What does an international treaty have to do with the 2A?

This is a discussion on What does an international treaty have to do with the 2A? within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; One thingthat I agree with Ex-Soldier about is the teaching of guns being bad. I've read posts here where people don't even let their kids ...

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 83

Thread: What does an international treaty have to do with the 2A?

  1. #31
    Ex Member Array PNUT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    913
    One thingthat I agree with Ex-Soldier about is the teaching of guns being bad. I've read posts here where people don't even let their kids play with toy guns, and if they do ,they'd better not point it at anyone......if a toy gun is dangerous, imagine what a real one is capable of.
    It's up to us to teach are kids right, not the schools, or the ever popular "society".

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #32
    VIP Member
    Array shooterX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    2,848
    Quote Originally Posted by PNUT View Post
    One thingthat I agree with Ex-Soldier about is the teaching of guns being bad. I've read posts here where people don't even let their kids play with toy guns, and if they do ,they'd better not point it at anyone......if a toy gun is dangerous, imagine what a real one is capable of.
    It's up to us to teach are kids right, not the schools, or the ever popular "society".
    I agree with you 100% on this, I really want to start teaching my daughter to shoot, she's been asking for a year or so. She's seven and I was going to wait till she was ten at least, however, the wife is standing firmly in my way and will not even discuss a compromise, btw, she's a drink the kool-aide Obama supporting anti....don't tell her I said that.

  4. #33
    VIP Member Array rottkeeper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Upstate New York
    Posts
    3,194
    Quote Originally Posted by shooterX View Post

    Why is this sad? It just respectful. Just because you don't agree or share someones beliefs or opinions doens't mena you have to marginalize them. I firmly believe that the diversity of opinions in this country is part of what makes US great as a nation. I work with a 7th Day Adventist who has some strange ideas about things in my opinion, but I repsect his right to have them and don't find it sad that I tread lightly when countering his point of view, it just good debate/dialog.
    We should be able to respect all points of view as you state, I also agree with ExSoldier and his views of Christianity.
    For as the lightning comes from the east and flashes to the west, so also will the coming of the son of man be. Mathew 24:27

    NRA Member

  5. #34
    VIP Member Array ExSoldier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Coral Gables, FL
    Posts
    5,802

    Exclamation Here's what I did...

    Quote Originally Posted by shooterX View Post
    I agree with you 100% on this, I really want to start teaching my daughter to shoot, she's been asking for a year or so. She's seven and I was going to wait till she was ten at least, however, the wife is standing firmly in my way and will not even discuss a compromise, btw, she's a drink the kool-aide Obama supporting anti....don't tell her I said that.
    When I got married I got a package deal: One awesome wife and an awesome KID already on site! Kelly was just five or six when I FIRST met her. After I became her stepdad she expressed interest in my gun past time. I let her "help" me clean the guns from the time she was seven until she was 10. That way I could inculcate safety and proper nomenclature on her. She knew all the parts of everything and what they did on all types of actions. When she was 10 I taught her to shoot. We started with a Ruger 10/22 and progressed to a Ruger Super Single Six S.A. revolver which she loved until she discovered my Ruger SP101 a few years later. THEN she fell in love with the gun and I knew I'd lost a revolver when she was old enough. She really didn't like semiautos for a good many years, too much moving at one time was her initial complaint. She got the SP101 when she turned 21 and got married and had her own house. The marriage didn't last very long and she gave me the gun back when she started getting roommates. But wonder of wonders just a couple of years ago she calls me up and asks to go to the range. I posted some of those pix here. Now she loves 9mm semis and wants a Sig of her own. She didn't like my Browning HP or my H&K P30 but she loved my Sig P226 Blackwater. I recently sold that. Oh well. I'm thinking she might like a Sig P250. Might have to get her one of those.

    Here is what we did in my army battalion to keep gun incidents on and off post to a minimum. Remember, this was Reagan's army not BO's NWO army.

