Results 1 to 22 of 22

Thread: UN global gun control conference begins in New York

  1. #1
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961

    UN global gun control conference begins in New York

    UN global gun control conference begins in New York
    July 13, 12:14 PM Gun Rights Examiner David Codrea
    "Nations open talks on world arms trade treaty," the Reuters headline informs us:
    The world's nations opened negotiations on Monday on an arms trade treaty meant to regulate the $55 billion global weapons market...

    "There are currently no legally binding international rules governing the trade in conventional weapons," The Associated Press reports, "and treaty supporters say gaps and loopholes in national regulations allow thousands of weapons to end up in conflict zones in the hands of serious human rights abusers."

    Lobbying for the treaty is strong.

    "The Control Arms Campaign, a civil society network including Amnesty International, Oxfam and Instituto Sou da Paz, has called on governments to draft a robust and effective treaty to control the arms trade, covering all weapons, ammunition and related equipment," Amnesty International declares.

    And Defense News tells us "The European Union has supported a U.N. plan to negotiate an Arms Trade Treaty..."

    Breaking with the policy from the previous administration, the State Department agreed to participate in the treaty drafting process, albeit with the condition of consensus. Still, the sentiment of Secretary Hillary Clinton could not be made more clear than by State's directed participation in an event last Friday:
    The United States is pleased to join the international community in observing International Small Arms Destruction Day as part of our ongoing efforts to reduce armed violence and support the rule of law around the world.

    The official policy, written and implemented by those who swore an oath to uphold the Constitution, is to join forces with the most radical anti-gun zealots on the planet. And to be "pleased" about it.

    What's next? This "PrepCom" will continue through July 23. It's the first of three sessions to be held over the next year, with a four-week conference planned in 2012 to finalize the treaty.

    After that? There's a Senate ratification process.

    So how will an Arms Trade Treaty impact U.S. gun laws? What new domestic controls will be established to implement compliance and what import and export restrictions will be set? We can't say, because the treaty is being drafted. But we can speculate on a "wish list," of what they want and what they think they can get away with.

    Because of this, there is much confusion and no small amount of misinformation. That's understandable. After all, when we see creatures like George Soros protege Rebecca Peters and radical citizen disarmament groups like Oxfam International demanding light weapons bans and decrying the option for a veto, and when we see our own State Department celebrating the destruction of guns by armed liberty-crushing regimes of the world, it's obvious what the end goal of all these procedural rituals really is.

    Ultimately, here's what it boils down to: Those who desire control want to take away our guns. And some of us will not disarm. No matter what they pass.

    Their move

    Link: http://www.examiner.com/x-1417-Gun-R...ns-in-New-York
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  2. #2
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358
    This is a more serious attack on the People of the USA than what happened 8 years, 10 months ago, about 6 miles to the south-west...

  3. #3
    Regular Member Jack House's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    I80, USA
    Posts
    2,661
    As I recall, the last such conference pushed for ridiculously strict domestic gun control measures and wasn't too terribly worried about wars or the like.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack House View Post
    As I recall, the last such conference pushed for ridiculously strict domestic gun control measures and wasn't too terribly worried about wars or the like.
    That's not what I meant...

    Check a map of NYC, and your calendar...



    Funny thing is, it's probably the SAME people behind both events...
    Last edited by Dreamer; 07-15-2010 at 12:34 AM.

  5. #5
    Regular Member simmonsjoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Mattaponi, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    1,664

    Why NYC?

    I really wish this was held elsewhere so we could march on it.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Jack House's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    I80, USA
    Posts
    2,661
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreamer View Post
    That's not what I meant...
    My comment wasn't directed at you, it was in response to the article.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Lakewood, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    1,250
    She should be representing her constituents; and appose any regulations on firearms ownership in the USA by an international body.

