Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 42

Thread: UN Small Arms Treaty?

  1. #1
    Regular Member jbone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    2,241

    Post imported post

    What's the chance of a UN Treaty passing that would allowbanning firearms in th U.S.

    http://www.therepublicantemple.com/2...l-arms-treaty/

    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE...;pageId=124121


    Iím proudly straight. I'm free to not support Legalization, GLBT, Illegal Aliens, or the Islamization of America.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    , North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    123

    Post imported post

    With Obongo in office? Very good.

  3. #3
    Regular Member UtahJarhead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Ogden, UT, ,
    Posts
    313

    Post imported post

    It's not possible as laws currently stand. Treaties the US agree to are still subject to our National Constitution and if certain portions of a treaty are contrary to the Constitution, then it's not legal to enforce it.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    , North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    123

    Post imported post

    You mean not possible sort of like confiscating guns in NOLA during Katrina?

  5. #5
    Regular Member UtahJarhead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Ogden, UT, ,
    Posts
    313

    Post imported post

    Rugerp345 wrote:
    You mean not possible sort of like confiscating guns in NOLA during Katrina?
    And they determined it wasn't legal to enforce it.

  6. #6
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524

    Post imported post

    They need 3/4 of the Senate to approve it. Won't happen.
    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

  7. #7
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849

    Post imported post

    rodbender wrote:
    They need 3/4 of the Senate to approve it. Won't happen.
    It's 2/3's, not 3/4's of the senate.

    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  8. #8
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524

    Post imported post

    Yeah, that's correct. I was thinking 67is 3/4. I hate math. It's so exact and I'm so approximate.
    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

  9. #9
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Greensboro, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    1,052

    Post imported post

    If the UN attempts to ban guns around the world, especially in the United States, they'll have a storm that I only hope will leave them in a few pieces past FUBAR.

    We're talking about an organization that rarely uses their own guns to protect innocents in countries UN Soldiers are sent to as "peace keepers". I don't trust any organization that is meant to promote world peace but attempts to destroy it in the process.

    That goes for any attempt from any organization, interstate or international, to remove my weapons from my possession.

  10. #10
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849

    Post imported post

    rodbender wrote:
    Yeah, that's correct. I was thinking 67is 3/4. I hate math. It's so exact and I'm so approximate.
    This is funny.. made me laugh. I need to remember that one.

    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  11. #11
    Regular Member Statesman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lexington, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    949

    Post imported post

    UtahJarhead wrote:
    It's not possible as laws currently stand. Treaties the US agree to are still subject to our National Constitution and if certain portions of a treaty are contrary to the Constitution, then it's not legal to enforce it.
    Not to mention legislative uprisings fromstates. There's a movement afoot across the U.S. to nullify "unconstitutional" federal laws, as determined by the state legislature(s).

    See http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    NoVA, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    431

    Post imported post

    Treaties signed by 2/3 of the Senate DO trump American Law, including anything in the Constitution. It's actually right in the Constitution:
    Article 6.
    ...
    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.

  13. #13
    Regular Member Statesman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lexington, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    949

    Post imported post

    ufcfanvt wrote:
    Treaties signed by 2/3 of the Senate DO trump American Law, including anything in the Constitution. It's actually right in the Constitution:
    Article 6.
    ...
    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.
    In my understanding of this section, this still only applies to that which (treaties, in this case) are constitutional to begin with. It simply says those laws and treaties which are constitutional, are supreme law of the land.

    "which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;" and "under the Authority of the United States" implies that the law or treaty is constitutional, and that they are not acting outside authority delegated by the states, and the people.

    Either way, states can still repeal or amend parts of the U.S. Constitution.

    "The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress."
    - Frederick Douglass


  14. #14
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849

    Post imported post

    Statesman wrote:
    ufcfanvt wrote:
    Treaties signed by 2/3 of the Senate DO trump American Law, including anything in the Constitution. It's actually right in the Constitution:
    Article 6.
    ...
    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.
    In my understanding of this section, this still only applies to that which (treaties, in this case) are constitutional to begin with. It simply says those laws and treaties which are constitutional, are supreme law of the land.

    "which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;" and "under the Authority of the United States" implies that the law or treaty is constitutional, and that they are not acting outside authority delegated by the states, and the people.

    Either way, states can still repeal or amend parts of the U.S. Constitution.

    "The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress."
    - Frederick Douglass
    Yep. And it still would not have any affect on our right to arms since that right is recognized under the Bill of Rights as being sacrosanct and therefore, untouchable.

    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    429

    Post imported post

    Rebeca Peters disagrees with you guys.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmg_zMuQEDk

  16. #16
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849

    Post imported post

    phone guy wrote:
    Rebeca Peters disagrees with you guys.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmg_zMuQEDk
    I have that video and she is dead balls wrong. Wayne quotes a Supreme Court decision that states no treaty may be entered into which supersedes or circumvents the Constitution of the United States (paraphrased, of course). He is correct. And simply put, no president may propose a treaty or sign such that does anything of this nature because he would be in violation of his oath of office and subject to a charge of high treason. This ties the hands of any president who may have nefarious designs upon our liberty.

    Lastly, Americans don't give a damn what Mrs. Peters or the UN have to say.

    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  17. #17
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Greensboro, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    1,052

    Post imported post

    SouthernBoy wrote:
    phone guy wrote:
    Rebeca Peters disagrees with you guys.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmg_zMuQEDk
    I have that video and she is dead balls wrong. Wayne quotes a Supreme Court decision that states no treaty may be entered into which supersedes or circumvents the Constitution of the United States (paraphrased, of course). He is correct. And simply put, no president may propose a treaty or sign such that does anything of this nature because he would be in violation of his oath of office and subject to a charge of high treason. This ties the hands of any president who may have nefarious designs upon our liberty.

