Total Posts:77|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Troops Ordered To Kill All Americans Who...

GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2012 11:46:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
don't turn in their guns, their own private property that they spent hundreds on So the U.N. and the government says they can can barge into your house and take what is rightfully yours that you worked and paid for, and if you don't, they will kill you.

"Yeah right, where's your evidence. Infowars never has evidence to back up their claims."

Guess what, Infowars and Alex Jones don't make claims, they report to you what their own government documents say. Watch the video, they have the official documentation and records that state all of this with the alarming parts highlighted.

There's no backing out of this, blatant tangible evidence once again.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2012 11:48:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu...
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
imabench
Posts: 21,216
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2012 11:50:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Do you get all of your sh*t from infowars.com?????
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2012 11:50:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
You know, If only Alex Jones is reporting this we can assume either:
a) He's the only person in the world who has access to this information. Not even wikileaks.
b) he's feeding off conspiracy theorist and lying to make money.
c) someone is forwarding him fake information and he's incredibly gullible and believes them.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2012 11:54:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/5/2012 11:48:06 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu...

You do realize this was a reference to nuclear disarment and mass weapons for standing armies and was created in 1961 during the cold war.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
imabench
Posts: 21,216
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2012 11:54:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/5/2012 11:48:06 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu...

I didnt see anywhere in ther it saying that soldiers could kill Americans for owning guns or anything
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
imabench
Posts: 21,216
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2012 11:55:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/5/2012 11:54:04 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/5/2012 11:48:06 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu...

You do realize this was a reference to nuclear disarment and mass weapons for standing armies and was created in 1961 during the cold war.

Holy sh*t dark is right, this thing was drafted back in 1961, JFK was still alive when this came out.
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2012 11:56:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/5/2012 11:50:18 PM, darkkermit wrote:
You know, If only Alex Jones is reporting this we can assume either:
a) He's the only person in the world who has access to this information. Not even wikileaks.

He gets a lot from Wikileaks.
He and/or his hired investigative journalists acquire government documents from the Freedom of Information Act.

b) he's feeding off conspiracy theorist and lying to make money.

His videos, books, broadcasts, and documentaries are all free. And he spends a lot of the profits on helping out Infowars studio, staff, his new Infowars newspaper stands etc. He's not a profiteer. He works so damn much, he doesn't have a minute to even enjoy the money. He gets 4 hours of sleep, goes to Bilderberg, infiltrates Bohemian Grove, does 2-hour XM radio shows, makes documentaries, does daily research to stay up date on everything happening every second. He's one of the busiest people alive, that's not typical of profiteers.

c) someone is forwarding him fake information and he's incredibly gullible and believes them.

Forbes reported on the same thing and one writer even said that it was an attempt to undermine sovereignty and disarm the U.S. than it's euphemistic stated purpose was.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2012 12:00:58 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
"A newly leaked US Army Military Police training manual for "Civil Disturbance Operations" outlines how military assets are to be used domestically to quell riots, confiscate firearms and even kill Americans on U.S. soil during mass civil unrest.

The document (PDF), which is and was used for a self-learning course at the U.S. Army Military Police School at Fort McClellan, makes it clear that the operations described in the manual apply to both "CONUS and OCONUS," meaning inside the Continental United States and outside the Continental United States."

http://info.publicintelligence.net...#
http://www.infowars.com...

The UN Arms Trade Treaty that has been identified by observers as a flagrant threat to the second amendment and which Barack Obama is determined to sign has its roots in a 1961 State Department memorandum which explains how the United Nations will oversee "complete disarmament" of the American people under the ruse of preventing war.

The UN Arms Treaty has caused so much controversy because it outlines a plan to target "all types of conventional weapons, notably including small arms and light weapons," according to Forbes' Larry Bell.

Former US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton also warns that the agreement "is trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about international arms trade between nation states, but there is no doubt that the real agenda here is domestic firearms control."

http://www.infowars.com...
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2012 12:01:58 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/5/2012 11:55:36 PM, imabench wrote:
Holy sh*t dark is right, this thing was drafted back in 1961, JFK was still alive when this came out.

He is saying that the 2012 U.N. Arms Treaty has it's roots in that 1961 document.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
imabench
Posts: 21,216
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2012 12:05:18 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/6/2012 12:00:58 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:

http://www.infowars.com...

"After all, a plethora of UN treaties and international agreements have already stripped the United States of its sovereignty and its power to decide its own laws. The power to authorize U.S. involvement in wars and conflicts has now been almost completely stripped from Congress and handed to the United Nations."

And you wonder why people dont take infowars.com seriously.....
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
imabench
Posts: 21,216
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2012 12:05:42 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/6/2012 12:02:33 AM, DontTreadOnMe wrote:
He actually has millions of listeners worldwide.

There are millions of idiots worldwide so this doesnt surprise me
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
imabench
Posts: 21,216
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2012 12:07:18 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/6/2012 12:00:58 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
"A newly leaked US Army Military Police training manual for "Civil Disturbance Operations" outlines how military assets are to be used domestically to quell riots, confiscate firearms and even kill Americans on U.S. soil during mass civil unrest.

The document (PDF), which is and was used for a self-learning course at the U.S. Army Military Police School at Fort McClellan, makes it clear that the operations described in the manual apply to both "CONUS and OCONUS," meaning inside the Continental United States and outside the Continental United States."

http://info.publicintelligence.net...

The PDF is massive could you point out which page this claim is made?
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
quarterexchange
Posts: 1,549
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2012 12:27:35 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Fox and the NRA would be all over this if there was a kernel of truth to this, so I'm calling BS.
I don't discriminate....I hate everybody.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2012 1:01:03 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/6/2012 12:27:35 AM, quarterexchange wrote:
Fox and the NRA would be all over this if there was a kernel of truth to this, so I'm calling BS.

Wow, ok. That's your line of reasoning? You are everything that is wrong with America. Alex Jones is exposes the truth and you reject it merely on the basis that a mainstream news channel and a gun club aren't up in arms about this.

Why wasn't the Republican Party up in arms about Obama and the Dem admins Fast and Furious conspiracy? It got 5 second mention on the O'Reilly Factor and that was it. The Republicans could have grilled and destroyed Obama, but they didn't because they are status quo just like Fox and the NRA.

How about you research the U.N. Arms Treaty. Oh wait, that document doesn't exist. Yes it fvckin does, it's right here: http://iapcar.org..., wake up and stop indulging in and boasting about your ignorance.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
imabench
Posts: 21,216
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2012 1:04:11 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/6/2012 1:01:03 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 9/6/2012 12:27:35 AM, quarterexchange wrote:
Fox and the NRA would be all over this if there was a kernel of truth to this, so I'm calling BS.

Wow, ok. That's your line of reasoning? You are everything that is wrong with America. Alex Jones is exposes the truth and you reject it merely on the basis that a mainstream news channel and a gun club aren't up in arms about this.

Why wasn't the Republican Party up in arms about Obama and the Dem admins Fast and Furious conspiracy? It got 5 second mention on the O'Reilly Factor and that was it. The Republicans could have grilled and destroyed Obama, but they didn't because they are status quo just like Fox and the NRA.

How about you research the U.N. Arms Treaty. Oh wait, that document doesn't exist. Yes it fvckin does, it's right here: http://iapcar.org..., wake up and stop indulging in and boasting about your ignorance.

Will you shut the f*ck up and actually point out where it says that American soldiers are allowed to kill Americans who dont give up their guns or should I label you as a troll for the rest of your existence on DDO?
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2012 1:20:35 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Corruption is an attribute of government.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2012 1:38:54 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/6/2012 1:04:11 AM, imabench wrote:
Will you shut the f*ck up and actually point out where it says that American soldiers

You're not paying attention. It would be U.N./Foreign troops, not American troops.

are allowed to kill Americans who dont give up their guns or should I label you as a troll for the rest of your existence on DDO?

