International Arms Treaty Fake Email Debuncted.

imported post

Guys,

Nothing is going to happen with the UN & International Arms Treaty. FactCheck.org took a look at it, and good news. The International Arms Treaty is about exporting weapons without checks and balances (that's a whole other debate)

Please note the email that is circulating is completely fake. The idea that a treaty would force us to stop carrying weapons is against the constitution, in several ways, please read:

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/international-gun-ban-treaty/

imported post

While I completely agree that any iftreaty, ratified or not, contained a provision requiring restrictions on firearms (or speech or requiring self-incrimination) that part of the treaty would at least be severable and void; and if not severable then the whole treaty would be null and void.

However, although "fact checker" can be a good resource, I would not rely on them alone without corroboration, as they tend to do selective checking on selected facts. Mostly they tell the truth and nothing but the truth, in other words, but conveniently leave out the "whole" part when it suits their liberal/left bias.

imported post

Pace (pah-che') is an avowed liberaltarian.

imported post

Yes sir, and damn proud of being a life-time member of the Libertarian Party and being an independent thinker. It's pronounced Pace as in Space, or Ace, or even Mace.

I believe in:

Small Government / Limited Government
Freedom from Government
Freedom in Business / Free Economic Principles.
Full 2A rights to all citizens.

Among other things, I'm sorry, what's wrong with my ideas?

I posted about the treaty because I want us to concentrate on where it's important, getting more laws passed: moving the national parks gun laws even more, so that we can always carry in any national park, since its national land, and eventually no restrictions nation wide on gun carry.

I believe things like the fake emails about gun treaty are actually from the other side in order to get us to keep the eye off the ball!!!

imported post

Pace wrote:

Yes sir, and damn proud of being a life-time member of the Libertarian Party and being an independent thinker. It's pronounced Pace as in Space, or Ace, or even Mace.

I believe in:

Small Government / Limited Government
Freedom from Government
Freedom in Business / Free Economic Principles.
Full 2A rights to all citizens.

Among other things, I'm sorry, what's wrong with my ideas?

I posted about the treaty because I want us to concentrate on where it's important, getting more laws passed: moving the national parks gun laws even more, so that we can always carry in any national park, since its national land, and eventually no restrictions nation wide on gun carry.

I believe things like the fake emails about gun treaty are actually from the other side in order to get us to keep the eye off the ball!!!

Click to expand...

It does seem a bit contradictory to state you are for small/limited government and freedom for government then state we need to concentrate on passingmore laws.

imported post

Your objection would on the outset seem to make sense, however two things:

1) Sometimes you need to take baby steps in the right direction - ie, laws that allow people to do certain things, such as carry here and there. Sometimes government and the general public needs to be pushed a bit.

2) You can pass laws that RESTRICT the government, which is part of the LP agenda also -- to prevent the government from, for example, taking guns nationally during a emergency, restricting federal law enforcement in certain circumstances, etc.

imported post

Pace wrote:

Your objection would on the outset seem to make sense, however two things:

1) Sometimes you need to take baby steps in the right direction - ie, laws that allow people to do certain things, such as carry here and there. Sometimes government and the general public needs to be pushed a bit.

2) You can pass laws that RESTRICT the government, which is part of the LP agenda also -- to prevent the government from, for example, taking guns nationally during a emergency, restricting federal law enforcement in certain circumstances, etc.

Click to expand...

On the contrary, laws are not required in order to "allow" people to do anything. It is the absence of laws that ensure that goal.

Governments operate via delegated powers which have been assigned to them by the governed. It does not require laws to restrict government from doing anything. It is the absence of delegated powers in their respective Constitution(s) that ensure that goal.

If in fact the passing of such laws are part of the LP agenda, we can only hope that the LP never gets in a position to do so.

imported post

Not true, sometimes clarification is needed. For example, anyone can go into a library and view records of people's books, if they wanted. Until 2001, it was illegal however for federal law enforcement to do so. They felt that there was no need for feds to know what people were reading.

Sometimes the government needs limitations beyond what is normally allwoed to civilians!

