PDA

View Full Version : Video: Dick Morris reveals Obama's plans for gun control


tankarian
05-10-2012, 8:16 AM
http://www.dickmorris.com/obamas-secret-gun-control-plan-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/

Not an international law expert but what he says makes sense.

vantec08
05-10-2012, 8:21 AM
Absolutely, 100%, entirely believable.

tankarian
05-10-2012, 8:26 AM
Absolutely, 100%, entirely believable.


So what you're saying is such a treaty can become law and force gun registration WITHOUT THE PEOPLE'S CONGRESS APPROVAL as long as the Democrat lame duck Senate will sign for it?
That's cause enough for civil war.

Don'tBlink
05-10-2012, 8:48 AM
I am sure that Obama and Hillary dream at night about making this happen, but getting a 2/3 majority in the Senate to ratify this type of treaty is pretty far fetched. And of course, as stated in other threads, our Constitution would trump this (previous SCOTUS decision) anyway.

Morris is trying to sell more books.

vantec08
05-10-2012, 8:50 AM
So what you're saying is such a treaty can become law and force gun registration WITHOUT THE PEOPLE'S CONGRESS APPROVAL as long as the Democrat lame duck Senate will sign for it?
That's cause enough for civil war.

No. A lame duck senate sure as hell could.

JDoe
05-10-2012, 9:07 AM
The topic makes for a lively discussion but the possiblities and the answers dismissing the concept of Obama planning Back Door Gun Control via Treaty using Lame Duck Senate (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=8546772#post8546772) as unachievable was dealt with a few days ago.

CessnaDriver
05-10-2012, 9:15 AM
Obama WILL go all "gangsta" on us as Chris Rock said if he gets a second term.

OleCuss
05-10-2012, 9:57 AM
I've no doubt that Obama would be dictator for life if given the chance. I've no doubt that his best dreams would prove a nightmare for us all.

But I think Dick Morris is being a bit unhinged on his latest rants. The arms treaty he is invoking is not at all likely to be ratified. If it were ratified it shouldn't hold up in SCOTUS.

The concern about the Law of the Sea is somewhat better founded along with a number of other things.

Obama is a horrible threat to our liberty but Dick Morris sometimes gets it wrong.

Doheny
05-10-2012, 12:32 PM
The topic makes for a lively discussion but the possiblities and the answers dismissing the concept of Obama planning Back Door Gun Control via Treaty using Lame Duck Senate (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=8546772#post8546772) as unachievable was dealt with a few days ago.

Agreed. :TFH:

Dick Morris is an agent provocateur trying to extend his 15 minutes of infamy.

vantec08
05-10-2012, 12:40 PM
The Senate dems will vote lock-step with any obammy/hillary proposal. I dont trust the GOP Senators to-a-senator.

tankarian
05-10-2012, 12:46 PM
Baghdad Bob strikes again...:rolleyes:

http://www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com/images/_39061593_min-ap-203body.jpg

MindBuilder
05-10-2012, 4:42 PM
The 2nd Amendment might protect us from a gun BAN treaty as long as we still have the Heller five Supreme Court Justices, but the 2nd Amendment probably won't protect us from a gun REGISTRATION treaty, or banning of private sales. The treaty could also probably be made self enacting to avoid need for House approval or enactments. Enough people don't seem to get this, so that this thread should stay open until there is agreement and understanding on these important points. However the last thread on this issue was closed when I brought up that other issue that they don't want discussed here.

vantec08
05-10-2012, 5:06 PM
The 2nd Amendment might protect us from a gun BAN treaty as long as we still have the Heller five Supreme Court Justices, but the 2nd Amendment probably won't protect us from a gun REGISTRATION treaty, or banning of private sales. The treaty could also probably be made self enacting to avoid need for House approval or enactments. Enough people don't seem to get this, so that this thread should stay open until there is agreement and understanding on these important points. However the last thread on this issue was closed when I brought up that other issue that they don't want discussed here.


Agree. It is wayyy too important and possible to treat lightly.

Doheny
05-10-2012, 5:41 PM
Absolutely, 100%, entirely believable.

Nah.

Here's what Snopes had to say about it last time this was going around.

www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp

Yaki
05-10-2012, 5:44 PM
http://www.dickmorris.com/obamas-secret-gun-control-plan-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/

Not an international law expert but what he says makes sense.


Toe suckin Dicky at it again.. :lurk5:

Falstaff
05-10-2012, 5:53 PM
Snopes?

Why people think an outfit staffed by hard corps demoncat operatives and funded by Soros is the final authority on all things controversial is beyond me...

Carnivore
05-10-2012, 5:56 PM
really? this all over again....same stuff just 4 years later...

vantec08
05-10-2012, 6:04 PM
Nah.

Here's what Snopes had to say about it last time this was going around.

www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp


snopes is in the same catagory as hustler magazine, just not as fun

Doheny
05-10-2012, 6:08 PM
Snopes?

Why people think an outfit staffed by hard corps demoncat operatives and funded by Soros is the final authority on all things controversial is beyond me...

Yeah, you're right. We should believe Dick Morris instead, he doesn't have an agenda and he's proven himself trustworthy.

vincewarde
05-10-2012, 6:47 PM
Let's see:

1) Any treaty would have no more effect than a Federal law (It still would be subject to the constitution)

2) It would require 2/3 of the Senate to ratify (one more than 2/3 = 67). A good gauge of support for gun rights in a state is their position on CCW. Right now 41 states are "shall issue" or better. This means that 82 senators are from these states. Clearly some of these senators might vote for the treaty - but no where near enough for it to ever pass. It would probably be easier to get a bill through the House, but then you would need 60 votes in the Senate. Right now any new gun restrictions are DOA.

Unless he wins big and Dems take both houses, the only way Obama could move his anti-gun rights agenda is by appointing new justices to SCOTUS, and using regulatory measures.

It is also worth noting that the president has no role in the constitutional amendment process. Given the current level of support for gun rights, should SCOTUS reverse Heller/McDonald it is very possible that congress would react by passing a clearly worded amendment that provides some level of protection for gun rights. Once it goes out too the states for ratification, only 38 states need to ratify it - not even all the CCW states.

OleCuss
05-10-2012, 7:06 PM
The key to the upcoming election is the SCOTUS. If Obama gets to make another appointment or two you may soon have a horrible lack of liberty.

You could have SCOTUS allowing effective implementation of unratified and unsigned treaties because they are willing to be influenced by an international "norm".

So you get an international "norm" established by a negotiated treaty and it is not that much of a stretch that they would implement it in U.S. case law.

The reason to vote in the upcoming election is the potential for one or more SCOTUS appointments. And if the polls are looking really bad for Obama in July/August it would not surprise me if Ginsburg resigned so that Obama could appoint another radical anti-liberty justice before he left office.

But as it stands right now, it is not clear that the firearms treaty will be successfully negotiated. Bush's negotiations moved things to require a consensus for passage - and it is a little difficult to see the consensus developing for passage. All you need is for Austria to decide that they like exporting Glocks and the treaty may die.

At this time the treaty would not be ratified and the current SCOTUS would not allow it to stand if it were ratified.

Worry instead about possible massive voter fraud.

It is even possible that there will be attempts to foment enough violence to make the populace tolerate a delay in the election to a later time which is more auspicious for Obama. I don't think it would work out all that well for Obama, however, so I sorta doubt it will be tried.

paul0660
05-10-2012, 7:09 PM
The key to the upcoming election is the SCOTUS. If Obama gets to make another appointment or two you may soon have a horrible lack of liberty.

110 percent correct. BHO does not need the UN to screw us up.

MindBuilder
05-10-2012, 7:38 PM
Why do so many here focus only on a gun BAN treaty? The main threat at this time is a treaty requiring REGISTRATION or a ban on PRIVATE SALES. Most of the courts seem to be going with intermediate scrutiny for just about anything short of a complete ban on a type of weaon, and it is not clear at all that registration requirements would be struck down under intermediate scrutiny.

Longer term, a treaty could also cause other problems leading to something like a ban. For example a treaty could require days or even weeks worth of expensive training to get a firearms license. The fees and restrictions could be increased slowly over the years, dwindling the number of gun owners until there wern't enough gun owners to vote for the right and the 2nd could be repealed. Even if a liberal Supreme Court wouldn't overturn Heller in the near future for fear of a more explicit amendment, a liberal court could authorize lots of increasingly expensive little restrictions, slowly boiling the frog.

I think a treaty has considerably more power than a normal federal law because it is passed by a 2/3 majority, at least of the Senate. I think the treaty has the force of the Constitution itself above normal federal laws, except the treaty is second only to the original parts of the constitution and the normal amendments, which were passed with a 3/4 vote of the states.

Kid Stanislaus
05-10-2012, 7:47 PM
Morris is trying to sell more books.



^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^

jrw1911
05-10-2012, 7:49 PM
Probably too late in the SCOTUS nomination cycle for Ginsburg it retire. She's hoping that BO wins and then she'll retire knowing that a young liberal will be nominated in her place.

lilro
05-10-2012, 7:58 PM
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/05/01/executive-order-promoting-international-regulatory-cooperation

Can this international regulation executive order be used to effectively ban guns? I'm not good at lawyer-speak.

Yeah, you're right. We should believe Dick Morris instead, he doesn't have an agenda and he's proven himself trustworthy.

Well snopes IS the creator/graphic designer of BHO's birth certificate...
Why would I think that?

http://whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate.pdf
scroll to the bottom.

Rossi357
05-10-2012, 8:05 PM
http://www.dickmorris.com/obamas-secret-gun-control-plan-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/

Not an international law expert but what he says makes sense.

Dick Morris, one of the country's most infamous prognosticators is at it again.

http://news.yahoo.com/dick-morris-stop-predicting-things-215425153.html

BigDogatPlay
05-10-2012, 8:18 PM
Little Dick the Toe Sucker, along with his wife, is making a pot full of money hawking books about how the Obamunists are going to destroy the nation. Some of it is right on the money. Other parts of it are pure crap. Pure capitalism on display, God bless him for making money.

Even though the Democrats had a filibuster proof majority in the Senate between 2009 and 2011, and still do enjoy a slim majority, not one single bill of substance regarding firearms regulation made it to the president's desk during that time. They failed to do so because there are, quite simply, not enough votes on both sides of the aisle that are unfriendly to lawful firearms ownership. The same story, even more so, exists in the House.

Electing presidents is important stuff to be sure, but we enjoy a majority of votes in our favor in both houses of Congress in large part to the work of NRA across the nation, working together with local affiliates to find, support and elect candidates who are 'friends of ours'. Just because there is a perception that NRA doesn't do **** in California (which isn't true anyway), it doesn't mean they aren't doing **** in the rest of the country.

hefedehefe
05-10-2012, 9:53 PM
The 2nd Amendment might protect us from a gun BAN treaty as long as we still have the Heller five Supreme Court Justices, but the 2nd Amendment probably won't protect us from a gun REGISTRATION treaty, or banning of private sales. The treaty could also probably be made self enacting to avoid need for House approval or enactments. Enough people don't seem to get this, so that this thread should stay open until there is agreement and understanding on these important points. However the last thread on this issue was closed when I brought up that other issue that they don't want discussed here.

What was brought up? PM me :D

CDFingers
05-11-2012, 6:13 AM
Not this again...

http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/ff254/CDFingers/doublefacepalm.gif

Many on this thread have the same opinion as I do, that no UN treaty can trump the Constitution, that a 2/3 majority in the Senate does not exist to ratify the treaty, and that Dick Morris is trying to get more than his allotted fifteen minutes.

Those of you who think this is "the truth" have not properly thought critically about this issue.

Don't be "that guy." Do some research so you can discuss gun laws within the rich context they deserve.

CDFingers

OleCuss
05-11-2012, 8:03 AM
Well, maybe. If Obama wins the forthcoming election and makes a few more SCOTUS appointments you may find that even an unratified treaty trumps the Constitution. For that matter, you may find that a treaty to which we are not even a signatory trumps the Constitution.

The imperative is to save the Constitution from having a 5 or more Ginsburgs on the SCOTUS. Obama must not be re-elected.

General
05-11-2012, 8:08 AM
http://gunowners.org/a05082012.htm

Do what you can to stop this.

Cnynrat
05-11-2012, 8:28 AM
http://www.dickmorris.com/obamas-secret-gun-control-plan-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/

Not an international law expert but what he says makes sense.

No, it really doesn't make sense other than as a cheap way to gin up book sales.

1. Ratification of treaties requires a 2/3 majority of the Senate to vote for the treaty. Even if you thought all Dems would vote for this treaty (I don't believe they would), you are still short of the required votes for ratification.

2. While 0bama may become a loose canon during a lame duck period, it is precisely at this time that he looses virtually all ability to influence the votes of Congress. He's got nothing to trade.

3. Even if by some strange chance the treaty would be ratified, prior case law makes it very clear that Morris is exactly wrong that treaties trump the Constitution. They do take on the force of law, but they do not override the Constitution or the BOR.

That said, I agree we MUST remove 0bama from office. From a 2A perspective the biggest damage he will do in a 2nd term is the opportunity to appoint additional justices to the courts. Beyond the 2A issue, I think our country stands on the brink of ruin as a result of decades of profligate spending. I am not confident Romney will pull us back from the brink, but I am overwhelmingly confident another 4 years of 0bama will push us over the cliff.

nicki
05-11-2012, 2:00 PM
This treaty, the possibility that Obama will be re elected means we need to continue to promote gun rights as civil rights.

Obama is close to losing his landmark healthcare bill, this will be a major setback and will force him back to a drawing board.

The Dems are not going to get 67 senators, the issue is how many republicans will flip.

Most Americans don't really care about international arms sales, they do care about being able to buy their own guns.

Of course we need a different angle on international arms sales, our angle should be that the real purpose of this treaty is to try to disarm rebels who are standing up to oppressive governments.

The purpose of this treaty is to strip the right of self determination and self government around the world. It's real purpose is to suppress human rights.

Rebel groups across the world are already making their own guns just like we will be doing should this treaty ever pass.:43::43:

Nicki

Chontkleer
05-11-2012, 2:02 PM
Snopes?

Why people think an outfit staffed by hard corps demoncat operatives and funded by Soros is the final authority on all things controversial is beyond me...

I know, right? Even the Snopes debunker debunkers are getting debunked these days.

PixelBender
05-12-2012, 12:34 PM
really? this all over again....same stuff just 4 years later...

Thats what I said...

*face palm*

This is the same "Hillary UN Treaty" nonsense.

Doheny
05-12-2012, 12:41 PM
Don't be "that guy." Do some research so you can discuss gun laws within the rich context they deserve.

Well put.

Don't ever be that guy.

/thread!

Full Clip
05-12-2012, 12:42 PM
Scare hype.
And I don't need it to be anti BHO.

ja308
05-13-2012, 9:28 AM
Yup
Just because the NRA says treaties are a threat to 2A does not mean they are.
Just because GOA says treaties are a threat to 2A does not mean they are .
Just because SAF says treaties are a threat to 2A does not mean they are .
Just because EVERY credible 2A advocate has stated treaties and the UN charter are a threat to 2A does not mean treaties and the UN charter are a threat to 2A.

I PREFER to IGNORE EVERY CREDIBLE ,EFFECTIVE GUN RIGHTS GROUP and BELIEVE the CALGUNNERS above WHO HAVE SUCH a GREAT ,NO SUPER GREAT TRACK RECORD here in the Golden State on preserving and furthering our 2A rights

thank you OP for posting takes guts to rattle a cage .

a1fabweld
05-13-2012, 9:56 AM
Snopes?

Why people think an outfit staffed by hard corps demoncat operatives and funded by Soros is the final authority on all things controversial is beyond me...

THANK YOU!!!! Why the F*** would anyone put any faith in this self proclaimed bringer of truth organization? Sheeple maybe?

ja308
05-13-2012, 9:19 PM
THANK YOU!!!! Why the F*** would anyone put any faith in this self proclaimed bringer of truth organization? Sheeple maybe?

I am beginning to think the democratic party has put it's operatives in most large forums.
Clearly we have way to many anti gunners anti 2a folks for a gun rights forum .
Earlier I googled Cass Sunstein and this was sort of the idea he had ,only his was more radical .

Whaever the case ,these laws and cal-gunners defense of even the most restrictive laws . And then total lunacy like blaming Reagan for a 1976 law to move focus away from today is driving away 2a folks from the golden state.

Once cali is captured and in democratic hands with total power, watch the exodus from cali to free states ,where they will repeat the tactic.

tankarian
05-14-2012, 8:09 AM
So what I understood so far is:

1. The treaty cannot lead to an outright gun confiscation because it will come in conflict with the 2nd Amendment.

2. However, (and considering the current political makeup of the US Senate) it is entirely possible to lead to gun registration which is not protected under the same Amendment of the US Constitution.

Question: since history teaches us that gun registration is always followed by gun confiscation, I wonder why so many gun owners who replied to this thread are so quick to dismiss what Dick Morris said?

Oh, and FYI: acting like middle school kids and calling him all sort of names isn't helping your argument.

vantec08
05-14-2012, 9:56 AM
So what I understood so far is:

1. The treaty cannot lead to an outright gun confiscation because it will come in conflict with the 2nd Amendment.

2. However, (and considering the current political makeup of the US Senate) it is entirely possible to lead to gun registration which is not protected under the same Amendment of the US Constitution.

Question: since history teaches us that gun registration is always followed by gun confiscation, I wonder why so many gun owners who replied to this thread are so quick to dismiss what Dick Morris said?

Oh, and FYI: acting like middle school kids and calling him all sort of names isn't helping your argument.



Seems many get hung up on "consfiscation." A harvest doesnt start with the harvest, starts with the seed planting.

ja308
05-14-2012, 10:05 AM
So what I understood so far is:

1. The treaty cannot lead to an outright gun confiscation because it will come in conflict with the 2nd Amendment.

2. However, (and considering the current political makeup of the US Senate) it is entirely possible to lead to gun registration which is not protected under the same Amendment of the US Constitution.

Question: since history teaches us that gun registration is always followed by gun confiscation, I wonder why so many gun owners who replied to this thread are so quick to dismiss what Dick Morris said?

Oh, and FYI: acting like middle school kids and calling him all sort of names isn't helping your argument.

Do you think my above post could be accurate ? or is it more likely we have a matthew 7:6 situation?

vantec08
05-14-2012, 10:14 AM
Do you think my above post could be accurate ? or is it more likely we have a matthew 7:15 situation?

You know, with the shift in demographics at present and considering the future - - it makes sense the nation will divide into COTUS states and states that make-it-up-as-they-go.

ja308
05-14-2012, 10:18 AM
You know, with the shift in demographics at present and considering the future - - it makes sense the nation will divide into COTUS states and states that make-it-up-as-they-go.


COTUS --am missing the acroymn at present .
The quote I wanted was matthew7;6 sorry for the lack og brain power this am:D

vantec08
05-14-2012, 10:42 AM
Constitution of the United States

loather
05-14-2012, 11:45 AM
This **** again? This is like a dupe a billion times over.

Constitution trumps treaty. End. Of. Story.

And, with the current make-up of Congress: Will. Not. Happen.

Mods, can we lock this one?

tankarian
05-14-2012, 2:22 PM
This **** again? This is like a dupe a billion times over.
Really? Show me where the previous nine hundred ninety nine million, nine hundred ninety nine thousand, nine hundred ninety nine times threads have been posted already

Constitution trumps treaty. End. Of. Story.

No, it is not the end of the story just cuz you're sayn' so bro. While it can prevent outright confiscation, the US Constitution does NOT have an amendment that interdicts the REGISTRATION of privately owned guns. And we all know what happens after the government knows who owns guns and how many, don't we?

And, with the current make-up of Congress: Will. Not. Happen.

This reveals how clueless you are. Congress doesn't even have a say in ratifying such treaty, the US Senate does. Last time I checked the Senate is controlled by the Democrats.

Mods, can we lock this one?

You need to submit this report (http://www.scribd.com/doc/7771818/Butt-Hurt-Report-Form) to the mods in order for the thread to be locked down.
Good luck. ;)

vantec08
05-14-2012, 2:41 PM
This reveals how clueless you are. Congress doesn't even have a say in ratifying such treaty, the US Senate does. Last time I checked the Senate is controlled by the Democrats.


uh huh. Looks like "can we lock this one" is a kid whistling past the graveyard.

OleCuss
05-14-2012, 3:36 PM
It is, of course, of note that the Senate is frequently considered to be a part of the "Congress".

But you know? I don't think there is much chance that the Senate could pass the treaty which is currently being negotiated. Remember the required margin and look at the number of upcoming contested seats. It just doesn't look very likely.

But the flip side is that Obama wouldn't be the first person in the White House who effectively began implementation of an unratified treaty. And if Obama gets a couple of SCOTUS appointments it won't matter even if the treaty fails at every level - he'll pretty much get SCOTUS implementing European standards as they "inform" our Constitution.

Obama's re-election is what is to be feared.

tankarian
05-14-2012, 5:22 PM
It is, of course, of note that the Senate is frequently considered to be a part of the "Congress".

Obviously. The Senate is the part of the Congress where the fattest, laziest and most corrupt cats live. And it is the part which indeed has the power to ratify the international treaties.

But you know? I don't think there is much chance that the Senate could pass the treaty which is currently being negotiated. Remember the required margin and look at the number of upcoming contested seats. It just doesn't look very likely.

Please let me remind you that last year nobody would have thought the same Senate (where the Democrats barely hold majority) would have passed a law they didn't even read, requiring everyone in America to buy healthcare insurance or pay a fine. A law that every single opinion poll said it was unpopular with the American people by a margin of 60% to 40% and now the SCOTUS seems to be ready to strike down as unconstitutional. Yet, the law was passed in the Senate in the middle of the night by using bribery and political blackmailing.
How certain are you it won't happen again?

But the flip side is that Obama wouldn't be the first person in the White House who effectively began implementation of an unratified treaty. And if Obama gets a couple of SCOTUS appointments it won't matter even if the treaty fails at every level - he'll pretty much get SCOTUS implementing European standards as they "inform" our Constitution.Obama's re-election is what is to be feared.


We absolutely agree on that. But let us not forget modern liberalism is both a mental disease and a modern day religious cult. And you know you cannot count these kind of people to act like rational individuals, don't you?

OleCuss
05-14-2012, 6:05 PM
.
.
.
Please let me remind you that last year nobody would have thought the same Senate (where the Democrats barely hold majority) would have passed a law they didn't even read, requiring everyone in America to buy healthcare insurance or pay a fine. A law that every single opinion poll said it was unpopular with the American people by a margin of 60% to 40% and now the SCOTUS seems to be ready to strike down as unconstitutional. Yet, the law was passed in the Senate in the middle of the night by using bribery and political blackmailing.
How certain are you it won't happen again?
.
.
.

On this we would disagree. There were plenty of us who thought that passage of ObamaCare was entirely possible. We thought it was stupid, unforgiveable, ruinous, unethical, fascist, and a whole lot of other things - but not particularly unlikely.

And it is very, very common for legislators to vote in favor of legislation which they have neither read nor understood.

Also, anyone who has tracked party discipline would never have ruled out a strict partisan vote on the part of the Democrats and Republicans. The question was whether the Obama people would be willing to pay the price.

In this case, however, party discipline works against Obama. If the Republicans can exercise party discipline, then the Democrats will never be able to get the requisite 67 votes. Oh, if in November the Republicans lose the vast majority of the contested seats it could become a more significant possibility. Lugar losing his primary may be a bit of a problem in this regard, however, since if he is still in office when the Law of the Sea and a few others come before the Senate he may break ranks - no re-election means that party discipline becomes weak in his case.

But right now the idea is not to worry about the treaty overly much other than making sure the Republicans understand that we will not tolerate their cooperating with Obama on this stuff.

As you know, the key which we must constantly come back to is defeating Obama.

If Obama wins re-election he is going to appoint/nominate the most radically fascist SCOTUS justices which you could imagine. And the Republicans are likely to fold on these fascists. You end up with a court which would allow international treaties to have precedence over the Constitution and you wouldn't even have to have a treaty for them to adopt fascist sensibilities from other countries.

Obama/Romney is the necessary focus.

Not that I'll ever be a fan of Romney, but compared to Obama he is a paragon of liberty.