PostHeaderIcon Declaration of Civil War

 

The urgency of this cannot be overstated. Properly ratified treaties are the equivalent of a Constitutional Amendment. If the US Senate ratifies this treaty, it will be no less than a declaration of civil war…

There is simply no way that the gun owners of America can permit the registration and/or confiscation of our weapons of self-defense, against the forces of tyranny. We cannot; we will not; and your Senators need to understand this indelible line in the sand. Send them this link: Gun Collecting, and ask them to think long and hard, before starting Civil War II. ◄Dave►

18 Responses to “Declaration of Civil War”

  • Jon says:

    We’ve already let the 2nd amendment be infringed upon by any gun laws. It is a right, period, time for them to quit trying to control the citizens and time for us to begin controlling our government.

  • Troy says:

    As I have stated before, there are only two remaining obstacles to dictatorship in the United States — a prelude to one-world government. These are:

    –> Confiscation of firearms and ammunition, and,

    –> Destruction of America’s prosperity.

    Obamanation and company are making measurable progress on both fronts. Yet, I am called to task when I suggest the time is here to be prepared to defend our rights and ourselves.

    I don’t want to initiate violence, I don’t want to impinge on the rights of others, but I INSIST on the right to defend myself and my nation from an obvious, concerted attack.

    As I have declared before, I offer NO allegiance to the false government in Washington DC because they have violated the contract from which their existence originates.

    There is a very clear choice taking form my friends… you can either defend your rights by whatever means available, or you can hide in your closet, whimpering and soiling your pants, while the tyrants have their way.

    Troy

    • ◄Dave► says:

      Well said, Troy. A lot of sheeple will be cowering and whimpering; but I suspect a sufficient number of Patriots will do their duty. It will be exceedingly ugly; but we simply will have no choice. ◄Dave►

  • ◄Dave► says:

    On another forum discussing this post, Jon offered a link to an excellent article debunking the notion that a treaty trumps our Constitution. I found it compelling and well worth the read. ◄Dave►

    • Troy says:

      Sorry but I need no debunking article. Our Constitution is the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND. No further explanation needed.

      Troy

      • ◄Dave► says:

        Well, that just means you were ahead of me, Troy. I had always bought the argument that the supremacy clause in Article VI:

        “This Constitution and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all the Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land…’

        …meant that any ratified treaty also became the supreme law of the land. The article cites SCOTUS rulings that say they cannot change the Constitution itself, because the executive and legislative branches do not have the power to do so. Had I understood this, I would have probably considered this matter less urgent. However, considering how little the Constitution means to the 535 fools we are allowing to trample our rights in DC, it is still something we need to pay attention to, and any attempt to take our weapons will still start a civil war. ◄Dave►

      • Seems to me that a treaty would fail in such a case. You would have two conflicting rules within the same level of supremacy, which would bring the decision down to original intent and precedent.

        The second amendment won’t be done away with in one stroke, it will be wheedled away slowly.

        • ◄Dave► says:

          It already has been being slowly eroded. At the time of our founding, a musket was state-of-the-art weaponry, and citizen militias owned field pieces too. Why have we allowed them to prevent us from owning fully automatic weapons, or RPG’s, or tanks for that matter? I think their patience is about exhausted, and expect some sort of false flag op to give them the excuse for martial law, and outright confiscation – sooner, rather than later. ◄Dave►

  • Dave,
    I would prefer a title like: “Forewarning to Senate – Do not Induce Rebellion”. The current title is prematurely provocative IMO… but I do agree with the content of the article. No treaty can supersede the Constitution and the specified amendment process. However, a citizens warning to our Senators that we perceive a threat to our Second Amendment right to bear arms embedded in the language of this treaty document is warranted.

    If it were to be erroneously ratified, IMO that in itself would not be enough to justify preemptive violent rebellion. I would insist on my State to declare “nullification”, and if need be engage in methods of organized civil disobedience. My personal “line in the sand” is any attempt to implement in the form of weapons confiscation.

    My biggest concern about an invalid ratification is if the above events ensued and ultimately led to civil war then perhaps foreign signatories could insist they have a “legal” right to intervene to enforce “gun prohibition” implementation.

    The Lieutenant Colonel (Brian)

    • ◄Dave► says:

      It disturbs me, Brian, that you misapprehended my intent with the title, and thrust of my argument. It makes me wonder how many others might have as well. It was meant to convey that ratification of the treaty would be tantamount to the Senate declaring Civil War, not that we would. My line in the sand is precisely the same as yours, and I have spent prodigious effort over the past few years, trying to cool hotter heads in the Patriot/Militia community, by stressing that we are, and must remain, on defense. The bastards want us to give them an excuse to declare martial law, and any offensive action on our part before they start it, would have the sheeple begging the government to protect them from those crazy rednecks. I remember only too well, the ease with which Clinton demonized the militia movement, in the aftermath of the OKC bombing.

      That said, it seems rather obvious that any Senator who would vote to ratify the treaty, would be intending for our country to implement it. As I pointed out in the Gun Collecting essay, any attempt to do so will be met with deadly serious resistance; ergo Civil War. If anyone doubts the agenda, here is a clip just posted of the Obamunist speaking to a civil rights conference in New Orleans. In the comment section below, was a great quote:

      “The second amendment is not about hunting deer or keeping a pistol in your nightstand. It is not about protecting oneself against common criminals. It is about preventing tyranny. The Founders knew that unarmed citizens would never be able to overthrow a tyrannical government as they did. They envisioned government as a servant, not a master, of the American people. The muskets they used against the British Army were the assault rifles of the time,” -Ron Paul.

      Indeed! As for your concern with foreign intervention, one thing is for sure. There are a few million gun owners who would view a blue helmet on our shores as a target, whoever might be wearing it. I do wonder whether the fools in DC actually understand what they are stirring up; or are the rumors of the FEMA camps and plans to round up millions of Americans actually true? [*shudder*] ◄Dave►

  • Greg says:

    I’d like to point something out you said in your argument. “Properly ratified treaties are the equivalent of a Constitutional Amendment.”// Dave, you do realize that the United Nations only works if all those who sign onto a given treaty actually stick to it, right? The United Nations has no “enforcement arm” when it comes to treaties.

    I believe the “enforcement arm” you would bring up, if I understand the common Conservative/anti-Progressive (not sure which phrase to use here. I can’t call you a “True” Conservative, but it is a Conservative/Neo-Conservative thing) argument is that the UN can tax a nation to enforce its will. But again, this is only up to the individual nations to actually PAY the tax. There is no collector, no person to make sure we follow through. Look at the Non-Proliferation Treaty. There are many countries who have signed on to it, yet continue to pursue nuclear weapons and/or proliferation. This is because there is no “Default” UN Army that will come banging on your door and tell you you must to x, y, and z–and the only “UN Army” is made up of willing soldiers from other countries! In fact, I did a whole unit on the United Nations in college. The professor was very pro-united nations, but also admitted that since there is no enforcement mechanism, there is no way to actually see through that nations will follow them. A more menacing organization for you to focus on is NATO, but even then, most of the nations there are like-minded. As such, this sort of treaty would never come into existence. Sure, they can check up on you, but if you’re not following through on your promise… who cares; it’s not like you can do anything about it. Further, the SCOTUS CAN declare a treaty unconstitutional.

    Please see here for more details:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_v._Covert

    If you looked at the original source, the conference’s focus, found here:
    http://www.un.org/disarmament/ATT/

    Is not to regulate guns within countries (the UN especially has no power over there); rather it is to regulate a country from selling arms illegal to ANOTHER country.

    In fact, the only treaties that actually have “teeth” are those signed nation-to-nation. Then, nations directly become antagonists of one another.

    We have signed many UN treaties in the past; not all of them have been followed through to the letter, if at all. In fact, unless all nations who sign onto said treaty are willing to follow it through to a tee, the treaty is as worthless as the piece of paper it is written on. Even sanctions are powerless if someone, say China, decides to go behind the agreement’s back and continue to flout the agreement.

    Thus, I inherently disagree with your argument that this treaty is “like a Constitutional Amendment” if a) It only regulates flow of weapons to other countries, b) cannot be enforced (unless a country decides to pass another resolution authorizing use of forth and/or sanctions), c) most nations already do not follow the biggest treaty of the UN (Non-proliferation treaty) at least or no expense to the country besides international shame, and d) if the SCOTUS can declare it unconstitutional. Given all of this, a single treaty regarding anything from the UN is simply a signature on a piece of paper, and thus not a threat to the gun rights that you hold near and dear.

    • ◄Dave► says:

      Greg, if you had read the comments before taking the time to compose this, you would have seen we had already covered it. Especially with the excellent article on the subject, which I linked to from my discussions on another forum. ◄Dave►

  • Daedalus says:

    The US treaty making power is a subset of the constitution. Treaties should have an addendum: In case of conflict between this treaty and the US Constitution,the Constitution takes precedence.
    Meanwhile back at the ranch, what is going on in New Orleans?

    “The Federal Department of Justice, long rumored to be planning intervention in the ethically plagued New Orleans Police Department, seems to be moving forward with its beltway-backed takeover.”

    Has anyone been following this story?

  • Technology may make the whole second amendment thing rather moot in the end anyway, one way or the other. Even if they stop you from buying one, or even owning one, can they stop you from making one when the time comes?

    http://boingboing.net/2012/07/28/report-of-working-3d-printed-g.html

Leave a Reply

Subscribe via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Political Spectrum
Political Circle
Archives
Blogroll
Internal Links