That's the ENTIRE idea of the Bill of Rights to Limit Government.

imported post

Pace wrote:

Not true, sometimes clarification is needed.

Click to expand...

....

Click to expand...

That's the ENTIRE idea of the Bill of Rights to Limit Government.

Click to expand...

Those two statements are completely contradictory. Unfortunately, the fact that you don't understand that is apparent in a wide variety of things that you post.

imported post

Pace wrote:

Not true, sometimes clarification is needed. For example, anyone can go into a library and view records of people's books, if they wanted. Until 2001, it was illegal however for federal law enforcement to do so. They felt that there was no need for feds to know what people were reading.

Sometimes the government needs limitations beyond what is normally allwoed to civilians!

That's the ENTIRE idea of the Bill of Rights to Limit Government.

Click to expand...

With respect Sir:

You have it backwards.... it is "we the people" who allow the government to do what it does... it is NOT the government who allows "the people" to do what we do.

From: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/allow

Main Entry: al·low
Pronunciation: \ə-ˈlau̇\Function: verb Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French aluer, alouer to place, apportion, allow, from Middle French allocare — more at allocateDate: 14th century

transitive verb
1 a : to assign as a share or suitable amount (as of time or money) <allow an hour for lunch>
b : to reckon as a deduction or an addition <allow a gallon for leakage>
2 a chiefly Southern & Midland : to be of the opinion : think
b dialect : say, state c : to express an opinion —usually used with as how or that
3 chiefly Southern & Midland : intend, plan
4 : admit, concede <must allow that money causes problems in marriage>
5 a : permit <doesn't allow people to smoke in his home>
b :<allow the dog to roam> to forbear or neglect to restrain or prevent

Exercising a right does not need any permit or permission from anyone.

imported post

The problem is that some people state things as they wish them to be as though they are.

The founders, some of the posters here, and I all believe that government should derive its powers from the consent of the governed. Unfortunately, government seems to be a power-hoover, sucking up power it was never intended to be given. More unfortunately, too many Americans are willing to cede power to the government in order to get "stuff" from it.

Anyway, back on point. The situation is that the government now has the power to allow We the People to do things, because We the People have allowed the feds to compile that power.

That situation won't get any better until We the People wrest that power back. Time is running out to do that at the ballot box, so we'd better get cracking.

imported post

Eye, what you say is 100% true, I agree with you.

For those who say "It's our right" and then don't fight for it, I question what they actually know. Saying "It's a right to bear arms" as a fact, without actually trying to change the situation, doesn't do any of us much good.

Bikenut: I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with. For example, it is "allowed" or not prohibited to go into a bookstore and ask who bought a book, we restrict the government however from doing this (or used to) implicitly. I don't think we disagree. I believe that we've been giving unncessary power for the last 70 years to the government to fight the "war on drugs" the "war on terrorism" the war against broccoli. You name it.

The government derives it's power completely from the people.

Unfortunately, it's the nature of government and those in power to abuse, so you have to make laws that limit their ability to abuse. That's the entire reason the BIll of Rights was created (read the preamble) in order to restrict what they could do. Read some of the writings during that time, and the fears they have.

imported post

Yes,it's a hoax -- for the time being.

Obviously such would be unconstitutional, but does anyone think that would deter the current administration even a moment?

imported post

Pace,

You gotta remember that one of the major provisions of the IGB treaty was the complete and absolute abolishment of the international sales, movement and transportation of small arms (with exceptions, of course, for governments, military, and police forces).

If this treaty would go through (which it won't because it would never pass vote in Congress), that means that it would essentially terminate the "Cowboy Action Shooting" and historical reenactment sports, because the VAST majority of historical copy firearms are made in Brasil, Italy, Spain, and Portugal.

No more Uberti's, no more Berettas, no more Stoegers, etc...

How would I get my Schofield?

imported post

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;

Click to expand...

imported post

Pace wrote:

Eye, what you say is 100% true, I agree with you.

For those who say "It's our right" and then don't fight for it, I question what they actually know. Saying "It's a right to bear arms" as a fact, without actually trying to change the situation, doesn't do any of us much good.

Bikenut: I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with. For example, it is "allowed" or not prohibited to go into a bookstore and ask who bought a book, we restrict the government however from doing this (or used to) implicitly. I don't think we disagree. I believe that we've been giving unncessary power for the last 70 years to the government to fight the "war on drugs" the "war on terrorism" the war against broccoli. You name it.

The government derives it's power completely from the people.

Unfortunately, it's the nature of government and those in power to abuse, so you have to make laws that limit their ability to abuse. That's the entire reason the BIll of Rights was created (read the preamble) in order to restrict what they could do. Read some of the writings during that time, and the fears they have.

Click to expand...

I am disagreeing with the use of the word "allowed", and the subsequent word's meaning implying that consent must be had before engaging in an activity.

Now... "not prohibited" would be the correct wording to use since "not prohibited" means there are no laws against said activity... but it also means no consent must be garnered to engage in that activity whereas "allowed" means consent, either explicit or implied, must be had from some agent or agency that has the authority to either give, or deny, consent.

"Not prohibited" also does not imply consent... "not prohibited" is neutral since there are no penalties for doing the activity.. and no consent must be had to engage in the activity... and there is no agent or agency that has the authority to control in the first place.

A fine point of perspective to be sure... but an understanding of that fine point is necessary when dealing with rights since... not only is no consent needed to exercise a right but even if an authority did prohibit it... the right still remains because rights, true rights, cannot be taken away... or "allowed"... not even by law.

Ok... I actually do live in the real world and understand how messed up things have become so that politicians, the education system, and the media, have perverted the understanding of rights into things that can be regulated, controlled, and permits must be asked for in order to exercise those rights with penalties attached for not asking to be "allowed". Which has done much to foster an acceptance of being required to prove innocence (prove someone has "allowed") by providing ID or permits when confronted by authority.

But even today entirely too many people (not you specifically but in general) think that the Bill of Rights is a list of things the government "allows" the citizens to do....

I'm not picking on you personally Sir... just arguing this important fine point of perspective.

imported post

Pace wrote:

I believe in:

Small Government / Limited Government
Freedom from Government
Freedom in Business / Free Economic Principles.
Full 2A rights to all citizens.

Among other things, I'm sorry, what's wrong with my ideas?

Click to expand...

Other than the one in bold, nothing. My problem with libertarians has been, and always will be, the myth they hold that the market is natural. Libertarians want to trade a government dictatorship for a market dictatorship where the rich rule because of the amount of money in their bank account.

imported post

ABNinfantryman wrote:

Other than the one in bold, nothing. My problem with libertarians has been, and always will be, the myth they hold that the market is natural. Libertarians want to trade a government dictatorship for a market dictatorship where the rich rule because of the amount of money in their bank account.

Click to expand...

There is no freedom without market freedom. The problem is not capitalism, it is crony capitalism, where the government regulates in a way that promotes one business over another.

imported post

Let's recall the days of unfettered capitalism (i.e. when there were no worker protections from the Mellons, Rockefellers et al.)

There were the 60-hour weeks with no safety protections, company stores and housing, Henry Ford's morality squads which visited workers' homes checking for liquor, playing cards and such. Mellon, who swore that buying 10-cent canaries to keep coal miners from dying would destroy the industry. This from a man whose wife once spent $50,000 pre-WWI dollars on a single dinner party.

And don't forget the Colorado massacre when National Guard troops used machine guns on strikers' families.

I'm a proud conservative and I loathe liberalism but I believe any rational person must conclude that the moneymen have to be watched. Conservatism is common sense not Luddite opposition to every idea.

imported post

eye95 wrote:

There is no freedom without market freedom. The problem is not capitalism, it is crony capitalism, where the government regulates in a way that promotes one business over another.

Click to expand...

And what freedom does the market have when it's taken over by monopolies because there's no restriction on the man made market given value by men? There is no distinction between capitalism and crony capitalism, do not try and make it seem as such. Unrestricted free market capitalism breeds nepotism and strangles competition from the market. Any form of anarchy, be it political or economical, breeds feudalism.