    Lastly, Americans don't give a damn what Mrs. Peters or the UN have to say.
    Agreed. I just watched that video, good stuff. I have to appreciate Wayne LaPierre's response, although I would love to see the entire debate. I would like to point out though, that I don't like the idea that we have to "seek" protection from a UN treaty from the Supreme Court but that has proven necessary time and time again (sometimes SCOTUS has proven against our favor). I say this because SCOTUS decisions are either marred in jurisdictional wars or some choose to ignore it and enact laws against it anyway.

    With all that said... America contributes disproportionately to the worlds problems? I think not, Ms. Peters. The United States contributes disproportionately high to the world's solutions or attempts at gaining a solution to problems. The world's problems are caused by the world.
    You think Afganistan's problems started with the U.S.? No, it at least started with Russia, we gave them a solution to survive the Red Onslaught.
    Did the US start Iraq's hatred of Kurds and Iran? No, that is a hatred that has existed longer than the US has been around.
    Did the US cause issues between Israel and the rest of the Middle East, especially Palestinians? No! It began because Britain didn't want to handle Palestine any more, so they got the UN to partition it!
    How about the India-Pakistan disputes over Cashmier? NO! Once again, Britain left an entire subcontinent in shambles, partitioned it, and left the people to fight each other, like they did Palestine.
    How about Russia and Chechnya? No, that's the Russians and the Chechens.
    Genocide in the Sudan or in Rwanda? Nope, once again, that would be entirely the people that live in that region.
    Piracy off the Horn of Africa? Nope, we're one of the solutions to stopping it; I seem to remember some awesomely effective SEAL sharp shooters rescuing a certain merchant captain last year.

    Hmmmmm, disproportionate my butt....

    Rebecca Peters, I would tell you to take your ideas somewhere else but I know they won't do ANY human being any good.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    429

    Post imported post

    Rebeca's smug smile will be gone with the look off disbelief
    if she is in some US city and gets attacked and one of us shows up.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Provo, Utah, USA
    Posts
    1,076

    Post imported post

    UtahJarhead wrote:
    It's not possible as laws currently stand. Treaties the US agree to are still subject to our National Constitution and if certain portions of a treaty are contrary to the Constitution, then it's not legal to enforce it.
    Actually, most constitutional scholars will tell you that treaties override our constitution.

  20. #20
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524

    Post imported post

    rpyne wrote:
    UtahJarhead wrote:
    It's not possible as laws currently stand. Treaties the US agree to are still subject to our National Constitution and if certain portions of a treaty are contrary to the Constitution, then it's not legal to enforce it.
    Actually, most constitutional scholars will tell you that treaties override our constitution.
    Especially the ones named Obama.

    Oh, wait. They also think anything overrides the Constitution.
    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

  21. #21
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849

    Post imported post

    rpyne wrote:
    UtahJarhead wrote:
    It's not possible as laws currently stand. Treaties the US agree to are still subject to our National Constitution and if certain portions of a treaty are contrary to the Constitution, then it's not legal to enforce it.
    Actually, most constitutional scholars will tell you that treaties override our constitution.
    Perhaps the same ones who believe the Second Amendment to be a collective right?

    Or that there's something in the First Amendment that addresses "separation of church and state"?

    Well, they're wrong. We know because we can read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and the English contained therein is perfect and a perfect example of words having meaning.

    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  22. #22
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849

    Post imported post

    Actually Mrs. Peters does a very good job of arguing her case in this video - better in some places than does Mr. LaPierre. Wayne turns to emotional rhetoric a few times, but so does Peters. Wayne just does it right at the start.

    In one place, Peters lets the cat out of the bag when talking about confiscation and tells the audience that they'll just have to find other pastimes for their sporting pursuits. This doesn't set too well.

    When anti's slip and say these things, you can almost imagine their supporters whispering, "Damnit, don't say that. They'll know what we really want to do."

    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    NoVA, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    431

    Post imported post

    Say what you want and think what you want, but PLEASE don't make this into a Non-Issue for Gun Owners.
    The fact is that this that the Supreme Court, especially after a few more unfortunate appointments, can and will sell you and me up the river:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

    Don't trust them and NEVER let such a treaty be treated causally!

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Provo, Utah, USA
    Posts
    1,076

    Post imported post

    Our fight will be in the Senate as both Hillary and Obummah have publically supported this treaty.

  25. #25
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849

    Post imported post

    ufcfanvt wrote:
    Say what you want and think what you want, but PLEASE don't make this into a Non-Issue for Gun Owners.
    The fact is that this that the Supreme Court, especially after a few more unfortunate appointments, can and will sell you and me up the river:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

    Don't trust them and NEVER let such a treaty be treated causally!
    I agree completely with this. What I wrote is about what was written by the Founders. Unfortunately, what actually takes place can and frequently is, something else.

    Thomas Jefferson believed the supreme court to be potentially, the biggest threat to liberty. These people are appointed, not elected, and may serve as long as they wish. All manner of evil can be visited upon us through their decisions. But there is a remedy built into our system.

    The legislative branch is the most powerful of the three branches of the federal government. They can impeach and remove a sitting supreme court jurist if they so desire. And then there is the final power which exceeds anything in our government and that is "We The People". Via the Second Amendment and what was written in the Declaration of Independence, we hold the ultimate power and authority and can remove anyone in any office by force of arms if need be. The Founders weren't stupid.

    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •