UN Arms Trade Treaty- Moran letter to Obama-Hillary.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=45074 . I'm going to send an email to Levin & Stabenow(who's letters to me always state she's from Clare and grew up around guns) and ask them why they were'nt on the Moran letter list,telling Obama & Hillary(who stated in public they are for the UN Arms Trade Treaty,that violates our 2A tremendously) to reject any attempt by the UN(and the rest of the world) to outlaw our 2A Rights by treaty! I'll ask them why they don't publicly denounce O&H's position,which is the opposite of Bush&Bolton and the vast majority of Americans.These Rights predate our constitution and go to the beginning of human existence. Proof of this is when someone see's an object flying at their head and they instinctively duck! We need to let em know we're not stupid and that we are'nt sleeping and will notify everyone we know,even though it's not in the lame-stream(socialist propaganda) media! LETS GO! CARRY ON!

ratifying such a treaty would cause states to succeed from the union......or worse. Especially if said treaty was to be enforced by men wearing blue helmets.

I just read over on MCRGO that 12 Dems signed the letter.Haven't seen any list.It would be easy for an anti to sign the list now and get 2A credit.If a treaty was ever passed I believe it would start the shootin between the citizens and those trying to enforce it.We still have to watch our Reps records on future bills so we never get there.After all,we are the people who rule in this Republic,not the government.The only nation with a Bill of Rights that cover our Freedoms and Liberty! I'm going to ask em if they signed the letter anyway.CARRY ON!

Blue helmets, we don't need NO stinken Blue helmet's.....
Or any other helmet's telling us, how to live or where to go, or not go ...

No UN in my future.

Blue helmets will stand out beautifully against our local vegetation.

Since some of the state all ready passed the 9 and 10th amendment and sent it to the White House which gives them the right to withdraw from the union.

onestar 50 said:

Since some of the state all ready passed the 9 and 10th amendment and sent it to the White House which gives them the right tol away from the union.

Click to expand...

???

onestar 50 said:

Since some of the state all ready passed the 9 and 10th amendment and sent it to the White House which gives them the right to withdraw from the union.

Click to expand...

Wasn't there a war that decided the question whether a state or group of states could secede from the union? As I recall the answer was "no".

And thus, there is no longer a voluntary union of states, but a compulsory one.

CoonDog said:

And thus, there is no longer a voluntary union of states, but a compulsory one.

Click to expand...

Exactly...

DrTodd said:

Wasn't there a war that decided the question whether a state or group of states could secede from the union? As I recall the answer was "no".

Click to expand...

Last i checked we were a nation of laws and didn't decided based on the wars. We decided things on our legiislative halls and courts. And last I checked there was a Chief Justice of the Supreme court that said it was legal.

the500kid said:

Last i checked we were a nation of laws and didn't decided based on the wars. We decided things on our legiislative halls and courts. And last I checked there was a Chief Justice of the Supreme court that said it was legal.

Click to expand...

Please provide a citation for your last statement.... In Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869), the court said that the Constitution did not permit states to unilaterally secede from the United States, and that the ordinances of secession, and all the acts of the legislatures within seceding states intended to give effect to such ordinances, were 'absolutely null' and "When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation."
-citation: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0074_0700_ZO.html

DrTodd said:

Please provide a citation for your last statement.... In Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869), the court said that the Constitution did not permit states to unilaterally secede from the United States, and that the ordinances of secession, and all the acts of the legislatures within seceding states intended to give effect to such ordinances, were 'absolutely null' and "When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation."
-citation: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0074_0700_ZO.html

Click to expand...

First. How do you know all this. I hate you...

Second. I was useing Chief Justices Roger Brooke Taney private opinions to Lincolon. I was unaware of Texas v. White.

Third. The Texas v. White desision talks out of both sides of its mouth. And is really a ruleing to punish southern states even more. Two years latter Grant readmit's Texas to the Union. Which is it they never left or they left and had to be readmited. As far as the court haveing juristiction foreign country's go court all the time.

So IMHO no it wasn't decided. I highly doubt in this day in age any state that decides its really going to leave you won't see tanks rolling over its borders to make them rejoin. No one has that never..of course no one probably has the nerve to leave either.

They said we couldn't secede from the monarchy too.

the500kid said:

First. How do you know all this. I hate you...

