Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: SAF REPORT LIVE FROM THE UN, 7/21/2010, from Julianne Versnel, Director of Operations

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    SAF REPORT LIVE FROM THE UN, 7/21/2010, from Julianne Versnel, Director of Operations

    http://www.saf.org/viewpr-new.asp?id=333

    Quote Originally Posted by SAF Versnel
    There appears little doubt that some sort of treaty will be adopted by 2014, if not by 2012. It is anticipated that the final treaty will attempt to register all firearms, require micro-stamping, destruction of surplus ammunition on a very set schedule, registration of all firearms and restriction on any transfer of arms including between private individuals and many other restrictions. If the United States is a signatory and this is ratified by the U.S. Senate, this UN treaty would be the law. On October 30, 2009, UN members voted in favor of an ATT. The United States voted in favor of an ATT.

  2. #2
    Regular Member KansasMustang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Herington, Kansas, USA
    Posts
    1,005
    How about "Molon Labe" over my dead body!
    ‘‘Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.’’ Thomas Jefferson

  3. #3
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    We might be led to think it would become the law of the land however, there is one small fly in the mix. The Bill of Rights. The Constitution lays down the design of the form of government we are to have and specifically describes those things which the government is allowed to do. Amendments to the Constitution have "refined" these descriptions over the years. However, the Bill of Rights is a different matter and is therefore separate from the Constitution because it outlines those rights which government shall never infringe and leaves open to the states and the people other rights not so outlined. So a treaty can be signed and whatever can be proposed. But the Second Amendment cannot be rescinded accept through the vehicle of rebellion. it is cast in stone just like the other nine Articles of the Bill of Rights.
    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!

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    COTUS, Article Six

    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.

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    1,128

    Just Ain't Gonna Happen

    w/o 67 votes in the US Senate, and "consensus" from the Administration.

    which means it just ain't gonna happen!

  6. #6
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Doug Huffman View 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; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
    Treaties do not superced U.S. Constitution only "state" constitutions.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Treaties do not superced U.S. Constitution only "state" constitutions.
    Wow. I can see where that phrase could be interpreted against either the federal or State constitutions. However, your interpretation is the one I would say is correct according to a plain reading. Your interpretation is also the logical one. It makes no sense that the Founders would've allowed a treaty to override enumerated rights.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358
    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernBoy View Post
    We might be led to think it would become the law of the land however, there is one small fly in the mix. The Bill of Rights. The Constitution lays down the design of the form of government we are to have and specifically describes those things which the government is allowed to do.

    Yeah, that will stop them...

    I have just two words for you folks who actually still believe that the "Rule of Law" has ANY weight whatsoever with regards to the legislative process:

    Patriot Act

    Warrantless wiretaps. NSA sig-int hardware mandated in all telephone company Central Offices on the main trunks. "Extraordinary rendition". No-knock warrants. No-fly lists. "Secret" detainments.

    The Constitution is considered to be a mildly annoying "speed bump" to these people. They pay VERY crafty lawyers VERY hefty salaries to find "alternate routes" around those annoying little barriers called "fundamental human rights." To them, its just a game, and YOU are merely pawns on a board.

    And until the American People realize that even as pawns, we outnumber them 8-to-1 (metaphorically... Actually, it's more like 4 million to 1), thus it shall ever be...
    It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression—and this is hogwash."
    --Barry Goldwater, 1964

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    COTUS Article Six simplified

    Quote Originally Posted by Doug Huffman View Post
    This Constitution, ... and all Treaties made, ... , shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and ... every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
    No wonder we suffer infringements, it seems no one can read the plain truth.

  10. #10
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreamer View Post
    Yeah, that will stop them...
    You're right and I know this. And that was one of my (hidden) points. We have these rights and the government has its limitations and boundaries. However, over the past 150+ years, and particularly in the last century, our Founding documents have been cast more and more aside as so much drivel.

    However, just because our government has chosen to disregard its trust does not mean our power has died. The shame of it all is that whole generations have grown up believing what we have come to see in present America. Those of us who have lived long enough to have seen a different nation have a little more history on our side. I am not going to hold my breath and close my eyes in hopes that all will change for the better soon. But there does seem to be a ground swell at work. More people are starting to pay attention to our Founding documents, but is it enough? Not yet.
    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 rushcreek2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs. CO
    Posts
    924
    "in pursuance of..." translates to IN ACCORDANCE WITH .

    The framers of the U.S. Constitution did not intend for the foundational document for this nation's existence to be subject to, amended by , or nullified by any treaty .

    SIGNED, RATIFIED - still not the law of this land if not in accord with the U.S. Constitution.

  12. #12
    Regular Member simmonsjoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Mattaponi, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    1,664

    Not the law of the land, but...

    Quote Originally Posted by rushcreek2 View Post
    "in pursuance of..." translates to IN ACCORDANCE WITH .

    The framers of the U.S. Constitution did not intend for the foundational document for this nation's existence to be subject to, amended by , or nullified by any treaty .

    SIGNED, RATIFIED - still not the law of this land if not in accord with the U.S. Constitution.
    It seems like anyone who actually signed a treaty that violates the 2nd amendment so grievously should be charged with a crime.

    Even if it has no effect in the US, they are signing a document that will help to remove foreign peoples natural right to self defense, and bearing arms.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Norfolk, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,000
    Quote Originally Posted by simmonsjoe View Post
    It seems like anyone who actually signed a treaty that violates the 2nd amendment so grievously should be charged with a crime.

    Even if it has no effect in the US, they are signing a document that will help to remove foreign peoples natural right to self defense, and bearing arms.
    Charge them with treason. It's what that action would be.

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by darthmord View Post
    Charge them with treason. It's what that action would be.
    Taking an action that is later judged to be unconstitutional is not treason. If it were, just about every member of Congress, president, governor, state legislator, etc. is guilty of treason.

    They aren't.

    If a president signs an unconstitutional treaty and the Senate ratifies it, then it will be up to the Supreme Court to invalidate all or part of it. Establishing criminality in the signing and ratifying would (and should) be an impossibly high hill to climb.

  15. #15
    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
    Even if it has no effect in the US, they are signing a document that will help to remove foreign peoples natural right to self defense, and bearing arms.
    That is a good point. One that should hold just as much weight as the arguement that this treaty violates our rights. We know what leftist regimes have done all over the world, so even if our RKBA is not compromised by this atrocity, it still empowers the global marxist agenda.


    Quote Originally Posted by Dreamer View Post
    YOU are merely pawns on a board.
    No, WE ARE THE BOARD.
    Last edited by PrayingForWar; 07-30-2010 at 11:24 AM.

Posting Permissions

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