then do us a favor and kick us out.
Yes great idea but you keep your membership so you have the power of veto otherwise those other powers might do something you don't like, like start a war, Oh, I remember it is you, not the UN, that has the doctrine of preemptive strikes. Can we expect one on NK any time soon?
Possibly... if they have a multi-stage rocket fueling up then why should we wait ? They have shown themselves very belligerent since the un-Kim took power.Quote:
Can we expect one on NK any time soon?
The South Koreans should've laid waist to the NORK navy after the NORKS sunk the Cheonan and shelled Yeonpyeong
Thanks for my first laugh of the day. Just amend our constitution to fit the UN agenda. Bwa ha ha!Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Actually a treaty cannot over ride a federal law and needs the approval of the congress to be ratified.
Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
But, weren't you the one that posted Article V1 paragraph 2 to demonstrate Tom's point that a treaty could override a constitutional right?
Tut
Not quite.. it's true that a treaty can override a law.. it cannot override a right. That was what I was trying to get at in the OP.
Took 8 pages but finally the discussion is at the heart of the matter ;a treaty that violates the Constitutional protections is null and void and would be struck down by a SCOTUS that understands the Constitution.
No Tut that was me
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:27 PM. |