A Real Important Message To Patients

[zaphod]

[/b]

 

MM and his broken promises are one thing but Obama is for a national police force the size of the US military, expansion of the TSA into other forms of mass transit, and on July 27th he'll sign the Arms Trade Treaty with a group of other nations, which will have the force of law until the senate takes up the matter during its lame duck session. The ATT, under the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution, would have the power of a constitutional amendment and would effectively repeal the Second Amendment guaranteed right to bear arms. Among other things, it will regulate firearms to prevent their export to other countries. It's a back door route to gun control…I could go on, but all this tempered with the need for re-election? It's obvious to me who is more dangerous.

 

Wow! I really believe you this time. No, really. Did you get this info from Tom Jefferson?

[+Malamute]

Ya know, it took Obama an extra 8 months to get out of Iraq than he said while campaigning too.

 

The fact is, he came out and protected medical marijuana patients. Noone can argue that point. I wish he would re-open the national medical marijuana program, but i will take incremental improvements where i can get them.

 

He chose not to protect commercial entities that reap large profits, sell alot of marijuana, or are involved in large illegal drug trafficking. Ever since the Patriot Act, the rules on banking have changed and it is the Patriot Act they are actually using to stop illegal marijuana businesses from banking.

 

Should it change? of course. But, this stuff isn't going to happen overnight.

 

Some constituencies understand what incremental change is about. Lets take the Anti Abortion crowd. Every republican politician says he will repeal or change Roe v Wade, but everyone knows that will not happen in any real sense. But what their supporters realize is that if given enough control, they will slowly chip away at the laws surrounding abortions and weaken its protections and make it more and more difficult to have an abortion. And they are very pleased when a politician does achieve that incremental improvement towards their cause.

 

Unlike the current groups, it is one thing to press for MORE change on mmj and it is another thing to say he has been worse than the worst president ever on medical marijuana, George Bush. I find it absurd. It is like you people have no idea what was going on with medical marijuana for the past 15 years.

 

Should we push Obama for more change? Absolutely. Hell yea. No question whatsoever. But just because we only got 1 step in the right direction to protect the sick and disabled, doesnt mean we should hate the guy for only giving us a sandwich when we expected a 4 course meal. He is open to our cause unlike Romney. Heck, even Gary Johnson sure didnt do much in New Mexico when he was Governor to back up his current stance of full pardons for any marijuana use and ending the war on drugs. He never did it while Governor, why would he do it now/? He did sign the Medical Marijuana bill in New Mexico(thank you) but it was one of th emost restrictive ones to date out of the 17. But progress is progress.

 

What did Mitt Romeny do while Governor? Increased funding for drug enforcement etc etc. No hope for medical cannabis.

 

At least Obama protected sick and disabled patients.

 

Do i want more?

 

YES!

Edited July 10, 2012 by Malamute

[AKenewell]

Wow! I really believe you this time. No, really. Did you get this info from Tom Jefferson?

 

Why don't you do some reading?

 

http://www.forbes.co...rt-of-the-deal/

[AKenewell]

While your at it be sure to sign the petition to:

 

On July 27th, the nations of the world are scheduled to meet in New York to sign a global Arms Trade Treaty (ATT). Disguised as a way to prevent the proliferation of small arms throughout the world, it is, in fact, a backdoor way to legislate gun control in the United States and effectively repeal our Second Amendment.

The ATT will set up a global body which will require all nations to regulate firearms so that they can prevent their exportation to other countries. Inevitably, this will require countries to inventory the guns in private hands and to register them. A gun ban is not far away.

 

The ATT, under the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution, would have the power of a constitutional amendment and would, effectively, repeal the Second Amendment guaranteeing us the right to bear arms. We must fight to stop the US from signing the treaty and, if we fail, block Senate ratification.

Please sign the petition and include your name and address so we can send it to your Congressman and Senators.

Click Here to sign the petition to stop the US from signing the Arms Trade Treaty!

[+Malamute]

You do realize

.

 

The ATT, under the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution, would have the power of a constitutional amendment and would, effectively, repeal the Second Amendment guaranteeing us the right to bear arms. We must fight to stop the US from signing the treaty and, if we fail, block Senate ratification.

 

 

You do realize that is a lie correct?

[+Malamute]

I actually had to go check to see if this was in the conspiracy theory category. I guess not.

[AKenewell]

Yes Mal of course there is just a big giant conspiracy against Obama..none of this is actually true..MPP..ASA they have it wrong. And of course the meeting scheduled for the 27th on the Arms Trade Treaty..that's all just make believe too.

[AKenewell]

You do realize

 

 

You do realize that is a lie correct?

 

No it's factually correct..so maybe you should do some digging..

[+Malamute]

So you are saying the second ammendment will be overruled from this treaty?

[AKenewell]

So you are saying the second ammendment will be overruled from this treaty?

 

Do you understand what the Arms Trade Treaty is?

[AKenewell]

Do some reading and then you will see I am absolutely correct…it will effectively, repeal the Second Amendment guaranteeing us the right to bear arms. There is no arguing that it is a fact!!

[+Malamute]

Sorry to do this then(i will actually take the time to address this properly):

 

First, NO such treaty could "bypass the normal Legislative process in Congress" as ALL treaties to which the U.S. is a signatory must first be approved by a 2/3rds majority vote of the US Senate before they are considered to be ratified and binding.

 

Secondly, The President of the United States cannot enact a "ban on all weapons for US citizens through the signing of International treaties with foreign nations." The right to bear arms is guaranteed in the Constitution of the United States and in the 1957 case Reid v Covert, the US Supreme Court established that the Constitution supersedes interbational treaties ratified by the US senate.

 

There is no legal way around the second amendment other than a further amendment to the Constitution that either repeals or alters it, or a Supreme Court decision that radically re-interprets how the second amendment is to be applied.

 

 

 

I could go on and on... enough?

[AKenewell]

Sorry to do this then(i will actually take the time to address this properly):

 

First, NO such treaty could "bypass the normal Legislative process in Congress" as ALL treaties to which the U.S. is a signatory must first be approved by a 2/3rds majority vote of the US Senate before they are considered to be ratified and binding.

 

Secondly, The President of the United States cannot enact a "ban on all weapons for US citizens through the signing of International treaties with foreign nations." The right to bear arms is guaranteed in the Constitution of the United States and in the 1957 case Reid v Covert, the US Supreme Court established that the Constitution supersedes interbational treaties ratified by the US senate.

 

There is no legal way around the second amendment other than a further amendment to the Constitution that either repeals or alters it, or a Supreme Court decision that radically re-interprets how the second amendment is to be applied.

 

 

 

I could go on and on... enough?

 

I'll let you read on the ATT a little further… where the second amendment is concerned.

[+Malamute]

The second amendment can never be infringed upon by a treaty. Ever.

[Hayduke]

I guess this is a John Stossell, FOX line of bs. Sure, Obama will shoot down the second amendment.

 

Where were the Rethuglican masses when Bushwa ordered illegal wiretaps? Or torture?

 

Or is it okay to break up the constitution if a Republican is President, but not mention it then.... and slur the Democrat on the basis of what some wack job conspiracy theory that has been presented fully formed by Republicans, without any proof whatsoever that it is legit.

 

This is like all the gun folks buying ammo after Obama's election saying he would limit ammo.

 

Has he? No....

 

When ya gonna wake up?

[cristinew]

Republicans are just as responsible for the police state as democrats .. what a choice

[SFC]

Republicans are just as responsible for the police state as democrats .. what a choice

 

Exactly. And just because Obama has not made his move on guns yet doesn't mean he won't. I am not convinced he will, but it is totally reasonable to think he may.

[cristinew]

And Mitt would do the very same,,, for security

[Hayduke]

no it is not reasonable unless you can imagine suspending civil liberties and doing what the constitution does not allow. This garbage is brought to us from the same spin meisters that question the Presidents birth certificate. How ironic the same people do not think Willard Romney should have to give up his tax records for the dozen or so years that everyone has done... beginning with his father in 1968.

 

The gun argument is stupid and has no basis in fact. Look at it, man, gun laws and rights have done nothing but expand, coast to coast, for 32 or so years.

 

To try that line out is utterly ridiculous.

 

But what about Willards 100 million IRA. Given you can only put in $6000 max, that is a mighty large increase. Could we see that tax and investment record? Now there is something concrete... not just a fantasy alleged theory about guns....

[+Malamute]

Yea. Russ Feingold was the only Senator to vote against the Patriot Act of 2001. In the House, 63 Democrats voted against the PAtriot Act and 3 Republicans.

 

in 2006, 123 democrats in the house voted against it and 13 Republicans. In the Senate, 10 democrats voted against it only.

Edited July 11, 2012 by Malamute

[cristinew]

Also mitt did sign gun control in Massachusetts

 

 

Romney signs off on permanent assault weapons ban ...

 

Governor Mitt Romney has signed into law a permanent ... “Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts ...

Edited July 11, 2012 by cristinew

[+Malamute]

So as i like to say, the Democrats suck and the Republicans totally suck. :-)

[zaphod]

Why don't you do some reading?

 

http://www.forbes.co...rt-of-the-deal/

 

Your "facts" are not based on reality Did you read it?

 

>>the Obama administration does not support regulation of ammunition, but only wants to make it more difficult to “conduct illicit, illegal and destabilizing transfers of arms”. In addition, a press release issued by the U.N. Office for Disarmament Affairs says that “The outcome will not seek to prohibit citizens of any country from possessing firearms or to interfere with the legal trade in small arms and light weapons.”<<

[GanjaWarrior]

this thread does a great job in illistrateing the problem in america....the 2 party system..... no matter how many times you say...."you have feces on ur face".... the only mature response the drones have is...."he has feces on his face too" wtf is it thatr makes it so hard to grasp....you still have bunny muffin on your face. this constant....oh but the republicans did it so its ok if the dems do it....no its not ok...wake up the dems are every bit as bad as the republicans....neither give two defecates about you past your misguided vote and a chance to put you in prison. I dont see any person , not one, showing support for the rep party, or mit romney but over and over again the response is...."but mit did" what does that have to do with obammer ? brainwashed....

[GanjaWarrior]

no it is not reasonable unless you can imagine suspending civil liberties and doing what the constitution does not allow. This garbage is brought to us from the same spin meisters that question the Presidents birth certificate. How ironic the same people do not think Willard Romney should have to give up his tax records for the dozen or so years that everyone has done... beginning with his father in 1968.

 

The gun argument is stupid and has no basis in fact. Look at it, man, gun laws and rights have done nothing but expand, coast to coast, for 32 or so years.

 

To try that line out is utterly ridiculous.

 

But what about Willards 100 million IRA. Given you can only put in $6000 max, that is a mighty large increase. Could we see that tax and investment record? Now there is something concrete... not just a fantasy alleged theory about guns....

 

are you drunk? gun laws and rights have only done what in the last 32 years? you go much farther back than that and we didnt even have a gun law.... you obviously dont know what you are talking about