    The Supreme Court's recent ruling adds a touch of comfort to the situation; affirming that Americans will not be deprived of their right to keep and bear arms.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358
    Information about this bill needs to be spread like wildfire through the Cowboy Action Shooting community. If thsi bill was adopted by the US, it would KILL that sport, because the vast majority of those old-style repro cowboy guns are made abroad (mostly Italy and Spain) and imported. Thing about all the brands that would be restricted: Beretta, Uberti, Cimarron, Rossi, EAA, Stoeger, Taurus--the list goes on and on...

    A LOT of collectors, Cowboy action shooters, and peole who just like old-fashioned firearms would get seriously screwed by this treaty.

    And it does NOTHING to control the MAIN source of international gun-running--clandestine sources from GOVERNMENTS. Almost EVERY automatic weapon being used by the Mexican drug cartels originally got into Central America through CIA or DEA channels in Nicaragua, Guatemala, and Costa Rico. This is a "black market" that was CREATED by our clandestine war-mongering in Central America, and now it's coming back to bite us in the tuchass. And there is NOTHING in this treaty that would have stopped those full-auto American, Israeli, and Soviet firearms from getting there through our CIA and DEA channels...

    This treaty throws the door WIDE open for governments to move guns around as they see fit, and arm whatever thugs they wish, while at the same time, ACTIVELY disarming citizens in poor communities by stripping them of the option of economical imported firearms.

    And we know where THAT has historically led...

  9. #9
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961
    The problem with this U.N. treaty is that it will be ratified by many nations and enforced by their governments. That will mean serious difficulties going on an African Safari, sailing your boat around the world or importing firearms from other countries.

    There will be serious efforts to hold all residual gun owners to a strict registration and the home production of firearms for personal use will be outlawed.

    It will be a felony to "make" your own ammunition, so get rid of all of your reload gear, you will only be able to buy numbered ammo from government sanctioned stores.

    Muzzle loading will be dead, because you will not have access to black powder.

    Pay an international tax to help pay for world wide gun grabbing activities whenever you are allowed to buy a gun or ammunition.

    Yeah, we are just warming up here.
    Last edited by Thundar; 07-16-2010 at 02:04 PM. Reason: clarify
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  10. #10
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358
    Quote Originally Posted by cscitney87 View Post
    She should be representing her constituents; and appose any regulations on firearms ownership in the USA by an international body..
    Secretary Clinton IS representing her constituants--John Soros, John D. Rockefeller, David Rene' de Rothschild, Maurice Strong, Al Gore. They are the folks who paid to get her in her position, and so the way she sees it, they ARE her constituents. We little "commoners" in the US are just an annoying blip on her radar screen...

  11. #11
    Regular Member Old Grump's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Blue River, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    387
    Treaties need to be ratified by the Senate by a 2/3 majority and signed by the president. We have an election in 109 days. Do you really think an unconstitutional treaty will have a chance of passing. Keep an eye on the idiots but I don't feel the need to run around in circles crying out "The sky is falling".

  12. #12
    Founder's Club Member PrayingForWar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    The Real World.
    Posts
    1,705
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreamer View Post
    Information about this bill needs to be spread like wildfire through the Cowboy Action Shooting community. If thsi bill was adopted by the US, it would KILL that sport, because the vast majority of those old-style repro cowboy guns are made abroad (mostly Italy and Spain) and imported. Thing about all the brands that would be restricted: Beretta, Uberti, Cimarron, Rossi, EAA, Stoeger, Taurus--the list goes on and on...

    A LOT of collectors, Cowboy action shooters, and peole who just like old-fashioned firearms would get seriously screwed by this treaty.

    And it does NOTHING to control the MAIN source of international gun-running--clandestine sources from GOVERNMENTS. Almost EVERY automatic weapon being used by the Mexican drug cartels originally got into Central America through CIA or DEA channels in Nicaragua, Guatemala, and Costa Rico. This is a "black market" that was CREATED by our clandestine war-mongering in Central America, and now it's coming back to bite us in the tuchass. And there is NOTHING in this treaty that would have stopped those full-auto American, Israeli, and Soviet firearms from getting there through our CIA and DEA channels...

