Thread: Incremental Gun Control IS an INVESTMENT FOR UNITED STATES CORP.

ADD TO YOUR COLLECTION OF INFORMATION. PUT ON YOUR GD X-RAY GLASSES!

Hegelian dialectic

an interpretive method, originally used to relate specific entities or events to the absolute idea, in which an assertable proposition (thesis or REACTION) is necessarily opposed by its apparent contradiction (antithesis or PROBLEM), and both reconciled on a higher level of truth by a third proposition (synthesis or SOLUTION)

What WE("Stupid Americans") KNOW:
1.PROBLEM There ARE MANUFACTURED CRISIS' BY CORP. UNITED STATES(Terrorism, Climate Change, Mass Shootings).
2. REACTION Patriot Act, TSA, Militarized Police, Agenda 21/2030, Geo Engineering/Weather Modification, Gun Control Laws, Gun Registration.
3. SOLUTION Incrementally Stripping US("Stupid American") of OUR Bill of Rights, Control of every asset of OUR lives(internet/phone privacy, Energy Consumption, Property Rights, Gun Rights, Healthcare, Education), MisInfo MM Propaganda Corp. "NEWS"(Operation Paperclip), Higher Taxes/Energy Costs/Inflation, Endless War, OPEN BORDERS?, Higher and Higher Deficits WITH NO REAL CORRECTION EVEN BEING DISCUSED!, I could go on and on, but it might seem as I was trying to be SARCASTIC.

note: Reaction and Soution are interchangable in this post, due to WHO YOU ASK: WE WERE NOT ASKED, WE("Stupid American") CONSENTED/ACQUIESED. "WE Have the Government WE DESERVE."

also:I am sure I have missed many many issues to try and CLEAN OFF YOUR X-RAY GASSES, so feel free to HELP Correct, Add, OR Ask ANY QUESTIONS.

"Keep on doing what you have been doing and you will keep get the same thing you have been getting."

• 
  
  

Gun Laws & Legislation
New Lawmakers Inform President Of Their Opposition To The U.N. Arms Trade Treaty

NRA ILA
Contributor



12:59 PM 03/08/2015












On Monday, a group of 12 freshman Senators expressed their opposition to ratification of the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty in a letter to President Barack Obama. Secretary of State John Kerry signed the UN ATT on behalf of the U.S. on September 25, 2013. In their letter, the new Senators cited an October 15, 2013 letter to the president signed by 50 Senators from the 113th Congress that outlined their concerns regarding the treaty in detail. Further the group wrote, “we pledge to oppose the ratification of this treaty, and we give notice that we do not regard the U.S. as bound to uphold its object and purpose.” Altogether, 55 Senators in the 114th Congress have made clear that they oppose the UN ATT.
The freshman Senators were led in their effort by two veteran opponents of the treaty, Senators Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) and Jerry Moran (R-Kans.). In joint press releases Tuesday, the pair further explained why staunch Senate opposition to the ATT is vital to American gun owners.
Senator Moran noted, “Throughout this process, it has been disturbing to watch the Administration reverse U.S. policies, abandon its own ‘red line’ negotiation principles, admit publicly the treaty’s dangerous ambiguity, and hastily review the final treaty text.” Senator Inhofe made clear that “the president continues to mislead the U.N. by keeping the United States as a signatory nation of a treaty the Senate will not ratify. As threats to our security and that of our allies continue to grow, serious questions surround the treaty regarding its implementation and its effect on our ability to aid and arm our allies, and raises serious concerns regarding our Second Amendment rights.”
In a portion of the release summarizing the six broad reasons for opposing the ATT given in the 2013 letter, the Senators Inhofe and Moran listed as one of their concerns: “The treaty includes only a weak non-binding reference to the lawful ownership, use of, and trade in firearms, and recognizes none of these activities, much less individual self-defense, as fundamental individual rights. This poses a threat to the Second Amendment.” This embodies much of the reason NRA’s opposes the treaty and has worked to limit its potential effect on American gun owners since the push for the ATT began in 2003.
In an analogous move, 34 new members of the U.S. House of Representatives sent a letter to the president adding their names to the list of House lawmakers that oppose the treaty. The effort was led by longtime ATT opponent Representative Mike Kelly (R-Pa.). The House letter makes clear that language in the treaty “implies that treaty supporters seek to use it to impinge on the lawful ownership, use of, and trade in firearms.” Further, the letter explains, “we oppose the passage of implementing legislation that is necessary for [the treaty] to have any domestic effect. Lastly, as members of the House of Representatives, which is particularly invested with the power of the purse, we oppose the use of any funds to implement the Arms Trade Treaty.”
Considering the president’s recent abuse of executive authority in other gun control efforts, the staunch Congressional opposition to the ATT exhibited in Monday’s letters is more important than ever. In recent months the president has shown a willingness to act unilaterally on a number of policy fronts, most notably for gun owners, a proposed ban on popular rifle ammunition. Such strong opposition in the Senate helps to ensure that the treaty will never be formally ratified. However, Congressional opposition is also needed to combat any attempts by the president to unilaterally enact policies that he believes would help the U.S. better conform to the treaty. http://dailycaller.com/2015/03/08/ne...-trade-treaty/






BBC navigation


News navigation





Obama admits US gun laws are his 'biggest frustration'

President Barack Obama has admitted that his failure to pass "common sense gun safety laws" in the US is the greatest frustration of his presidency.
In an interview with the BBC, Mr Obama said it was "distressing" not to have made progress on the issue "even in the face of repeated mass killings".
He vowed to keep trying, but the BBC's North America editor Jon Sopel said the president did not sound very confident.
However, Mr Obama said race relations had improved during his presidency.
Hours after the interview, a gunman opened fire at a cinema in the US state of Louisiana, killing two people and injuring several others before shooting himself. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-33646704

Difference Between Totalitarianism and Authoritarianism

• Categorized under Ideology,Politics | Difference Between Totalitarianism and Authoritarianism

Totalitarianism vs. authoritarianism Democracy means freedom of the people in a nation to choose. The people have the power over the entire nation. It is up to the majority what the fate of the country will be. The exact opposite of this type of leadership in the government is the authoritarian and the totalitarian type of governance. This type of government has only one person or a group leading the entire nation. These two types of regime are like a dictatorship regime, but still these two has many differences. First the authoritarian regime has a single power holder, either a single person who is the dictator or a committee or otherwise called a junta. The power in this kind of government is monopolized to one political power. Authoritarianism is more on the government rather than the society. Totalitarianism on the other hand is just like authoritarianism only in an extreme manner. The social and economic aspects of the nation are no longer under government control. There are still so many differences these two regimes have. To know and understand the differences between the two, it is better to know deeper each of the regimes. For the totalitarian regime, the dictators or the one in power has a charisma over the people. The people are attracted to his prophetic leadership that drives them to do what the dictator orders. Examples of individuals who have rules using totalitarianism are Joseph Stalin of USSR, Benito Mussolini of Italy, and Adolf Hitler of Germany. There is a sense of connection between the ruler and the entire nation. In this way the dictator can rule the entire nation. There is a sense of ideology that the totalitarian shares with the people, making the people follow him. This makes the person in power more than just an individual but more likely a theological tyrant. This sense of being a divine being that leads takes away their appearance as a power hungry ruler. Authoritarians on the other hand are more focused on the status quo and are driven by control. Examples of famous authoritarians are Idi Amin Dada of Uganda, Saddam Hussein of Iraq, and Ferdinand Marcos of the Philippines. They see themselves as individual beings which make them prone to the appearance of being power hungry dictators. They impose their rule through fear and loyalty. They gain loyalty by rewarding those that collaborate with them. The power in an authoritarian government is centralized and concentrated to one authority; it represses the word of the people and all those who oppose it. To reach a certain goal, it uses political parties and mass organization to make the people do whatever it takes to reach that certain goal.
SUMMARY: 1. An authoritarian regime has one ruler, a leader or a committee, the same as a totalitarian, only in an extreme way.
2. The totalitarian has charisma over his people while the authoritarian imposes fear over those who oppose and rewards those that are loyal to him.
3. The totalitarian is more of a divine ideologist who will save the people, while the authoritarian is focused more on control and status quo as an individualist.
4. The totalitarian uses his prophetic leadership to drive the people, while the authoritarian uses political parties, mass organizations, and other propagandas to make the people follow him.
http://www.differencebetween.net/mis...horitarianism/

UNITED STATES(not The United States of America) IS A CORPORATION
District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871

Effect

Instead, Congress passed the Organic Act of 1871, which revoked the individual charters of the cities of Washington and Georgetown and combined them with Washington County to create a unified territorial government for the entire District of Columbia.^[6] The new government consisted of an appointed governor and 11-member council, a locally elected 22-member assembly, and a board of public works charged with modernizing the city.^[7] The Seal of the District of Columbia features the date 1871, recognizing the year the District's government was incorporated.^[8]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distri...ic_Act_of_1871

Although Wikipedia is NOT a Dependable Source, it IS KNOW to be HEAVILY AUDITED BY LEFT LEANING/PROGRESSIVE Auditors.