Second. I was useing Chief Justices Roger Brooke Taney private opinions to Lincolon. I was unaware of Texas v. White.

Third. The Texas v. White desision talks out of both sides of its mouth. And is really a ruleing to punish southern states even more. Two years latter Grant readmit's Texas to the Union. Which is it they never left or they left and had to be readmited. As far as the court haveing juristiction foreign country's go court all the time.

So IMHO no it wasn't decided. I highly doubt in this day in age any state that decides its really going to leave you won't see tanks rolling over its borders to make them rejoin. No one has that never..of course no one probably has the nerve to leave either.

Click to expand...

One, I hate you too.
Two, well private opinions and public ones are two different things... in regards to SCOTUS, legal (public) opinions have precedent, personal ones don't.
Three, I think the whole secession issue, although perhaps at one time viable, is now pretty weak... and your last point that no one would seriously even entertain it is probably true.
But if a state left, it seems that it would probably be harder on the state that left than the union as a whole... much harder. States rely on trade/commerce with other states much more so today than they did back in the 1800's; if one considered it from a purely economic standpoint... it would be suicide.

DrTodd said:

One, I hate you too.
Two, well private opinions and public ones are two different things... in regards to SCOTUS, legal (public) opinions have precedent, personal ones don't.
Three, I think the whole secession issue, although perhaps at one time viable, is now pretty weak... and your last point that no one would seriously even entertain it is probably true.
But if a state left, it seems that it would probably be harder on the state that left than the union as a whole... much harder. States rely on trade/commerce with other states much more so today than they did back in the 1800's; if one considered it from a purely economic standpoint... it would be suicide.

Click to expand...

I disagree on your things being harder on the state, depending on the state. California by itself has the fifth largest economy in the world and the U.S. has always "needed" California more than California has needed the U.S. Same with Texas. Texas and Flordia have the 15th and 17th largest economys in the world respectively they'd probably do fine. If Vermont went through with their "Switzerland of the New World" idea I don't think they'd do all that well. Basicly bigger states could probably get away with it smaller ones couldn't.

True, but if states started dropping off, the fed.gov would start to change in order to save face in the eyes of the rest of the world.

Other nations may require that the state would have to pay thier portion of the debt upon secession, which would likely end up putting the state under the direct control of the other nation. That would get the feds tail in a bunch.

the500kid said:

I disagree on your things being harder on the state, depending on the state. California by itself has the fifth largest economy in the world and the U.S. has always "needed" California more than California has needed the U.S. Same with Texas. Texas and Flordia have the 15th and 17th largest economys in the world respectively they'd probably do fine. If Vermont went through with their "Switzerland of the New World" idea I don't think they'd do all that well. Basicly bigger states could probably get away with it smaller ones couldn't.

Click to expand...

You do know that California is bankrupt, right?

Taking away the large amount of Federal money would put their economy into an even bigger tailspin.

If California did leave the Union, and the United States went in to take it back, I think California would have no choice but to give up and return. Most of their citizens would have a problem knowing what end of firearm a bullet exits, would be limited to magazine size of 10 and under, and forget about any notion of anything that even appears to be an "assault rifle". The only problem is that we have people on OCDO from California and other state firearm groups who may be able to set up some pretty solid resistance. The way to control that, though, would be for us to let them be on their own for a while and, with no acknowledgment of a right to keep and bear arms in effect, anyone who would be a worthy opponent would have escaped. Furthermore, if we let them have their way for a while as an independent entity, I think they would probably be inclined to disarm everybody they could... even the police and military. The United States Military could then casually walk across the border and take it back due to ineffective opposition.
Texas? Maybe, they already think they are independent and sovereign.
Florida, I could ALMOST believe... except for their reliance on tourist dollars... and if the US just shut the border at the moment of secession the lack of that money would kill the economy, not to mention that most of the residents along the east coast ( Vero Beach, south) would be upset that they couldn't return to New York/ New Jersey when the weather there warmed up... they too would capitulate.

*The statements above are sarcastic ramblings. It is in no way the intent of this author to disparage people from California, Texas, New York, and or New Jersey in general nor our brothers and sisters who stand with us in support of the 2nd Amendment. But you must admit...

We should be paying California to leave IMO.

So does anyone think King Obama will have any trouble getting his handpicked 12 toady members of the new Super Congress to ratify a U.N. anti gun treaty?