    This treaty throws the door WIDE open for governments to move guns around as they see fit, and arm whatever thugs they wish, while at the same time, ACTIVELY disarming citizens in poor communities by stripping them of the option of economical imported firearms.

    And we know where THAT has historically led...
    We need a BS flag icon.

    First of all, we armed anti communist guerrilas in Central America. You aren't really "war mongering" when you assist people in resisting a tyranical government system that has collectively caused systematic mass murder and starvations. It's also my oppinion that killing communists is a noble endeavor. Secondly, indeed there are M16's that ended up in the wrong hands. I'd venture to bet they come from other governments, not directly from us. Third, most of the weapons used by drug gangs come from groups like FARC, and other leftist rebel groups. To say that the CIA is arming these people is insipid. Finally, the treaty has not even been drafted yet, so how do you know there's nothing in it that would prevent "official" clandestine operatives from continuing to send full auto weapons to anyone?

    Don't get me wrong, this treaty will be a horrific disaster, but it has about as much chance to be ratified as the Jesse Ventura has to be regarded as a lucid thinker.
    Last edited by PrayingForWar; 07-16-2010 at 01:51 PM.

  13. #13
    Regular Member simmonsjoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Mattaponi, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    1,664

    Angry As If !!

    Quote Originally Posted by PrayingForWar View Post
    We need a BS flag icon.

    First of all, we armed anti communist guerrilas in Central America. You aren't really "war mongering" when you assist people in resisting a tyranical government system that has collectively caused systematic mass murder and starvations. It's also my oppinion that killing communists is a noble endeavor. Secondly, indeed there are M16's that ended up in the wrong hands. I'd venture to bet they come from other governments, not directly from us. Third, most of the weapons used by drug gangs come from groups like FARC, and other leftist rebel groups. To say that the CIA is arming these people is insipid. Finally, the treaty has not even been drafted yet, so how do you know there's nothing in it that would prevent "official" clandestine operatives from continuing to send full auto weapons to anyone?

    Don't get me wrong, this treaty will be a horrific disaster, but it has about as much chance to be ratified as the Jesse Ventura has to be regarded as a lucid thinker.
    You can't call BS on someone by 'venturing a guess.'
    If you call BS you need to put factual information to disprove that person.
    Else your just voicing your own opinion.

    btw, the CIA has been outed for gun running on more than one occasion.

    P.S. - Killing people for political reasons is never a noble endeavor. Fighting against communism may be, but fighting a political idea does not equal kill all the people. Look at the former communist states. They collapsed in on themselves. No political cleansing required. Change peoples minds. The pen truly is mighty. From your pen-name, and posting history, I'd 'venture' you don't understand that.
    Last edited by simmonsjoe; 07-16-2010 at 03:05 PM.

  14. #14
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358
    Quote Originally Posted by PrayingForWar View Post
    We need a BS flag icon.

    First of all, we armed anti communist guerrilas in Central America. You aren't really "war mongering" when you assist people in resisting a tyranical government system that has collectively caused systematic mass murder and starvations. It's also my oppinion that killing communists is a noble endeavor. Secondly, indeed there are M16's that ended up in the wrong hands.

    Your comment is so utterly full of errors that it barely merits comment, but sometimes I just can't help myself...

    I said NOTHING about M-16s... The fact of the matter is that the guns supplied to the "anti communist guerillas" by the CIA during the Iran-Contra era were actually supplied to the CIA by Israel, and were mostly firearms of Soviet and Chinese manufacture--So they COULDN'T be traced back to the US easily.

    Sort of like the guns being used by the Mujahadeen against our own troops in Afghanistan today. They were supplied by the CIA through a program developed and implemented by Zbigniew Brzezinski (who was, at the time, Carter's National Security Advisor, and he did it to PROVOKE the Russians to attack, NOT to "help" the Afghanis defend themselves against "Soviet incursion". Look it up, dude, he admitted it to the French Press in an interview in "Le Nouvel Observateur" in 1998...)

