Will our military force the disarmment of the America people or will it be the Blue Hats? And why are Russian troops over here training? American soldiers are sworn at the time of enlistment to protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic US Soldiers don't serve, protect or defend the US president, and are only required to obey "lawful" orders of a president and to disobey ANY and ALL "UNLAWFUL ORDERS",or will they disregard their oath and simply do whatever they are trained and told to do, and if so, will there be civil war?

No votes yet

The chatter is people will stand their ground thats easier said then actually done without training. Their are groups across the country that are gearing up though,such as the South. lets see if all the gang bangers and shooters out there will fight or run.

Some even say that we will be fighting against the Department of Homeland Security and Obama's 60 thousand man private army of which many have been recruited from the Nation of Islam. This is why just a few weeks ago the FBI cut off sharing information with DHS. Obama has installed too many Communist and Muslims in that department and there has been too many security leaks in DHS.

"DTOM" {1776} " We The People" {1791}


At first I thought you were just nuts. But after reading this second post I'm sensing some sarcasm. Right? I mean "chatter" about Obama's 60 thousand muslims. Wow, just wow.
And it is "disarmament" for crying out loud; use spell check genius.


So now your the grammer spell check police of swampbubbles, of course you have never made a spelling error ever right genius.......

"DTOM" {1776} " We The People" {1791}

You're not your dammit.

I thought Bill Clinton flew in on a black helicopter and took everyone's guns away back in the 90's...

Did Clinton sign any UN DISARMMENT TREATIES Obama will sign this treaty in two weeks.. What will you defend yourself with Subservience....

"DTOM" {1776} " We The People" {1791}

How about this... if by the November elections UN troops or MikeA and the US Marines don't come and take your guns, you can never post here again.

If they do try and take your guns, I promise to fight beside you.

Are you capable of responding with some reasonable perspective of why you do or don’t agree with a topic or post, or are you really that shallow.

"DTOM" {1776} " We The People" {1791}

Because it's completely not true and you’re crazy to believe it. So I’m going to have fun. So let’s be clear here -



Here's another spell check for u..........
Submitted by SensorG on Wed, 2012-07-18 14:25.
Because it's completely not true and you’re crazy to believe it. So I’m going to have fun. So let’s be clear here -


Get over your spelling phobia and post somewhat of an intellectual response based on your perspective if that’s possible. Did I get all the words spelled wright????

"DTOM" {1776} " We The People" {1791}

Can you provide a link? And not one I have to scroll past a bunch of alien/ufo stuff to read...

Goggel the topic

"DTOM" {1776} " We The People" {1791}

. . . must be ratified by the US Senate. So you think that the US Senate, 100 people who couldn't agree on what kind of pizza to order, will somehow support a treaty, the intent of which is to have all Americans surrender their weapons? Holy shit you're nuts as hell.
Oh, and while you're clinging to your guns (and religion); remember that the weapon of choice for the US military is a precision guided munition fired from an airplane 30 miles away. So, you know, get some extra 12 gauge shells . . .


Most of the liberals will vote for it, then its ratified. so you believe that the military's going to blow everone up who doesn't comply.

"DTOM" {1776} " We The People" {1791}

2/3 of the US Senate.... not going to happen.

The Treaty does concern me for its wording but yes, it will not pass Senate ratification. I do think current Senate rules only call for 60 for passage and not 66 but orginally 2/3rds or 66 was the number if it has not been changed.

Additionally, with most of the treaties and executive orders many times much adieu is made about nothing regardless who is President. Liberals accused President Bush of doing the same thing as ruling via Executive Order much as Conservatives are doing with President Obama. i.e. last week there was a report that "President turns control of the internet over to DHS". When one reads the EO this is not what was signed.

Of note: IF somehow this Treaty were ratified by the Senate then that trumps US Code. Now again, the President then has the ability to take the treaty and issue an EO to the DoD, DoJ or DHS as to how they are to define the enforcement of that treaty but it would be possible to use a treaty to circumvent an Amendment(s) to the Constitution to include the Bill of Rights.


No President would ever sign a treaty which would allow any power, foreign or domestic, to disarm Amreican citizens. And no U.S. Senate would concur in such a ridiculous decision. The gun lobby is so strong, the U.S. can't even outlaw semi-automatic human killing devices like the one used in Aurora, for heaven's sake!

Mikey -- it still takes a 2/3 vote in the Senate to concur with a President's decision to sign a treaty. The vote total needed is 67 of the 100 members of the Senate, since 66 would not be a full 2/3 of the 100 senators.

I do have to agree with SensorG. We heard the same idiocy about Clinton taking away everybody's guns. It didn't happen then, and it isn't happening now.

And, to state again, I fully support the 2nd Amendment. I have a son-in-law who is, literally, a card-carrying member of the NRA. His father shot at and scared away a home invader about a year ago. And I will stand with them and any gun owner if any government tries to take away guns from law-abiding citizens!
Sorry that I don't fit into your neat stereotype of a political liberal.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.