We The People Versus Our Lawless Elected Officials
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2255411/posts
Posted on 2009-05-21 08:57:28 AM by Uncle Sham
We the People have a serious problem facing us. We have an out of control government hell-bent on further enslaving us at breakneck speed. This government displays a piece of paper every now and then called the Constitution, mostly at election time in an effort to comfort us into thinking that somehow it is being obeyed. We know differently, don’t we?
We have a person pretending to be President who has yet to prove to me or to anyone else for that matter that he is actually eligible to serve under the provisions of Article two of the Constitution. Our elected officials, as you will see below, are REQUIRED to ensure that he is in fact eligible. It is our job as citizens to put the heat on them (our elected officials) to do their primary job as defined in the Constituion, to “support it”. We have the legal case to do this and I’m going to post this so that EVERYONE who thinks we are powerless to do something about this understands how best to go about it. We need to find the legal remedy enabling us to charge our representatives with disobeying their oaths of office and start removing them one by one. Here is the case.
Exhibit A, The Twentieth Amendment, Section 3 reads as follows:
” ”3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President electshall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.”
Exhibit B U. S. Code, CITE: 3USC19
TITLE 3–THE PRESIDENT, CHAPTER 1- PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS AND VACANCIES
Sec. 19. Vacancy in offices of both President and Vice President; officers eligible to act
”(a)(1) If, by reason of death, resignation, removal from office, inability, or failure to qualify, there is neither a President nor Vice President to discharge the powers and duties of the office of President, then the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, upon his resignation as Speaker and as Representative in Congress, act as President. “
Exhibit C: U. S. Constitution, Article Six Oath of Office for elected officials:
” The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
Exhibit D: The Electoral Vote Counting Act of 1877:
The process currently provides that someone “challenge” the electoral votes during a short, specified time frame while the Electoral College votes are opened and tabulated. This process does not cover challenges to “eligibility” qualifications. In fact, if this act pretends to do so in the manner in which it prescribes, it is unconstitutional. Any act of this sort that does not require that qualifications be presented by the President elect serves to undercut the provisions in the Constitution itself. No act that does not support the Constitution is constitutional. In order to change the requirements of the Twentieth amendment, one would need to pass another amendment. An “Act” doesn’t cut the mustard.
The portion in bold stating “or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify” in section three is particularly interesting in that it plainly seems to infer that a “qualification” of some sort must be made in order to serve as President. Certainly, one cannot argue that it does not require a qualification process for one to “qualify”. To infer that the lack of a “specified” qualification process means that stated eligibility “qualifications” for the office of president can be ignored is fallacious. The wording of this passage in the twentieth amendment clearly infers that a qualification is required, regardless of how this is done.
There is only one set of qualifications listed anywhere in the Constitution that are not health related and they are listed in Article two, section one.
” No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
To satisfy meeting the requirement of the twentieth amendment to “qualify”, a president elect must present evidence that he meets it’s requirements for eligibility to serve. This means that a proper birth certificate HAD to be presented by the president elect in order to serve as president. If this was done, where is that certificate and to whom was it presented? If this was done, why would we not have the right to verify and inspect it under the freedom of information act?
If it was NOT done, then under the provisions of the twentieth amendment, Barrack Obama has “failed to qualify” and should not be serving as president of the United States of America.
Based upon the above, I conclude that:
1. We currently have a vacancy at President because no one has yet “qualified” as required in the Twentieth amendment. The terms “The President elect shall have failed to qualify” clearly places this burden upon the President elect and not on someone raising their hand in objection.
2. Anyone serving in Congress (see “Congress” in bold in Exhibit A), or anyone who is currently serving under the oath of office in Article six has “standing” and can DEMAND that their oaths be met by receiving proper “qualifying” documentation from Mr. Obama. This charade at the time of counting the Electoral College votes does not limit their ability to do so at any time they so choose. The very fact that they are duty-bound by oath to “support” the Constitution REQUIRES them to respond to any and all attacks against it. No judge can deny any of them the standing to do so. It would ask them to break the law in their effort to enforce the law.
3. We need to start pressing legal charges against all of our local representatives and senators covered by the oath of office in Article six for disobeying their oaths to support the Constitution as it pertains to the language of section three of the Twentieth amendment. Put PRESSURE on them to represent the document that gives them their authority in the first place. We are looking into how best to do this down here. We all should be looking into this approach. NOW.