    Since those "guerillas" are no longer fighting Commies, it's a pretty good bet that their tools have been sold off to the highest bidders in the last 2 decades--and the bidders with the deepest pockets in that part of the world are the Mexican and Columbian drug cartels.

    Do some freaking historical research before you start "calling BS".

    Stop drinking the Koolaide and get some facts.

    Get thee to a library...

  15. #15
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    "There are currently no legally binding international rules governing the trade in conventional weapons," The Associated Press reports, "and treaty supporters say gaps and loopholes in national regulations allow thousands of weapons to end up in conflict zones in the hands of serious human rights abusers."

    If this statement is true, then the Associated Press comment was invented entirely by AP staff.

    The truth is that there are boatloads of legally binding international agreements governing the trade of conventional weapons: Links.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  16. #16
    Founder's Club Member PrayingForWar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    The Real World.
    Posts
    1,705
    Quote Originally Posted by simmonsjoe View Post
    You can't call BS on someone by 'venturing a guess.'
    If you call BS you need to put factual information to disprove that person.
    Else your just voicing your own opinion.

    btw, the CIA has been outed for gun running on more than one occasion.

    P.S. - Killing people for political reasons is never a noble endeavor. Fighting against communism may be, but fighting a political idea does not equal kill all the people. Look at the former communist states. They collapsed in on themselves. No political cleansing required. Change peoples minds. The pen truly is mighty. From your pen-name, and posting history, I'd 'venture' you don't understand that.
    When millions of people pledge to destroy you, you can either kill them all, or attempt to "change their minds". For me, killing them is the most efficient and certain solution. "Changing their minds" might be more noble, but it can also backfire and get you and people you care about killed. Besides that it is usually a waste of time and resources.

    Communist states certainly did collapse, and there's only one that I'm aware of that remained standing after finally rejecting the economic aspects of communism, but they've held on to the tyranny. Communists are like termites. You can try to change their minds all you want, but by their nature they spread and eat away at the foundation of nations and collapse them from within. I would rather do some "political cleanisng", than watch more nations collapse and see their people impoverished for decades, and still not be rid of the mindset that it's the government's job to support the population. I'm suprised you can not understand that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dreamer View Post
    Your comment is so utterly full of errors that it barely merits comment, but sometimes I just can't help myself...

    I said NOTHING about M-16s... The fact of the matter is that the guns supplied to the "anti communist guerillas" by the CIA during the Iran-Contra era were actually supplied to the CIA by Israel, and were mostly firearms of Soviet and Chinese manufacture--So they COULDN'T be traced back to the US easily.

    Sort of like the guns being used by the Mujahadeen against our own troops in Afghanistan today. They were supplied by the CIA through a program developed and implemented by Zbigniew Brzezinski (who was, at the time, Carter's National Security Advisor, and he did it to PROVOKE the Russians to attack, NOT to "help" the Afghanis defend themselves against "Soviet incursion". Look it up, dude, he admitted it to the French Press in an interview in "Le Nouvel Observateur" in 1998...)

    Since those "guerillas" are no longer fighting Commies, it's a pretty good bet that their tools have been sold off to the highest bidders in the last 2 decades--and the bidders with the deepest pockets in that part of the world are the Mexican and Columbian drug cartels.

    Do some freaking historical research before you start "calling BS".

    Stop drinking the Koolaide and get some facts.

    Get thee to a library...
    Your post seemed (to me at least) to point the finger of blame at our covert operatives as if they intentionally armed drug gangs. You didn't specify M-16, but you did say "those full-auto American, Israeli, and Soviet firearms", I assumed you were speaking of M-16's, which drug gangs are using, because we haven't produced an abundance of Kalashnikovs. I know clandestine operatives move guns around, and arm some evil people on occasion. Everyone makes mistakes that can sometimes not be realized for decades. You seem to want to imply these are not mistakes at all, but intentional acts. That is absolute BS, and I've seen you time after time post conspiritorial BS as if it was fact. Try checking your own "facts" against some credible sources instead of just sheepishly regurgitating everything you read on INFOWARS.