"The UN Arms Trade Treaty that has been identified by observers as a flagrant threat to the second amendment and which Barack Obama is determined to sign has its roots in a 1961 State Department memorandum which explains how the United Nations will oversee "complete disarmament" of the American people under the ruse of preventing war. The UN Arms Treaty has caused so much controversy because it outlines a plan to target "all types of conventional weapons, notably including small arms and light weapons," according to Forbes' Larry Bell.
Former US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton also warns that the agreement "is trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about international arms trade between nation states, but there is no doubt that the real agenda here is domestic firearms control."
A letter sent last month by 130 Republican House members to President Obama argued that the treaty should be rejected because it infringes on the "fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms". The letter adds that "...the U.N.'s actions to date indicate that the ATT is likely to pose significant threats to our national security, foreign policy, and economic interests as well as our constitutional rights."
Using the rhetoric of the threat post by terrorists, insurgents and "international crime syndicates," the UN is busy trying to imply that all weapons are somehow involved in illegal activity on a global scale and should therefore be controlled and regulated by a global authority.
This is precisely the same language used in a 1961 U.S. State Department briefing which outlined a long term agenda to carry out a "Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World."
Invoking the threat of nuclear warfare, the document spells out a plan to create a "United Nations Peace Force" that would "enforce the peace as the disarmament process proceeds."
While the document initially focuses on scrapping nuclear weapons, it later makes it clear that the only groups allowed to own weapons of any kind would be governing authorities, "for the purpose of maintaining internal order," and the UN "peacekeeping" force itself, which would require "agreed manpower."
"The manufacture of armaments would be prohibited except for those of agreed types and quantities to be used by the U.N. Peace Force and those required to maintain internal order. All other armaments would be destroyed or converted to peaceful purposes," states the document. While the memorandum outlines a broader mandate to destroy national sovereignty, eviscerate national armies and institute the UN as the planet's supreme authority with a world army, the document serves as a stark reminder that the plan for the United Nations to oversee the abolition of the second amendment has been in the works for decades.
As Bell points out in his Forbes article, the threat of the Obama administration relying on a UN treaty to do what successive administrations have tried but failed to accomplish -- taking a huge bite out of the second amendment -- is by no means far fetched.
After all, a plethora of UN treaties and international agreements have already stripped the United States of its sovereignty and its power to decide its own laws. The power to authorize U.S. involvement in wars and conflicts has now been almost completely stripped from Congress and handed to the United Nations."

www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyfkQkchlu4

"a United Nations Peace Force to enforce the peace as the disarmament process proceeds"

http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu...

Army Manual Outlines Plan To Kill Rioters, Demonstrators In America
"Warning shots will not be fired"

http://info.publicintelligence.net...

http://www.infowars.com...
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2012 1:44:56 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
You all seem to be missing an important point here. Whether or not they plan to kill you or use language that implies such, the real pertinent fact is that there is a U.N. Treaty that does ban guns from law-abiding gun-owners and if they don't turn over their guns that they worked hard to get, the U.N. foreign troops will have to resort to force if you don't willingly let them steal your property.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
imabench
Posts: 21,216
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2012 1:54:32 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/6/2012 1:38:54 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 9/6/2012 1:04:11 AM, imabench wrote:
Will you shut the f*ck up and actually point out where it says that American soldiers

You're not paying attention. It would be U.N./Foreign troops, not American troops.

are allowed to kill Americans who dont give up their guns or should I label you as a troll for the rest of your existence on DDO?

"The UN Arms Trade Treaty that has been identified by observers as a flagrant threat to the second amendment and which Barack Obama is determined to sign has its roots in a 1961 State Department memorandum which explains how the United Nations will oversee "complete disarmament" of the American people under the ruse of preventing war. The UN Arms Treaty has caused so much controversy because it outlines a plan to target "all types of conventional weapons, notably including small arms and light weapons," according to Forbes' Larry Bell.
Former US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton also warns that the agreement "is trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about international arms trade between nation states, but there is no doubt that the real agenda here is domestic firearms control."
A letter sent last month by 130 Republican House members to President Obama argued that the treaty should be rejected because it infringes on the "fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms". The letter adds that "...the U.N.'s actions to date indicate that the ATT is likely to pose significant threats to our national security, foreign policy, and economic interests as well as our constitutional rights."
Using the rhetoric of the threat post by terrorists, insurgents and "international crime syndicates," the UN is busy trying to imply that all weapons are somehow involved in illegal activity on a global scale and should therefore be controlled and regulated by a global authority.
This is precisely the same language used in a 1961 U.S. State Department briefing which outlined a long term agenda to carry out a "Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World."
Invoking the threat of nuclear warfare, the document spells out a plan to create a "United Nations Peace Force" that would "enforce the peace as the disarmament process proceeds."
While the document initially focuses on scrapping nuclear weapons, it later makes it clear that the only groups allowed to own weapons of any kind would be governing authorities, "for the purpose of maintaining internal order," and the UN "peacekeeping" force itself, which would require "agreed manpower."
"The manufacture of armaments would be prohibited except for those of agreed types and quantities to be used by the U.N. Peace Force and those required to maintain internal order. All other armaments would be destroyed or converted to peaceful purposes," states the document. While the memorandum outlines a broader mandate to destroy national sovereignty, eviscerate national armies and institute the UN as the planet's supreme authority with a world army, the document serves as a stark reminder that the plan for the United Nations to oversee the abolition of the second amendment has been in the works for decades.
As Bell points out in his Forbes article, the threat of the Obama administration relying on a UN treaty to do what successive administrations have tried but failed to accomplish -- taking a huge bite out of the second amendment -- is by no means far fetched.
After all, a plethora of UN treaties and international agreements have already stripped the United States of its sovereignty and its power to decide its own laws. The power to authorize U.S. involvement in wars and conflicts has now been almost completely stripped from Congress and handed to the United Nations."

Nowhere in this moshpit of text does it say that UN troops are authorized to kill Americans who refuse to give up their arms. Thanks for wasting my time, just like anything else I've read from infowars

www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyfkQkchlu4

"a United Nations Peace Force to enforce the peace as the disarmament process proceeds"

http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu...

Army Manual Outlines Plan To Kill Rioters, Demonstrators In America
"Warning shots will not be fired"

http://info.publicintelligence.net...

http://www.infowars.com...
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
imabench
Posts: 21,216
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2012 1:58:03 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Your other two links about how "warning shots will not be fired" is a 115 page PDF that I'm not going to go through unless I get a page number of where to look, and the other link is an infowars website saying "all this is true even though nowhere in the original treaty nor the current 115 page PDF on the current law says that anywhere"
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2012 2:13:54 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/6/2012 1:54:32 AM, imabench wrote:
At 9/6/2012 1:38:54 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 9/6/2012 1:04:11 AM, imabench wrote:
Will you shut the f*ck up and actually point out where it says that American soldiers

You're not paying attention. It would be U.N./Foreign troops, not American troops.

are allowed to kill Americans who dont give up their guns or should I label you as a troll for the rest of your existence on DDO?

"The UN Arms Trade Treaty that has been identified by observers as a flagrant threat to the second amendment and which Barack Obama is determined to sign has its roots in a 1961 State Department memorandum which explains how the United Nations will oversee "complete disarmament" of the American people under the ruse of preventing war. The UN Arms Treaty has caused so much controversy because it outlines a plan to target "all types of conventional weapons, notably including small arms and light weapons," according to Forbes' Larry Bell.
Former US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton also warns that the agreement "is trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about international arms trade between nation states, but there is no doubt that the real agenda here is domestic firearms control."
A letter sent last month by 130 Republican House members to President Obama argued that the treaty should be rejected because it infringes on the "fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms". The letter adds that "...the U.N.'s actions to date indicate that the ATT is likely to pose significant threats to our national security, foreign policy, and economic interests as well as our constitutional rights."
Using the rhetoric of the threat post by terrorists, insurgents and "international crime syndicates," the UN is busy trying to imply that all weapons are somehow involved in illegal activity on a global scale and should therefore be controlled and regulated by a global authority.
This is precisely the same language used in a 1961 U.S. State Department briefing which outlined a long term agenda to carry out a "Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World."
Invoking the threat of nuclear warfare, the document spells out a plan to create a "United Nations Peace Force" that would "enforce the peace as the disarmament process proceeds."
While the document initially focuses on scrapping nuclear weapons, it later makes it clear that the only groups allowed to own weapons of any kind would be governing authorities, "for the purpose of maintaining internal order," and the UN "peacekeeping" force itself, which would require "agreed manpower."
"The manufacture of armaments would be prohibited except for those of agreed types and quantities to be used by the U.N. Peace Force and those required to maintain internal order. All other armaments would be destroyed or converted to peaceful purposes," states the document. While the memorandum outlines a broader mandate to destroy national sovereignty, eviscerate national armies and institute the UN as the planet's supreme authority with a world army, the document serves as a stark reminder that the plan for the United Nations to oversee the abolition of the second amendment has been in the works for decades.
As Bell points out in his Forbes article, the threat of the Obama administration relying on a UN treaty to do what successive administrations have tried but failed to accomplish -- taking a huge bite out of the second amendment -- is by no means far fetched.
After all, a plethora of UN treaties and international agreements have already stripped the United States of its sovereignty and its power to decide its own laws. The power to authorize U.S. involvement in wars and conflicts has now been almost completely stripped from Congress and handed to the United Nations."