TOPICS: Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: birth; birthcertificate; certificate; certifigate; constitution; obama
Keep this train rolling! I’m sending this to my Senators and Rep. If they get enough of this they may actually “think” about doing something.
They get by with this because they think that they have us in a position of fear. Also, if you look around the country, 50% of the fools out there think that this is cute. Most of them do not work nor do they file taxes. But they get to vote. Until such time as you all gather and confront these elected fools, let me highlight that—CONFRONT—. Until such time as they believe that they are going to be held individually accountable in some way that makes them fear for their being, this is going to continue.
I dont know what it is going to take, but there are enough devious and legal minds here that someone should be able to come up with something. These elected fools have to be made to respect the people. Right now they think that they are your owners and managers. They think that once they get elected it empowers them to control you. We have allowed that to happen. Just look at the damn-fool bills and laws that have been introduced lately. Also look at how they have been able with devious means to spike bills such as Texas’ sovereignty bill. Why? Because it would take them off the public tit……….wasnt that the intent in the first place?
Folks have to make a decision whether they are going to stand up or whether they will remain sheeple. It all begins with catching these politicians when they come home and scaring the fool out of them.
Good threat. Pinging for later when I can read ALL of it!!!!!
Fighting Communism all over the globe for most of the 20th century seems in retrospect like a wasted effort now we have a Communist usurper as President.
In the meantime, spread the word.
Jim, this is one thing we can ALL start doing. If there are legal types who have ideas about how best to approach this, it would be of great benefit to this effort.
a ping for your valued input.
Congressman Billybob, You expressed skepticism at whether or not one of our representatives would stand up for the Constitution on this issue. What can We the People do to such a coward, legally, because of this refusal?
This is an excellent issue you have put together.
The first thing that needs to be done is to change the status quo. These idiots in the WH aren’t blind, they aren’t daft, they aren’t even stupid….they know exactly what they’re doing. They are stomping on the Constitution because they have the power to do it. They don’t care about values, principles, and the like. I’ll guarantee that half of them don’t even give a crapt about our country. All they care about is enriching themselves, and making sure they get voted back in. This comes from all the money, greed, and corruption that each of them has their fingers in. So, who in power is around to stop them?
Your read is excellent in that yes, everyone should keep sending this to officials that might change their minds & do something. Keep sending it over & over, like 3-4 times, if not more, a day. Right now might be the best time, because there are little divisions going on right now everywhere in the house, and in the same party.
Another thing, equally important, is to expose the corrupt corporations that are giving members in the WH their power. I’ve recently heard that the FBI is more than happy to go after subsidiaries of ACORN. (Just tonight it was said that Theresa Heinz Kerry has contributed over 8 million dollars to Tides…a subsidiary of ACORN). I think we are going to find that a lot of our politicians got their hands in this somewhere.
From the Link:
Federal law regulating oath of office by government officials is divided into four parts along with an executive order which further defines the law for purposes of enforcement. 5 U.S.C. 3331, provides the text of the actual oath of office members of Congress are required to take before assuming office. 5 U.S.C. 3333 requires members of Congress sign an affidavit that they have taken the oath of office required by 5 U.S.C. 3331 and have not or will not violate that oath of office during their tenure of office as defined by the third part of the law, 5 U.S.C. 7311 which explicitly makes it a federal criminal offense (and a violation of oath of office) for anyone employed in the United States Government (including members of Congress) to “ advocate the overthrow of our constitutional form of government”. The fourth federal law, 18 U.S.C. 1918 provides penalties for violation of oath office described in 5 U.S.C. 7311 which include: (1) removal from office and; (2) confinement or a fine. Alright, this is a start.
Continuing from my last post, I believe we can change the status quo in 2010. It’s obvious that even with legal help, the higher courts aren’t going for it. Changing the bodies, and then going after them is what I suggest. I just pray we can hold out that long.
Expose BillyBob for what he is. Expose all of them. We need to get the word out so the vote brings the change we need.
The eligibility case I’ve outlined above will work. I’m quite sure that there are hundreds more to find and go after. Thanks for the help!
Its on, and the political class is facing a culling.
I suggest 2010 because I haven’t been able to find any attorneys here, in Michigan, who think my case is valid. I have quoted areas of the Constitution that we all know have been violated, but I’m told that it isn’t enough to prove wrong doing.
We have a gov here who is in bed with everyone, I even hear she might be looking to win the house next election. The WH @ssholes got their hands in our car companies here and God knows what else.
If you can find legal help in your state, please ping me & I will get a hold of your legal people, and ask them if they can recommend anyone to us here in Michigan. Surely these attorneys will know others like them.
Like I said, these were Const. Attorneys, or so they say. It was like I was talking to a wall. I even went as far as approaching a law professor at the University I attend, to see if they would consider taking this on….no go!
So let us all know what legal institution or firm you get in with, and maybe they can direct us in who to talk to in our states.
“5 U.S.C. 3333 requires members of Congress sign an affidavit that they have taken the oath of office required by 5 U.S.C. 3331 and have not or will not violate that oath of office during their tenure of office as defined by the third part of the law, 5 U.S.C. 7311 which explicitly makes it a federal criminal offense (and a violation of oath of office) for anyone employed in the United States Government (including members of Congress) to **ADVOCATE** the overthrow of our constitutional form of government”(EMPHASES MINE)
The problem is that, at face, — unless we can prove otherwise — their culpability appears to be ‘tacit’ rather than ‘actively’ participating to overthrow or subvert the constitution.
It’s an ‘act’ of omission analogous to a policeman ‘looking the other way’ when a crime is being committed and, therefore, hard to prove.
In short: a ‘conspiracy’ of silence.
We need hard EVIDENCE from someone ‘high up’ who would be willing to ‘rat out’ the party or parties directly involved … EVIDENCE that would prove that government officials in Congress WILLFULLY — and ACTIVELY — violated their oaths of office.
There MUST be a ‘deep throat’, somewhere, willing to help.
Did somebody mention the FBI?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/31/AR2005053100655.html
STE=Q
I have an answer for you. It’s in the Constitution and I’ll post it a little later tonight. Read that document. We have multiple attack points from which to press legal cases.
I’m working on another angle of attack as well as this one, all from a Constitutional perspective. Stay tuned.
Thanks for your reply.
STE=Q
Thank you very much for that. I’ll keep looking.
Ignoring any portion of the Constitution is equivalent to ignoring all of it. It is not now, nor ever has been a “pick and choose” document. The document itself in Article Six says:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
Another passage from Article Four, Section four says:
“Section 4 – Republican government The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.”
Now, what does this passage mean to you? To me it means that we as a nation are a “representative republic” whereby our wishes and demands are represented by someone who “represents” them on our behalf. This passage “guarantees” to every state that we will be “represented”. Think about this guarantee for a moment. Are we being represented, if our legislator is absent during votes? Are we being represented if our legislator doesn’t know the content of that which he cast votes for or against? What’s the difference? This goes beyond just the oath of office because now this “guarantee” is also being compromised.
… And I did a little research, as follows:
Republic (n)
1: a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and is usually a president; also: a nation or other political unit having such a government
2: a government in which supreme power is held by the citizens entitled to VOTE and is exercised by elected officers and representatives governing according to LAW; also: a nation or other political unit having such a form of government(Emphases Mine)
Notice #2: The SUPREME POWER of ‘The Citizens’ is transfered by the agency of the citizens VOTE to Officers and REPRESENTATIVES who then become empowered to govern — on behalf of the citizens — according to LAW.
Now once we EMPOWER the aforementioned REPRESENTATIVES to govern on our behalf, through the agency of our VOTE; the most obvious way to dis-empower them, is ALSO, though the agency of our vote.
I also found this little “gem” as follows:
GUARANTEE OF REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT
The first clause of this section, in somewhat different language, was contained in the Virginia Plan introduced in the Convention and was obviously attributable to Madison. 321 Through the various permutations into its final form, 322 the object of the clause seems clearly to have been more than an authorization for the Federal Government to protect States against foreign invasion or internal insurrection, 323 a power seemingly already conferred in any case. 324 No one can now resurrect the full meaning of the clause and intent which moved the Framers to adopt it, but with the exception of the reliance for a brief period during Reconstruction the authority contained within the confines of the clause has been largely unexplored. 325
In Luther v. Borden, 326 the Supreme Court established the doctrine that questions arising under this section are political, not judicial, in character and that “it rests with Congress to decide what government is the established one in a State . . . as well as its republican character…”
So — according to the Supreme Court — CONGRESS must GUARANTEE: A Republican form of Government.
The KEY word here is GUARANTEE.
So my question is this:
What LAWS have Congress passed in order to “guarantee” a Republican Form of Government?
Who will oversee this “GUARANTEE” if the Supreme Court won’t!
THE AMERICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT (copy and past)
Excerpt:
When Ben Franklin exited the constitutional convention he was asked by a woman:
‘Sir, what have you given us?’
He replied ‘A Republic Ma am, if you can keep it’
Apparently, the burden is on “We the People” to restore the republic, before it’s too late!
We must keep the issue of Obama’s hiding his citizenship status — in plain sight of The United States Congress — alive!
STE=Q
BUMP!
Thanks for the bump. This issue deserves it.
From the very beginning of obama’s refusal to show his BC, I mentioned a class action lawsuit. For some reason I was told it was not possible. Say 5 million people, getting together and paying a dollar each for a attorney to do one thing, get the BC. What attorney would say no to that?
what are the legal terms of a class action lawsuit? We have enough people online to do this. Look at the tea party participant numbers.
There are attorneys and groups who fight for the people. I know there is a big one in Washington.
http://www.citizen.org/litigation/forms/cases/casesbytopic_Date.cfm
One of the lawsuits filed was over Franklin Raines and line item veto. What? Imagine that. I have read one of the cases the attorneys fought and won. His name was Greg Beck but he does cases about online fair use laws. From my reading they seem totally involved in citizens rights as according to the laws.
http://www.tlpj.org/ I know nothing about this one.
There is another one that I can’t remember the name of. They fought for all of those college students who got stung uploading songs.
Why would these non profits not look into this? The other problem is someone has to have asked already.
“5 U.S.C. 3333 requires members of Congress sign an affidavit that they have taken the oath of office required by 5 U.S.C. 3331 and have not or will not violate that oath of office during their tenure of office as defined by the third part of the law, 5 U.S.C.
Anyone have the Pelosi signed document she vetted obama properly?
I don’t think we need a class-action lawsuit because those representatives of ours have the “standing” by virtue of their oath of office in Article Six of the Constitution. It is up to us, the little folks to put LEGAL pressure on each of our representatives to live up to their oath of office or just admit that the Constitution is worthless. Guess what. If it’s worthless, they can no longer claim powers granted to them by it. We don’t have to respect it either. Let’s put them in that corner.
Mike Gallagher had a program today on the ‘missing BC’.
Haven’t we tried to do that? Look at all the money spent for full page ads and the lawsuits. What the h*ll is going on? I am beginning to think this was one big conspiracy to turn our nation into socialism and our GOP are a part of it.
After Orly confronted two SCOTUS judges did they ever answer her?
Update me what you figure out. Cheney is on the lawsuit to answer June 21st.
http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/category/lawyers/mario-apuzzo/
I think a lot has been done to corner everyone unless they dumb, deaf and blind.
this website has weekly teleconference on obama’s eligibility. You can call in and ask questions or give your ideas. They all work together once they have a plan too. The past calls are available.
As I said before, the Fifth Amendment has created a paradox in this situation. I don’t have time right now to go into this deeper, but I will later.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
Great Letter to NOBAMA in NOBAMANATION
COPY AND PASTE THIS HERE!!!!!
http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/
If YOU dare!
April 17, 2009
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500
Mr. Obama:
I have had it with you and your administration, sir. Your conduct on your recent trip overseas has convinced me that you are not an adequate representative of the United States of America collectively or of me personally.
You are so obsessed with appeasing the Europeans and the Muslim world that you have abdicated the responsibilities of the President of the United States of America. You are responsible to the citizens of the United States. You are not responsible to the peoples of any other country on earth.
I personally resent that you go around the world apologizing for the United States telling Europeans that we are arrogant and do not care about their status in the world. Sir, what do you think the First World War and the Second World War were all about if not the consideration of the peoples of Europe? Are you brain dead? What do you think the Marshall Plan was all about? Do you not understand or know the history of the 20th century?
Where do you get off telling a Muslim country that the United States does not consider itself a Christian country? Have you not read the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution of the United States?
This country was founded on Judeo-Christian ethics and the principles governing this country, at least until you came along, come directly from this heritage. Do you not understand this?
Your bowing to the king of Saudi Arabia is an affront to all Americans. Our President does not bow down to anyone, let alone the king of Saudi Arabia. You do not show Great Britain, our best and one of our oldest allies, the respect they deserve yet you bow down to the king of Saudi Arabia. How dare you, sir! How dare you!
You can’t find the time to visit the graves of our greatest generation because you don’t want to offend the Germans but make time to visit a mosque in Turkey. You offended our dead and every veteran when you give the Germans more respect than the people who saved the German people from themselves. What’s the matter with you?
I am convinced that you and the members of your administration have the historical and intellectual depth of a mud puddle and should be ashamed of yourselves, all of you.
You are so self-righteously offended by the big bankers and the American automobile manufacturers yet do nothing about the real thieves in this situation, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Frank, Franklin Raines, Jamie Gorelic, the Fannie Mae bonuses, and the Freddie Mac bonuses. What do you intend to do about them? Anything? I seriously doubt it.
What about the U.S. House members passing out $9.1 million in bonuses to their staff members – on top of the $2.5 million in automatic pay raises that lawmakers gave themselves? I understand the average House aide got a 17% bonus. I took a 5% cut in my pay to save jobs with my employer. You haven’t said anything about that. Who authorized that?
I surely didn’t!
Executives at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will be receiving $210 million in bonuses over an eighteen-month period, that’s $45 million more than the AIG bonuses. In fact, Fannie and Freddie executives have already been awarded $51 million – not a bad take. Who authorized that and why haven’t you expressed your outrage at this group who are largely responsible for the economic mess we have right now.
I resent that you take me and my fellow citizens as brain-dead and not caring about what you idiots do. We are watching what you are doing and we are getting increasingly fed up with all of you. I also want you to know that I personally find just about everything you do and say to be offensive to every one of my sensibilities. I promise you that I will work tirelessly to see that you do not get a chance to spend two terms destroying my beautiful country.
Sincerely,
Every real American
P.S. I rarely ask that emails be ‘passed around’………….PLEASE SEND THIS TO YOUR EMAIL LIST……it’s past time for all Americans to wake up!
Obama Pushing Treaty To Ban Reloading
Remember CANDIDATE Barack Obama? The guy who “wasn’t going to take away our guns”?
Well, guess what? Less than 100 days into his administration, he’s never met a gun he didn’t hate. A week ago, Obama went to Mexico, whined about the United States, and bemoaned (before the whole world) the fact that he didn’t have the political power to take away our semi-automatics. Nevertheless, that didn’t keep him from pushing additional restrictions on American gun owners. It’s called the Inter-American Convention Against Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, and Other Related Materials. To be sure, this imponderable title masks a really nasty piece of work.
First of all, when the treaty purports to ban the “illicit” manufacture of firearms, what does that mean?
1. “Illicit manufacturing” of firearms is defined as “assembly of firearms [or] ammunition… without a license….” Hence, reloading ammunition — or putting together a lawful firearm from a kit — is clearly “illicit manufacturing.” Modifying a firearm in any way would surely be “illicit manufacturing.” And, while it would be a stretch, assembling a firearm after cleaning it could, in any plain reading of the words, come within the screwy definition of “illicit manufacturing.”
2. “Firearm” has a similarly questionable definition. “[A]ny other weapon” is a “firearm,” according to the treaty — and the term “weapon” is nowhere defined. So, is a BB gun a “firearm”? Probably. A toy gun? Possibly. A pistol grip or firing pin? Probably. And who knows what else. If these provisions (and others) become the law of the land, the Obama administration could have a heyday in enforcing them. Consider some of the other provisions in the treaty:
* Banning Reloading. In Article IV of the treaty, countries commit to adopting “necessary legislative or other measures” to criminalize illicit manufacturing and trafficking in firearms.
Remember that “illicit manufacturing” includes reloading and modifying or assembling a firearm in any way. This would mean that the Obama administration could promulgate regulations banning reloading on the basis of this treaty — just as it is currently circumventing Congress to write legislation taxing greenhouse gases.
* Banning Gun Clubs. Article IV goes on to state that the criminalized acts should include “association or conspiracy” in connection with said offenses — which is arguably a term broad enough to allow, by
regulation, the criminalization of entire pro-gun organizations or gun clubs, based on the facilities which they provide their membership.
* Extraditing US Gun Dealers. Article V requires each party to “adopt such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over the offenses it has established in accordance with this Convention” under a variety of circumstances.
We know that Mexico is blaming U.S. gun dealers for the fact that its streets are flowing with blood. And we know it is possible for Mexico to define offenses “committed in its territory” in a very broad way.
And we know that we have an extradition obligation under Article XIX of the proposed treaty. So we know that Mexico could try to use the treaty to demand to extradition of American gun dealers.
Under Article XXIX, if Mexico demands the extradition of a lawful American gun dealer, the U.S. would be required to resolve the dispute through “other means of peaceful settlement.”
Does anyone want to risk twenty years in a sweltering Mexican jail on the proposition that the Obama administration would apply this provision in a pro-gun manner?
* Microstamping. Article VI requires “appropriate markings” on firearms. And, it is not inconceivable that this provision could be used to require microstamping of firearms and/or ammunition — a requirement which is clearly intended to impose specifications which are not technologically possible or which are possible only at a prohibitively expensive cost.
* Gun Registration. Article XI requires the maintenance of any records, for a “reasonable time,” that the government determines to be necessary to trace firearms. This provision would almost certainly repeal
portions of McClure-Volkmer and could arguably be used to require a national registry or database.
ACTION: Write your Senators and urge them to oppose the Inter-American Convention Against Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, and Other Related Materials.
Please use the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your Senators the pre-written e-mail message below.
—– Pre-written letter —–
Dear Senator:
I am urging you, in the strongest terms, to oppose the Inter-American Convention Against Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, and Other Related Materials.
This anti-gun treaty was written by international bureaucrats who are either stupid or virulently anti-gun — or both.
This treaty could very well ban the ability to reload ammunition, to put new stocks on rifles lawfully owned by American citizens, and, possibly, even ban BB guns!
There are too many problems with this treaty to mention them all in this letter. The rest can be read on the website of Gun Owners of America at: http://www.gunowners.org/fs0901.htm
Please do not tell me the treaty has not yet been abused in this way by the bevy of Third World countries which have signed it. We do not expect the real ramifications of the treaty to become clear until the
big prize — the U.S. — has stepped into the trap.
For all of these reasons, I must insist that you oppose ratification of the treaty.
Sincerely,
****************************
What’s Your Current GOA Status?
Obviously, we now face years of invigorated attacks on our gun rights. Shutting down gun shows, prohibitions on specific calibers, another semi-auto ban, and the anti-gun extremists’ Holy Grail of mandatory federal licensing and registration of all gun owners — these are just some of the horrors that we already know we’ll have to defeat head-on. Not to mention this treaty nonsense. Meanwhile, we’ll take every opportunity to go on offense and advance the Second Amendment.
It can’t be done without every single voice being counted. That’s why we are asking you to consider making the commitment of becoming a Gun Owners of America Life Member. By doing so, you put the politicians on notice that neither you nor GOA is going away — that no matter who’s in the White House, there is always going to be a solid wall of resistance.
Now is a perfect time to become a Life Member. And if you aren’t a GOA member at all, isn’t it time you became one?
Please go to http://gunowners.org/ordergoamem.htm to upgrade your participation in GOA.
****************************
Please do not reply directly to this message, as your reply will bounce back as undeliverable.
To subscribe to free, low-volume GOA alerts, go to http://www.gunowners.org/ean.htm on the web. Change of e-mail address may also be made at that location.
To unsubscribe send a message to gunowners_list@capwiz.mailmanager.net with the word unsubscribe in the subject line or use the url below.
Problems, questions or comments? The main GOA e-mail address goamail@gunowners.org is at your disposal. Please do not add that address to distribution lists sending more than ten messages per week or lists associated with issues other than gun rights.
If Guns Were Treated Like Cars
If Guns Were Treated Like Cars
——————————————————————————–
Reposted with Copright notice.
Copyright 2000 by Ron Miller. All Rights Reserved.
1. You could get a simple license from the State for a nominal fee and only have to take a test that any idiot could pass. You’d only have to renew it every 10 years for 40 years and maybe retake the test if you move out of state.
2. You could kill and injure people with your gun while drunk and still have your lawyer get your gun back because you need it for work.
3. You’d have half the tax burden of the county and State dedicated to improving the shooting ranges and facilities. The public agrees this is never good enough to suit them and with all the gunowners from California moving in, the range capacity will never catch up. Lines at the range are always shown on TV with the newsies deploring the crowding.
4. You could carry in any State at any time because carry and possession of your gun is honored nationwide and is considered a basic American civil right.
5. You would see commercials on TV pushing the newest, latest guns which you could lease for just $25 per month subject to the fine print.
6. You could finance a fancier gun than you can really afford by taking a 5 year loan with approved credit.
7. You would have a gun safe built into every house. In the upscale houses you would have 3 gun safes. Inexpensive houses and mobile homes would just have a gunrack by the door.
8. You’d have gun storage lockers at the shopping mall in which to store your rifle while shopping. This in order to free your arms for packages. The convenience of the shopper is paramount.
9. You could buy ammunition at the 7-11.
Full-service station means they’ll reload your magazines for you.
10. The news would stop reporting gun accidents unless more than 10 children were killed at one time. Onesy-twosey would only be notable in small towns or if Princess Di’s bodyguard shot her while aiming at paparazzi.
11. If the price of ammunition rose 20% the Federal Government would release war reserves of ammo to bring the price back down to the consumer’s comfort level.
Ammo would carry a 50% tax to finance public shooting ranges.
Teapot Dome scandal would have been about a lead mine.
12. We’d teach gunsmithing in vocational-education programs.
13. Every 16 year old would be looking forward to the day when he could take the family revolver to school. The rich kids would get a high-capacity semi-auto pistol on their 16th birthday and endanger everyone when they learn to use it in public.
14. High schools would have large gun lockers to store student’s arms while they attend classes. Administrators would try to charge for the service to discourage teen-age gun carrying to school.
15. Schools would have shooter’s education classes to make sure the kids could pass the test. They would show gory films of gunshot wounds. The squeamish would throw up.
16. Old people who can hardly see would still be permitted to shoot in public because to disarm them would be to damage their self- esteem. Families would wring their hands over holes in the walls and ceiling.
Occasionally an oldster would fire into a schoolyard when they mistake the trigger for the safety. Legislators would refrain from criticizing because of the AARP’s influence.
17. Congress would be debating alternative weapons systems for people who can’t afford their own guns.
18. There would be such a thing as “public weapons” for the masses.
19. Congress would be subsidizing weapons for people too limited in means to afford their own.
20. Congress would be willing to float a loan to Colt’s in order to ensure the survival of an American company against unfair foreign competition. (Think “Chrysler”)
21. We, except for Ralph Nader, would dismiss 40,000 deaths and 500,000 injuries per year as “the price of freedom.”
22. You would have MADS. Mothers Against Drunk Shooters (instead of HCI). MADS would conduct a campaign of public education instead of trying to use the force of government to prohibit irresponsible drinking and shooting.
23. You could rent a gun at any airport if you are over 25 and have a credit card.
24. You would have the fringe-greenies advocating bows and arrows because they think gunsmoke is damaging the environment.
Al Gore would write a book about the damaging effects of gunsmoke.
Al Gore would also claim to have been a handloader before his sister died in a powder fire.
25. You’d have huge outcry in the Press and Congress over our dependence on cheap, imported, foreign ammunition.
26. Ted Kennedy would have shot Mary Jo Kopekne instead. Ted would be a few thousand dollars richer (bullet:$0.25 vs car:$3000)
Ted would stop carrying his own gun and instead, hire bodyguards to carry fully-automatic weapons under their coats for him.
27. You’d have businesses like “Jiffy Gun-Clean” to make life convenient. But you’d always worry that they might not have gotten the magazine fully seated afterwards.
28. You’d have “Classic Gun Events” with parades on public roads as everyone with such a classic carries it for all the public to see.
29. You’d have huge eyesores where piles of guns are left to rust in the open at “Gun Junk Yards”. They would charge you outrageous prices to go out back and pick off a hammer or sear which is probably also worn out like the one you want to replace.
30. There would be a booming business and debate about substituting non-OEM parts in the gun repair business.
31. You’d have TV news crews going under cover with hidden cameras to ferret out “unscrupulous gun smiths.” This story would be “old reliable” and works every year.
32. The Japanese would be trying , and succeeding at taking over the market for efficient, reliable high-quality guns.
The Koreans would be trying to sneak in at the low end of the market.
The Germans would be selling premium brands based on better workmanship, longer life, and brand cachet. But their guns would require you to take it to a gunsmith every 3 months for a complete tear-down and dimensional inspection at outrageous labor rates.
The Italians would paint their guns flaming red and they would have a reputation for being finicky.
The State Department would be applying pressure to get Japan to allow more US-built guns into their country.
The Japanese would resist the US by saying that Japanese shooters have extra-special safety requirements that only Japanese manufacturers can meet.
33. You’d have an entire section of the Saturday Coloradoan devoted to ads for new and used guns.
34. You’d have a pair of fun-loving gunsmiths on Public Radio doing a show on gun problems. They’d be named “Tap & Rack”
35. There would have been a terrible TV show back in the black & white days named “My Mother – The Gun” It starred Jerry Van Dyke and ran just one season.
36. Dean Jones would have made a series of stupid movies starring Herbie the Love-Gun. Herbie was an adorable anthropomorphized cheap German Saturday Night Special. Dean Jones would never show his face in public again after these movies.
37. Competition would be carried on TV all day on Saturdays. The Daytona 500 would be round-count instead of miles. There would be speed contests, endurance contests, and off-range marksmanship events.
NASGUN would create big heroes in the South and extravagant marketing opportunities.
38. High-schools would paint up a gun in the colors of the opposition and charge $.25 for you to swing a sledge hammer at that gun during pep rallys.
39. John Elway would own half the gunstores in the Denver Metro area.
40. Wellington Webb’s wife would be carrying the finest English Double shotgun money can buy while Wellington has body guards to carry his semi-auto pistols for him.
41. Back in the 1970’s during the ammo crisis, Congress would have set a maximum cyclic rate for autos and semi autos in order to conserve ammo.
42. After Iraq was pushed out of Kuwait, the national cyclic rate was raised to something all semi-autos can be comfortable with.
43. The Coloradoan would be publishing the locations of range repair work every week to be sure no one would be inconvenienced.
44. The Beachboys would have released some songs about guns:
“Spring little Cobray gettin’ ready to strike….. Spring little Cobray with all your might…..”
“She’s real fine my Wonder Nine, she’s real fine my Won-der Nine.”
“Fun, fun, fun ’til Daddy takes her Kel-Tec away……”
45. Letters to editors would be written decrying that all those Soccer Moms are lugging .50 cal machine guns around town, wasting ammo and getting in everybody’s way.
46. Letters to editors would be written responding that putting one’s beginning driver son or daughter behind a .50 cal would mean that the writer’s offspring would survive any conflict with lesser armed individuals.
47. Al Gore would claim he invented the .50cal cartridge and say he was sorry.
48. Cities would be experimenting with electric guns but would be surprised to find that people would step in front of them at the range because they were too quiet so no one knew the electric gun was there.
49. President Clinton would demand that electric gun manufacturers put a cowbell on each one to prevent senseless accidents.
50. The National Rifle Association would be reduced to selling travel insurance for your guns because the rest of society will have seen to it that there would be no chance that firearms would ever be banned.
This Information Is From Ron Miller
-
-
Flickr Photos
More Photos
WashingtonWatch- More Bills on the House Floor This Week December 14, 2009
- WashingtonWatch.com Digest – December 14, 2009 December 14, 2009
- Email Outage December 10, 2009
-
FDA Product Recall List
FDA Peanut Product Recall Widget. Flash Player 9 is required. Visit http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/peanutbutterrecall/index.cfm to search for peanut product recalls or call CDC-INFO at 1-800-232-4636 for more information.