    This kind of crap does nothing positive, and it further alienates people who still believe the country is fundamentally righteous. For the entire time Bush was in office Alex Jones did the elite international marxists a huge favor, while claiming to be fighting against their agenda. (I think he's just a tool of the "NWO"). He garnered a following of people who would otherwise be passionate libertarians and caused their philosophies to be viewed as extremist. He spread fear and lies regarding the struggle against islamic radicalism, which is indeed a very real danger, whether you and Mikhail Moore want to believe it or not. He isolated those who reject international marxism, by linking them to 9/11 "truth" idiocy. Alex Jones and his tin foil sheep are detrimental to the struggle against things like the UN treaty, because no one wants to be associated with loud mouth delusional malcontents, except other delusional malcontents.

    That's all I have to say to you.

    We don't need to worry about this treaty, so long as we defeat the leftists in the coming elections. Once we start sending obozo unemployment checks, there's no chance this treaty will even make it to the senate, let alone be ratified.
    Last edited by PrayingForWar; 07-30-2010 at 09:02 AM.

  17. #17
    Regular Member simmonsjoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Mattaponi, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    1,664

    Humanity fail

    PrayingForWar, you fail.

    Your elitism and racism shines through in your above statement. You define people by there gov't, instead of in spite of it. Make no mistake your life is just as important as some poor illiterate Chinese farmer living under communist rule. Indeed he is your brother. You should be Dreaming of their liberation. Instead you dream of their extermination. Your one sick bastard.
    Last edited by simmonsjoe; 07-30-2010 at 12:30 PM.
    illegal ≠ immoral legal ≠ moral
    [SIZE=1]"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. "Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent." - Thomas Jefferson
    G19 Gen 4; Bersa Thunder 380; Sig Sauer P238; Kel-Tec su-16c

  18. #18
    Founder's Club Member PrayingForWar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    The Real World.
    Posts
    1,705
    Quote Originally Posted by simmonsjoe View Post
    PrayingForWar, you fail.

    Your elitism and racism shines through in your above statement. You define people by there gov't, instead of in spite of it. Make no mistake your life is just as important as some poor illiterate Chinese farmer living under communist rule. Indeed he is your brother. You should be Dreaming of their liberation. Instead you dream of their extermination. Your one sick bastard.
    Whatever, I said nothing about exterminating chinese peasants. I said killing communists, that is those who oppress the peasantry all over the world, is a noble cause. THAT LIBERATES PEOPLE. You're just pissed off because I have no qualms about calling a cult, a cult. So yes indeed I do dream of a world where collectivist sociopaths do not steal the GDP of entire nations to enrich themselves. Just as I also dream of a world where bearded perverts do not sexually abuse women children and animals, or blow themselves up in crowds. If that makes me an elitist, that's fine. It's typical of sniveling bedwetters to equate that with racism, which I didn't think you were until now.

    This is where a middle finger icon would go.
    Last edited by PrayingForWar; 07-30-2010 at 01:18 PM.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Lisbon Falls, Maine
    Posts
    1

    Small Arms Treaty

    The key is to be well educated, as always- know your opponent in detail. Here is a great link of an interview with Executive Director Dudley Brown of the National Association for Gun Rights. Worth checking out.

    http://www.ammoland.com/2010/04/16/d...l-arms-treaty/
    Last edited by Sheain; 08-01-2010 at 08:35 AM.

  20. #20
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    We shouldn't have to worry because a tready to strictly control or disband private ownership of firearms in the U.S. would not only be unenforceable; it would be illegal. Please hear me out here because I know I am going to receive some flak about my assertion.

    The president takes the following oath of office before he assumes his office.

    "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

    Note that the president is bound by a trust to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. This means he may not enter into any agreement, treaty or otherwise, which runs counter to the Constitution. Doing so is grounds for impeachment and may even be considered treason.