Nowhere in this moshpit of text does it say that UN troops are authorized to kill Americans who refuse to give up their arms. Thanks for wasting my time, just like anything else I've read from infowars

That's because you're looking for the words "We the United Nations will kill you if you don't give us your guns." You have to understand legal interpretations and clauses; authorizations to "do what is necessary," "keep the peace," or "use other means."
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Chaos88
Posts: 247
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2012 2:43:24 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/6/2012 2:13:54 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 9/6/2012 1:54:32 AM, imabench wrote:
At 9/6/2012 1:38:54 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 9/6/2012 1:04:11 AM, imabench wrote:
Will you shut the f*ck up and actually point out where it says that American soldiers

You're not paying attention. It would be U.N./Foreign troops, not American troops.

are allowed to kill Americans who dont give up their guns or should I label you as a troll for the rest of your existence on DDO?

"The UN Arms Trade Treaty that has been identified by observers as a flagrant threat to the second amendment and which Barack Obama is determined to sign has its roots in a 1961 State Department memorandum which explains how the United Nations will oversee "complete disarmament" of the American people under the ruse of preventing war. The UN Arms Treaty has caused so much controversy because it outlines a plan to target "all types of conventional weapons, notably including small arms and light weapons," according to Forbes' Larry Bell.
Former US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton also warns that the agreement "is trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about international arms trade between nation states, but there is no doubt that the real agenda here is domestic firearms control."
A letter sent last month by 130 Republican House members to President Obama argued that the treaty should be rejected because it infringes on the "fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms". The letter adds that "...the U.N.'s actions to date indicate that the ATT is likely to pose significant threats to our national security, foreign policy, and economic interests as well as our constitutional rights."
Using the rhetoric of the threat post by terrorists, insurgents and "international crime syndicates," the UN is busy trying to imply that all weapons are somehow involved in illegal activity on a global scale and should therefore be controlled and regulated by a global authority.
This is precisely the same language used in a 1961 U.S. State Department briefing which outlined a long term agenda to carry out a "Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World."
Invoking the threat of nuclear warfare, the document spells out a plan to create a "United Nations Peace Force" that would "enforce the peace as the disarmament process proceeds."
While the document initially focuses on scrapping nuclear weapons, it later makes it clear that the only groups allowed to own weapons of any kind would be governing authorities, "for the purpose of maintaining internal order," and the UN "peacekeeping" force itself, which would require "agreed manpower."
"The manufacture of armaments would be prohibited except for those of agreed types and quantities to be used by the U.N. Peace Force and those required to maintain internal order. All other armaments would be destroyed or converted to peaceful purposes," states the document. While the memorandum outlines a broader mandate to destroy national sovereignty, eviscerate national armies and institute the UN as the planet's supreme authority with a world army, the document serves as a stark reminder that the plan for the United Nations to oversee the abolition of the second amendment has been in the works for decades.
As Bell points out in his Forbes article, the threat of the Obama administration relying on a UN treaty to do what successive administrations have tried but failed to accomplish -- taking a huge bite out of the second amendment -- is by no means far fetched.
After all, a plethora of UN treaties and international agreements have already stripped the United States of its sovereignty and its power to decide its own laws. The power to authorize U.S. involvement in wars and conflicts has now been almost completely stripped from Congress and handed to the United Nations."

The paragraph you cite is a direct reference to the 1961 proposal. If not, it was poorly written, as the paragraph that immediatly follows it states that "the document serves as a stark reminder that the plan for the United Nations to oversee the abolition of the second amendment has been in the works for decades".

Also, "agreed manpower" refers to the size of the army, which would be agreed upon.
TheAsylum
Posts: 772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2012 5:17:23 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
This was interesting banter. This may be true in a future sense. We can all agree that our government is not for us, they are against us- The People. Geo is right, they will not ever say it out in the open, Why? Because you have the right to read it. You have the power to stop them if you knew about it and decided to. Maybe some of this gargan is not 100% correct, but to dismiss a good portion of it, is to leave yourself blinded. Alex Jones is not always right but He is enough to listen. If we are going to sit back and deny such conspiracies then we will never know what they are doing. If they do plan things like this, are they going to tell you? What we do know, and I hope we do, is that our government is robbing the citizens, they are stripping rights, they blatantly are disregaurding the people and still asking for votes. We really need to wake-up. We should not liten to every little detail but we should see a overall picture. What kind of picture you see? One closer to the information here rather than what is being sold to us by the government. Think about this, we are billions in debt, so much so that China owns almost 1/3 of our country. You think these people we voted into office actually lose this money? I think not. They take it. Then who owes it back? Them? No, we do, so why not take it.
imabench
Posts: 21,216
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2012 7:56:34 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/6/2012 2:13:54 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 9/6/2012 1:54:32 AM, imabench wrote:
At 9/6/2012 1:38:54 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 9/6/2012 1:04:11 AM, imabench wrote:
Will you shut the f*ck up and actually point out where it says that American soldiers

You're not paying attention. It would be U.N./Foreign troops, not American troops.

are allowed to kill Americans who dont give up their guns or should I label you as a troll for the rest of your existence on DDO?

"The UN Arms Trade Treaty that has been identified by observers as a flagrant threat to the second amendment and which Barack Obama is determined to sign has its roots in a 1961 State Department memorandum which explains how the United Nations will oversee "complete disarmament" of the American people under the ruse of preventing war. The UN Arms Treaty has caused so much controversy because it outlines a plan to target "all types of conventional weapons, notably including small arms and light weapons," according to Forbes' Larry Bell.
Former US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton also warns that the agreement "is trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about international arms trade between nation states, but there is no doubt that the real agenda here is domestic firearms control."
A letter sent last month by 130 Republican House members to President Obama argued that the treaty should be rejected because it infringes on the "fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms". The letter adds that "...the U.N.'s actions to date indicate that the ATT is likely to pose significant threats to our national security, foreign policy, and economic interests as well as our constitutional rights."
Using the rhetoric of the threat post by terrorists, insurgents and "international crime syndicates," the UN is busy trying to imply that all weapons are somehow involved in illegal activity on a global scale and should therefore be controlled and regulated by a global authority.
This is precisely the same language used in a 1961 U.S. State Department briefing which outlined a long term agenda to carry out a "Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World."
Invoking the threat of nuclear warfare, the document spells out a plan to create a "United Nations Peace Force" that would "enforce the peace as the disarmament process proceeds."
While the document initially focuses on scrapping nuclear weapons, it later makes it clear that the only groups allowed to own weapons of any kind would be governing authorities, "for the purpose of maintaining internal order," and the UN "peacekeeping" force itself, which would require "agreed manpower."
"The manufacture of armaments would be prohibited except for those of agreed types and quantities to be used by the U.N. Peace Force and those required to maintain internal order. All other armaments would be destroyed or converted to peaceful purposes," states the document. While the memorandum outlines a broader mandate to destroy national sovereignty, eviscerate national armies and institute the UN as the planet's supreme authority with a world army, the document serves as a stark reminder that the plan for the United Nations to oversee the abolition of the second amendment has been in the works for decades.
As Bell points out in his Forbes article, the threat of the Obama administration relying on a UN treaty to do what successive administrations have tried but failed to accomplish -- taking a huge bite out of the second amendment -- is by no means far fetched.
After all, a plethora of UN treaties and international agreements have already stripped the United States of its sovereignty and its power to decide its own laws. The power to authorize U.S. involvement in wars and conflicts has now been almost completely stripped from Congress and handed to the United Nations."

