• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

UN global gun control conference begins in New York

SouthernBoy

SouthernBoy

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2007
Messages
5,837
Location
Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
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.
 
J

jsimmons

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2009
Messages
181
Location
San Antonio, ,
SouthernBoy said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
PrayingForWar

PrayingForWar

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2007
Messages
1,701
Location
The Real World.
SouthernBoy said:
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.
Click to expand...


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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top