    The Constitution says,

    "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."

    Here note the use of the phrase, "under the Authority of the United States". Any treaty which is made which violates the conditions of the trust (the Constitution) is made outside of the Authority of the United States and therefore, is not legal.

    So a president may enter into a treaty as long as it does not violate the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. His violation of this trust is highly illegal.

    Now I know some will flame me on this, but it is in the document. Do I believe a president will always honor the Constitution and adhere to the power and authority which the people have lent him? Hell no. They've been dishonoring these documents for a very long time. So while they may not have the legal authority to do these things, you can bet that mere statements on pieces of paper mean little to them anymore.

    Ok, flame if you wish. Just be civil.
    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!

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    San Antonio, ,
    Posts
    181
    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernBoy View Post
    We shouldn't have to worry because a tready to strictly control or disband private ownership of firearms in the U.S. would not only be unenforceable; it would be illegal. Please hear me out here because I know I am going to receive some flak about my assertion.

    The president takes the following oath of office before he assumes his office.

    "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

    Note that the president is bound by a trust to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. This means he may not enter into any agreement, treaty or otherwise, which runs counter to the Constitution. Doing so is grounds for impeachment and may even be considered treason.

    The Constitution says,

    "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."

    Here note the use of the phrase, "under the Authority of the United States". Any treaty which is made which violates the conditions of the trust (the Constitution) is made outside of the Authority of the United States and therefore, is not legal.

    So a president may enter into a treaty as long as it does not violate the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. His violation of this trust is highly illegal.

    Now I know some will flame me on this, but it is in the document. Do I believe a president will always honor the Constitution and adhere to the power and authority which the people have lent him? Hell no. They've been dishonoring these documents for a very long time. So while they may not have the legal authority to do these things, you can bet that mere statements on pieces of paper mean little to them anymore.

    Ok, flame if you wish. Just be civil.
    That's what I was going to contribute, but since you already did, +1

    Beyond that, I keep a pistol with me pretty much all the time. The first seven b*stards that try to come through *MY* front door with the intention of violating my constitutional right to keep and bear arms is gonna end up in a bloody pile at the front door. If I know ahead of time that they're coming, I'll be more even ready, and I have a box full of 30-round mags all loaded up and ready to go.

  22. #22
    Founder's Club Member PrayingForWar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    The Real World.
    Posts
    1,705
    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernBoy View Post
    We shouldn't have to worry because a tready to strictly control or disband private ownership of firearms in the U.S. would not only be unenforceable; it would be illegal. Please hear me out here because I know I am going to receive some flak about my assertion.

    The president takes the following oath of office before he assumes his office.

    "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

    Note that the president is bound by a trust to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. This means he may not enter into any agreement, treaty or otherwise, which runs counter to the Constitution. Doing so is grounds for impeachment and may even be considered treason.

    The Constitution says,

    "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."

    Here note the use of the phrase, "under the Authority of the United States". Any treaty which is made which violates the conditions of the trust (the Constitution) is made outside of the Authority of the United States and therefore, is not legal.

    So a president may enter into a treaty as long as it does not violate the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. His violation of this trust is highly illegal.

    Now I know some will flame me on this, but it is in the document. Do I believe a president will always honor the Constitution and adhere to the power and authority which the people have lent him? Hell no. They've been dishonoring these documents for a very long time. So while they may not have the legal authority to do these things, you can bet that mere statements on pieces of paper mean little to them anymore.

    Ok, flame if you wish. Just be civil.

    There's no reason to flame you, nothing you've said is inaccurate. In the matter of this treat, I doubt 67 senators will vote yes. It is possible that the moonbat messiah will issue some executive order to enforce it, just as his minions are trying to do with illegal aliens. I just have to wonder why the supreme court has to wait until someone brings a lawsuit challenging a law, before they can declare a law, or executive order null and void.

Posting Permissions

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