Nowhere in this moshpit of text does it say that UN troops are authorized to kill Americans who refuse to give up their arms. Thanks for wasting my time, just like anything else I've read from infowars

That's because you're looking for the words "We the United Nations will kill you if you don't give us your guns." You have to understand legal interpretations and clauses; authorizations to "do what is necessary," "keep the peace," or "use other means."

Omg, you really are a dumba**....

First off, the term "enforce the peace" refers to nuclear disarmament of nations, not removal of weapons from the American people.... The word "peacekeeping" is merely a word used as a name and does not automatically imply that since they are peacekeepers they will automatically have the right to use deadly force when de-arming Americans, and "agreed manpower" refers to number of troops that the UN would have at its disposal as agreed upon by the US and other nations

Basically you are constructing this false reality based on false representations of a few words that have different meanings just to bend reality to meet your world view

I officially declare you a troll
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2012 8:43:13 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/5/2012 11:46:49 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
don't turn in their guns, their own private property that they spent hundreds on So the U.N. and the government says they can can barge into your house and take what is rightfully yours that you worked and paid for, and if you don't, they will kill you.

"Yeah right, where's your evidence. Infowars never has evidence to back up their claims."

Guess what, Infowars and Alex Jones don't make claims, they report to you what their own government documents say. Watch the video, they have the official documentation and records that state all of this with the alarming parts highlighted.

There's no backing out of this, blatant tangible evidence once again.



LOL it must be true some things are forever. White Papers are SOP....not LAW
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2012 9:44:48 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/6/2012 8:43:13 AM, logicrules wrote:
At 9/5/2012 11:46:49 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
don't turn in their guns, their own private property that they spent hundreds on So the U.N. and the government says they can can barge into your house and take what is rightfully yours that you worked and paid for, and if you don't, they will kill you.

"Yeah right, where's your evidence. Infowars never has evidence to back up their claims."

Guess what, Infowars and Alex Jones don't make claims, they report to you what their own government documents say. Watch the video, they have the official documentation and records that state all of this with the alarming parts highlighted.

There's no backing out of this, blatant tangible evidence once again.

LOL it must be true some things are forever. White Papers are SOP....not LAW

I didn't say it was a law. Yes, it is standard operating procedure, so that makes it ok?
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2012 9:52:27 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/6/2012 7:56:34 AM, imabench wrote:

Omg, you really are a dumba**....

First off, the term "enforce the peace" refers to nuclear disarmament of nations, not removal of weapons from the American people....

Part of it talked about nuclear disarmorment, but the stuff that followed was about disarmorment of all weapons. Read the document.

The word "peacekeeping" is merely a word used as a name and does not automatically imply that since they are peacekeepers they will automatically have the right to use deadly force when de-arming Americans, and "agreed manpower" refers to number of troops that the UN would have at its disposal as agreed upon by the US and other nations

Basically you are constructing this false reality based on false representations of a few words that have different meanings just to bend reality to meet your world view

I officially declare you a troll

And yet you ignored my post because it wasnt convenient for you.

"You all seem to be missing an important point here. Whether or not they plan to kill you or use language that implies such, the real pertinent fact is that there is a U.N. Treaty that does ban guns from law-abiding gun-owners and if they don't turn over their guns that they worked hard to get, the U.N. foreign troops will have to resort to force if you don't willingly let them steal your property."

Based on semantics, you will go to any length to dismiss all the facts. You must concede that the U.N. plans to confiscate American guns. Until you make that admission, shut the eff up.

.
.
.
.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat