Mr Obama to sign the International Gun Control Treaty on June 3rd... - Page 7

Mr Obama to sign the International Gun Control Treaty on June 3rd...

This is a discussion on Mr Obama to sign the International Gun Control Treaty on June 3rd... within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; @Patti: Well, I gues asking one a question why they support or don't support a position in your mind is asking someone to do their ...

Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567
Results 91 to 99 of 99
Like Tree89Likes

Thread: Mr Obama to sign the International Gun Control Treaty on June 3rd...

  1. #91
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,923
    @Patti:
    Well, I gues asking one a question why they support or don't support a position in your mind is asking someone to do their homework for them. Guess you plain did not understand the question. You brought up something and I asked you "WHY?" That sir is not asking someone to do ones homework for them. It is asking you to specify why you don't like the treaty.
    I never said I support the treaty and am interested in good debate about the subject. Many folks sya they don't like this and use talking points that are in error.

    You sure make a lot of assumptions about me. I have been on record here saying that I think there should be no gun laws and no background checks. I am more of a RKBA dude than many here that favor mandatory training and liscensing.
    Jetfuelrm and Sig 210 like this.
    Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?”
    And I said, “Here am I. Send me!”

    Isaiah 6:8


  2. #92
    Senior Member Array CanuckQue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Maritimes Canada
    Posts
    1,141
    Quote Originally Posted by Patti View Post
    The cornerstone of our freedom is the Second Amendment. NO foreign entity has the authority to meddle with the freedoms guaranteed by our Bill of Rights to the United States Constitution, which are endowed by our Creator.

    In other words, it is about our fundamental individual freedom., and we should totally reject any treaty that threatens our freedom in order to be accepted by foreign nations. Our Patriot grandfathers rejected that 230+ years ago and built our country on the idea of individual freedoms, and NOT for the government.
    Ostensibly, those are fundamental rights that apply to all humans, but are actively denied by other governments. The argument can be broadened from this perspective. One could argue that the treaty should not be signed because the treaty will enable the infringement of the RKBA on all peoples. The US gov't should not be contributing to the removal of these fundamental freedoms, regardless of citizenship. A warlord, arming children with AKs, is also (putatively) trying to establish a "well-regulated militia". Who's got the right to try to stop that? Ostensibly, anyway. That's IF someone believes that the RKBA is universal statement of a human right, and not just a special right depending on where your baby-bottom hit soil.
    ccw9mm likes this.
    spend more fighting Ebola than on Thanksgiving dinner. Be grateful it's being fought there, so we don't have to fight it here.

    As well, there are millions in potential patents possible for those with a tool shed, ideas, or creative loved ones to tell.. (and gumption) It's an untapped technology.


  3. #93
    VIP Member Array Patti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    The Show Me State
    Posts
    2,672
    Quote Originally Posted by CanuckQue View Post
    Ostensibly, those are fundamental rights that apply to all humans, but are actively denied by other governments. The argument can be broadened from this perspective. One could argue that the treaty should not be signed because the treaty will enable the infringement of the RKBA on all peoples. The US gov't should not be contributing to the removal of these fundamental freedoms, regardless of citizenship. A warlord, arming children with AKs, is also (putatively) trying to establish a "well-regulated militia". Who's got the right to try to stop that? Ostensibly, anyway. That's IF someone believes that the RKBA is universal statement of a human right, and not just a special right depending on where your baby-bottom hit soil.
    I absolutely agree. However, I believe that the United States is the only country that has a 2nd Amendment.

    It needs to be protected at all costs.

    I am not familiar with the Canadian constitution. Does it grant Canadian citizens the right to keep and bear arms?

    In my opinion, there IS NO debate regarding my RKBA. To debate a U.N. arms treaty is ridiculous and a waste of time.

    We (Americans) will not give up our constitutional rights to ANY foreign entity.

    Period.
    Ghost1958 likes this.
    Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy. — Winston Churchill

  4. #94
    VIP Member Array OutWestSystems's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Posts
    2,171
    I have found only 3 counties in their Constitutions that people universally have the right to keep and bear arms. Those are the United States, Cuba and North Korea. Now I am guessing the last two don't really follow their rules.

  5. #95
    Member Array sanfordreed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    218
    It seems that this is the big question. I think you are correct. It will impact us here in US. Just try to tell the UN that the treaty is invalid, and see how far that gets you. The UN has been pushing for this for years, and now they have it.
    Quote Originally Posted by high pockets View Post
    If he does sign the treaty, won't that deter foreign manufacturers from exporting arms to the U.S.?

  6. #96
    VIP Member Array OutWestSystems's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Posts
    2,171
    Quote Originally Posted by sanfordreed View Post
    It seems that this is the big question. I think you are correct. It will impact us here in US. Just try to tell the UN that the treaty is invalid, and see how far that gets you. The UN has been pushing for this for years, and now they have it.
    '

    How exactly do "they have it"? There is ZERO chance that it would be ratified by the Senate.

  7. #97
    VIP Member Array Sig 210's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Southwestern OK
    Posts
    2,017
    In any event, a treaty does not trump the US Constitution. SCOTUS ruled so in Reid vs Covert:

    Article VI, the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, declares:

    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; . . .

    There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution. Nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification of the Constitution which even suggests such a result. These debates, as well as the history that surrounds the adoption of the treaty provision in Article VI, make it clear that the reason treaties were not limited to those made in "pursuance" of the Constitution was so that agreements made by the United States under the Articles of Confederation, including the important peace treaties which concluded the Revolutionary [p17] War, would remain in effect. [n31] It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights -- let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition -- to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power under an international agreement without observing constitutional prohibitions. [n32] In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government, and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and the Senate combined.

    There is nothing new or unique about what we say here. This Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty. [n33] For example, in Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258, 267, it declared:

    The treaty power, as expressed in the Constitution, is in terms unlimited except by those restraints which are found in that instrument against the action of the government or of its departments, and those arising from the nature of the government itself and of that of the States. It would not be contended that it extends so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids, or a change in the character of the [p18] government, or in that of one of the States, or a cession of any portion of the territory of the latter, without its consent.

    This Court has also repeatedly taken the position that an Act of Congress, which must comply with the Constitution, is on a full parity with a treaty, and that, when a statute which is subsequent in time is inconsistent with a treaty, the statute to the extent of conflict renders the treaty null. [n34] It would be completely anomalous to say that a treaty need not comply with the Constitution when such an agreement can be overridden by a statute that must conform to that instrument.

    Reid v. Covert

    Get all your tinfoil headwear here.


    http://www.lessemf.com/personal.html

    That RFID blocking wallet sure is nice:

  8. #98
    VIP Member Array Sig 210's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Southwestern OK
    Posts
    2,017
    Each State Part is "encouraged" to report, up to end users, as appropriate. In the US that is not appropriate by Federal Law, so what is the problem?
    In international treaties the term "state" means country.

  9. #99
    VIP Member Array OutWestSystems's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Posts
    2,171
    Quote Originally Posted by Sig 210 View Post
    In international treaties the term "state" means country.
    Yes and those reports are not allowed be federal law, so not really a problem. Also there is ZERO chance of the Senate ratifying this treaty.
    Sig 210 likes this.

Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567

Links

Posting Permissions

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

Search tags for this page

az republic - the illogical need to believe obama

,
discuss three reasons for either supporting or opposing the gun amnesty programs in the usvi
,
gun control
,

obama signing peace treaty

,
obama to sign gun bill today
,
un att june 3rd
Click on a term to search for related topics.