    Twice a year we had a family day barbecue. Huge grills set up on an army range. NO ALCOHOL allowed! The families came out to eat and SHOOT. Every family was encouraged to bring the guns in the home and participate. Attendance was mandatory because all service members family had to sign in and attend the gun safety classes. Then the service members went into a few basic divisions (the awesome scent of barbecue wafting over the area the whole time). Those who had previously attended got to go shoot on the range next door and a few toys were procured from the arms room of our battalion for them to test fire.

    The young ones went with "daddy" to the firing line where each was handed a Honey Dew melon and a sharpie marker. Instructed to draw a really detailed FACE on the melon. Hair, eyes, nose, mouth, the works. Once done, the kids walk to the line while the melon is placed down range (about 15-20 feet) by range personnel. Firing line is cleared and the kids are told that the face they've just drawn is the face of their very best friend. 9 times out of ten in back then, the service member's home gun was a 1911A1. Infantry unit, we still had 'em as issue. Makes sense.

    Everybody gets eyes and ears and the child is put in a position so that his hand rests LIGHTLY on the arm of his dad and instructed to watch the melon, no matter what. Then "THIS is what happens when you touch daddy's gun's when he's not around:" When the report, recoil and muzzle flash all pass, and the kid sees that melon ("head") explode, it all clicks home! Make no mistake. Kids are AUDIO-VISUAL learners. I know this as a teacher. But I had the principle driven home in the army.

    Following those little sessions I have personally seen little toddlers when a gun is placed on the table in front of them emphatically back up and proclaim: NO NO! BANG BANG! The theory worked for us. In the four years I was there we had not a single firearms accident anywhere on or off post.
    Former Army Infantry Captain; 25 yrs as an NRA Certified Instructor; Avid practitioner of the martial art: KLIK-PAO.

  6. #35
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by ExSoldier View Post
    Ahem... I got some news for you: The Treaty Making Power cuts across the entire Constitution and that includes the Bill of Rights! If the President signs a treaty and the Senate ratifies same, it becomes the LAW OF THE LAND. It is a mechanism built into the very infrastructure of the Constitution and it cuts across all other safety mechanisms of the document.
    This is false, as Matt Larson explained. Nothing supercedes the Constitution as the Supreme law of the land. Of course, fearmongering using misinformation has been part of the polical process for centuries.

    The founding Fathers never envisioned a traitorous President.
    Actually, they did. I direct you to Article II Section 4.
    The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.


    [QUOTE}They correctly thought that the country can have only one person in charge of dealing with other nations. That gave this power to the Executive Branch, but the Doctrine of Checks and Balances was still in place with the US Senate providing the alleged CHECK to stop an over zealous Executive.[/UQOTE]

    As it remains today.

    It worked perfectly in 1919 when the US Senate rejected Woodrow Wilson's vision of the NWO in the League of Nations. But nobody except Biblical prophesy could project the situation we have today with an anti FREEDOM President and an equally Hostile CONGRESS.
    What freedoms have you lost? How is Congress Hostile? I understand you are frustrated that your minority views are not accepted as societal norms. The anti-Federalists were similarly disenchanted.

    If they get the USSC we're all toast. That of course is the idea. As much as I hate to acknowledge this, the United States of America must be brought to her knees before THe NWO can come to pass and this specifically includes unilateral personal disarmament of the people.
    And that is not even a remote possibility.

    Consider the effect of a simultaneous WMD Terror attack on Wall Street and a sudden payment call on all our debt by the debt holders. The bottom would fall out of our money which is all fiat anyway and not backed by gold. Every and I mean EVERY empire in all of history using fiat money for currency has FAILED. We have now been using such a fiat system totally since 1932 when Roosevelt outlawed possession of private stocks of gold bullion.
    And? What does that have to do with your unsubstantiated fear of gun confiscation?

    Forget the Fed. It ain't federal and there are no reserves. They're privately owned and operated and like all banks they're not your friend. They're out for themselves.
    So? Are you attempting to tie fiat money to guns or is this treading on the type of political discussion Bumper specifically wared abot in another thread?

    The bottom line is that if the President signs a treaty with the UN outlawing all private possession of any firearm and the SENATE ratifies it, the Supreme court can't negate it.
    The Supreme Court has no power to negate anything. Still, there can be confiscation of firearms as that is specifically prohibited by the Constitution, Amendment II.

    But think for a moment, what would happen to this country's economic (tax) base if suddenly in the blink of an eye, TENS OF MILLIONS of people simply vanished?
    It would certainly depend on which tem million vanished. If it were the parasites and illegals we would be in financial nirvana.

    Personally, I really hope and pray THAT event precedes what must happen next, because that way is going to be bloody and tiresome
    Really? Who are you going to fight?

  7. #36
    VIP Member
    Array shooterX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    2,848
    Quote Originally Posted by ExSoldier View Post
    When I got married I got a package deal: One awesome wife and an awesome KID already on site! Kelly was just five or six when I FIRST met her. After I became her stepdad she expressed interest in my gun past time. I let her "help" me clean the guns from the time she was seven until she was 10. That way I could inculcate safety and proper nomenclature on her. She knew all the parts of everything and what they did on all types of actions. When she was 10 I taught her to shoot. We started with a Ruger 10/22 and progressed to a Ruger Super Single Six S.A. revolver which she loved until she discovered my Ruger SP101 a few years later. THEN she fell in love with the gun and I knew I'd lost a revolver when she was old enough. She really didn't like semiautos for a good many years, too much moving at one time was her initial complaint. She got the SP101 when she turned 21 and got married and had her own house. The marriage didn't last very long and she gave me the gun back when she started getting roommates. But wonder of wonders just a couple of years ago she calls me up and asks to go to the range. I posted some of those pix here. Now she loves 9mm semis and wants a Sig of her own. She didn't like my Browning HP or my H&K P30 but she loved my Sig P226 Blackwater. I recently sold that. Oh well. I'm thinking she might like a Sig P250. Might have to get her one of those.

    Here is what we did in my army battalion to keep gun incidents on and off post to a minimum. Remember, this was Reagan's army not BO's NWO army.

    Twice a year we had a family day barbecue. Huge grills set up on an army range. NO ALCOHOL allowed! The families came out to eat and SHOOT. Every family was encouraged to bring the guns in the home and participate. Attendance was mandatory because all service members family had to sign in and attend the gun safety classes. Then the service members went into a few basic divisions (the awesome scent of barbecue wafting over the area the whole time). Those who had previously attended got to go shoot on the range next door and a few toys were procured from the arms room of our battalion for them to test fire.

    The young ones went with "daddy" to the firing line where each was handed a Honey Dew melon and a sharpie marker. Instructed to draw a really detailed FACE on the melon. Hair, eyes, nose, mouth, the works. Once done, the kids walk to the line while the melon is placed down range (about 15-20 feet) by range personnel. Firing line is cleared and the kids are told that the face they've just drawn is the face of their very best friend. 9 times out of ten in back then, the service member's home gun was a 1911A1. Infantry unit, we still had 'em as issue. Makes sense.

    Everybody gets eyes and ears and the child is put in a position so that his hand rests LIGHTLY on the arm of his dad and instructed to watch the melon, no matter what. Then "THIS is what happens when you touch daddy's gun's when he's not around:" When the report, recoil and muzzle flash all pass, and the kid sees that melon ("head") explode, it all clicks home! Make no mistake. Kids are AUDIO-VISUAL learners. I know this as a teacher. But I had the principle driven home in the army.

    Following those little sessions I have personally seen little toddlers when a gun is placed on the table in front of them emphatically back up and proclaim: NO NO! BANG BANG! The theory worked for us. In the four years I was there we had not a single firearms accident anywhere on or off post.
    I haven't given up, have the wife at least convinced to go to the range to at least observe if not participate, we will see how that goes. Anna (my daughter) is very smart and has been very curoius, she has watched me clean mine, when my wife still worked weekends, and has been learning the 4 rules. Her elementary school did the NRA Eddie Eagle program with them also, which was great.

    she loved my Sig P226 Blackwater.

    BTW this is awesome!

  8. #37
    VIP Member Array ExSoldier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Coral Gables, FL
    Posts
    5,802

    Exclamation Actually...

    Quote Originally Posted by MattLarson View Post
    Treaties are not on an equal footing with the Constitution, and no treaty can abrogate or modify and rights under the Constitution.

    See Reid v. Covert from 1957. Matt
    Yeah, case law is a wonderful thing. Let me ask you: Can you think of a single time when the US Constitution has been blatantly violated and the administration in charge got clean away with it? I sure can. So many times my head spins.

    I also remember quotes from sitting USSC Justices (Ginsberg and Souter who just retired) wherein they stated that international law should be considered whenever our own Constitution is interpreted. How's THAT grab you?

    Then of course there is that funky END RUN around the Constitution called the EXECUTIVE ORDER. If an EO is filed with the federal registry and not opposed by the Congress within 30 days it becomes the law of the land. PERIOD. How bad could such an EO be? I mean each and every President issues hundreds if not thousands such orders each term. Right?

    Well back in the 1950s & '60 starting with Eisenhower and continuing on until today, there has been an ongoing concern about continuity of government in case of nuclear war. Then when the cold war was won, the threat turned to terrorism. So a string of EO's were issued to address the problem. They still exist and are still in force just waiting for a trigger incident:

    Executive Orders associated with FEMA that would suspend the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. These Executive Orders have been on record for nearly 30 years and could be enacted by the stroke of a Presidential pen:...

    EXECUTIVE ORDER 10990
    allows the government to take over all modes of transportation and control of highways and seaports.

    EXECUTIVE ORDER 10995
    allows the government to seize and control the communication media.

    EXECUTIVE ORDER 10997
    allows the government to take over all electrical power, gas, petroleum, fuels and minerals.

    EXECUTIVE ORDER 10998
    allows the government to seize all means of transportation, including personal cars, trucks or vehicles of any kind and total control over all highways, seaports, and waterways.

    EXECUTIVE ORDER 10999
    allows the government to take over all food resources and farms.

    EXECUTIVE ORDER 11000
    allows the government to mobilize civilians into work brigades under government supervision.

    EXECUTIVE ORDER 11001
    allows the government to take over all health, education and welfare functions.

    EXECUTIVE ORDER 11002
    designates the Postmaster General to operate a national registration of all persons.

    EXECUTIVE ORDER 11003
    allows the government to take over all airports and aircraft, including commercial aircraft.

    EXECUTIVE ORDER 11004
    allows the Housing and Finance Authority to relocate communities, build new housing with public funds, designate areas to be abandoned, and establish new locations for populations.

    EXECUTIVE ORDER 11005
    allows the government to take over railroads, inland waterways and public storage facilities.

    EXECUTIVE ORDER 11051
    specifies the responsibility of the Office of Emergency Planning and gives authorization to put all Executive Orders into effect in times of increased international tensions and economic or financial crisis.

    EXECUTIVE ORDER 11310
    grants authority to the Department of Justice to enforce the plans set out in Executive Orders, to institute industrial support, to establish judicial and legislative liaison, to control all aliens, to operate penal and correctional institutions, and to advise and assist the President.

    EXECUTIVE ORDER 11049
    assigns emergency preparedness function to federal departments and agencies, consolidating 21 operative Executive Orders issued over a fifteen year period.

    EXECUTIVE ORDER 11921
    allows the Federal Emergency Preparedness Agency to develop plans to establish control over the mechanisms of production and distribution, of energy sources, wages, salaries, credit and the flow of money in U.S. financial institution in any undefined national emergency. It also provides that when a state of emergency is declared by the President, Congress cannot review the action for six months. The Federal Emergency Management Agency has broad powers in every aspect of the nation. General Frank Salzedo, chief of FEMA's Civil Security Division stated in a 1983 conference that he saw FEMA's role as a "new frontier in the protection of individual and governmental leaders from assassination, and of civil and military installations from sabotage and/or attack, as well as prevention of dissident groups from gaining access to U.S. opinion, or a global audience in times of crisis." FEMA's powers were consolidated by President Carter to link all the previous orders listed into a single entity able to roll all together and incorporate the...

    National Security Act of 1947
    allows for the strategic relocation of industries, services, government and other essential economic activities, and to rationalize the requirements for manpower, resources and production facilities.

    1950 Defense Production Act gives the President sweeping powers over all aspects of the economy.

    Act of August 29, 1916
    authorizes the Secretary of the Army, in time of war, to take possession of any transportation system for transporting troops, material, or any other purpose related to the emergency.

    International Emergency Economic Powers Act enables the President to seize the property of a foreign country or national. These powers were transferred to FEMA in a sweeping consolidation in 1979.

    WHY do you think it really took FEMA so long to get into New Orleans after Katrina? It wasn't incompetence. Disaster response hasn't been FEMA's primary mission for a good many years. It took a long time for them to come HERE (Miami) after Hurricane Andrew in 1992. Again, not natural disaster oriented. They've modified a bit since Katrina, so maybe they'll be "better." Yeah. Right.

    Oh and just to tie up one loose end, remember that the President has to be operating under a state of "emergency" before these orders can be tripped. Guess what? Every single year the President signs an order that renews such a state of emergency and this has been the practice since the Kennedy administration. Guess what else? NOBODY even knows what the definition IS of such a "state of emergency." But we're in one and have been since almost the time of my birth.
    Former Army Infantry Captain; 25 yrs as an NRA Certified Instructor; Avid practitioner of the martial art: KLIK-PAO.

  9. #38
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by ExSoldier View Post
    Yeah, case law is a wonderful thing. Let me ask you: Can you think of a single time when the US Constitution has been blatantly violated and the administration in charge got clean away with it? I sure can. So many times my head spins.
    Yet, you cannot provide a single example. Case law is the determination of the questions that trouble you so much. Court opinions are not necessarily correct (Roe v. Wade, for example) but it is MUCH better than the chaos and anarchy you espouse.

    I also remember quotes from sitting USSC Justices (Ginsberg and Souter who just retired) wherein they stated that international law should be considered whenever our own Constitution is interpreted. How's THAT grab you?
    It grabs me as old news that is irrelevant.

    Then of course there is that funky END RUN around the Constitution called the EXECUTIVE ORDER. If an EO is filed with the federal registry and not opposed by the Congress within 30 days it becomes the law of the land. PERIOD.


    Complete and utter nonsense. An Executive order is simply an order that is exacted by the Executive's subordinates. It is most definitely not law. Of course, that i incorrect analysis is nothing compared to the disinformation contained in the following:

    EXECUTIVE ORDER 10990
    allows the government to take over all modes of transportation and control of highways and seaports.

    EXECUTIVE ORDER 10995
    allows the government to seize and control the communication media.

    EXECUTIVE ORDER 10997
    allows the government to take over all electrical power, gas, petroleum, fuels and minerals.
    .
    .
    .
    Blah
    Blah
    .
    .
    .
    More misinformation
    .
    .
    .
    What a complete load of horse manure! NOTHING of the above is true. For example, here is the text of a real executive order, one quoted above as the Executive being able to take control of communiciations. The other fear mongering is similarly incorrect.

    Just a bit of research goes a long way. I suggest people read the real thing before believing what some fringe person writes on a libertarian blog.

    Executive Orders]
    Executive Order 10995
    ASSIGNING TELECOMMUNICATIONS MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS
    WHEREAS telecommunications is vital to the security and welfare of this Nation and to the conduct of its foreign affairs;
    WHEREAS it is imperative that the United States maintain an efficient and well-planned national and international telecommunications program capable of stimulating and incorporating rapid technological advances being made in the field of telecommunications;
    WHEREAS the radio spectrum is a critical natural resource which requires elective, efficient and prudent administration in the national interest;
    WHEREAS it is essential that responsibility be clearly assigned within the executive branch of the Government for promoting and encouraging effective and efficient administration and development of United States national and international telecommunications and for effecting the prudent use of the radio frequency spectrum by the executive branch of the Government;
    WHEREAS there is an immediate and urgent need for an examination of ways and means of improving the administration and utilization of the radio spectrum as a whole;
    WHEREAS there is an immediate and urgent need for integrated short and long-range planning with respect to national and international telecommunications programs, for continuing supervision over the use of the radio frequency spectrum by the executive branch of the Government and for the development of national policies in the field of telecommunications;
    NOW, THEREFORE, as President of the United States and Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces of the United States, and by virtue of the authority vested in me by sections 305 and 606 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (47 U.S.C. 305 and 606), and by section 301 of Title 3 of the United States Code, it is hereby ordered as follows:
    SECTION 1. There is hereby established the position of Director of Telecommunications Management, which position shall be held by one of the Assistant Directors of the Office of Emergency Planning provided for under Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1958, as amended (72 Stat. 1799).
    SEC. 2. Subject to the authority and control of the President, the Director of Telecommunications Management shall:
    *
    (a) Coordinate telecommunications activities of the executive branch of the Government and be responsible for the formulation, after consultation with appropriate agencies, of overall policies and standards therefor. He shall promote and encourage the adoption of uniform policies and standards by agencies authorized to operate telecommunications systems. Agencies shall consult with the Director of Telecommunications Management in the development of policies and standards for the conduct of their telecommunications activities within the overall policies of the executive branch.
    (b) Develop data with regard to United States Government frequency requirements.
    (c) Encourage such research and development activities as he shall deem necessary and desirable for the attainment of the objectives set forth in section 6 below.
    (d) Contract for studies and reports related to any aspect of his responsibilities.
    SEC. 3. The authority to assign radio frequencies to Government agencies, vested in the President by section 305 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (47 U.S.C. 305), including all functions heretofore vested in the Interdepartment Radio Advisory Committee, is hereby delegated to the Director of the Office of Emergency Planning, who may redelegate such authority to the Director of Telecommunications Management. Such authority shall include the power to amend, modify, or revoke frequency assignments.
    SEC. 4. The functions and responsibilities vested in the Director of the Office of Emergency Planning by Executive Order No. 10705 of April 17, 1957, as amended, may be redelegated to the Director of Telecommunications Management Executive Orders No. 10695A of January 16, 1957, and No. 10705, as amended are hereby further amended insofar as they are with the present order. Executive Order No. 10460 of June 16, 1953, is hereby revoked.
    SEC. 5. The Director of Telecommunications Management shall establish such interagency advisory committees and working groups composed of representatives, interested agencies and consult with such departments and agencies as may be necessary for the most effective performance of his functions. To the extent that he deems it necessary or advisable to continue tile Interdepartment Radio Advisory Committee it shall serve in an advisory capacity to the Director of Management.
    SEC. 6. In carrying out functions under this order, the Director of Telecommunications Management shall consider the following objectives:
    *
    (a) Full and efficient employment of telecommunications resources in carrying out national policies;
    (b) Development of telecommunications plans, policies, and programs under which full advantage of technological development will accrue to the Nation and the users of telecommunications; and which will satisfactorily serve the national security; sustain and contribute to the full development of world trade and commerce; strengthen the position and serve the best interests of the United States in negotiations with foreign nations; and permit maximum use of resources through better frequency management;
    (c) Utilization of the radio spectrum by the Federal Government in a manner which permits and encourages the most beneficial use thereof in the public interest;
    (d) Implementation of the national policy of development and effective use of space satellites for international telecommunications services.
    **** SEC.7. Nothing contained in this order shall be deemed to impair any existing authority or jurisdiction of the Federal Communications Commission.
    **** SEC. 8. The Director of Telecommunications Management and the Federal Communications Commission shall assist and give policy advice to the Department of State in the discharge of its functions in the field of international telecommunications policies, positions and negotiations.
    **** SEC.9. The Director of Telecommunications Management shall issue such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out the duties and responsibilities vested in him by this order or delegated to him wider this order.

    **** SEC. 10. All executive departments and agencies of the Federal Government are authorized and directed to cooperate with the Director of Management and to furnish him such information, support and assistance, not inconsistent with the law, as he may require in the performance of his duties.

    JOHN F. KENNEDY
    THE WHITE HOUSE,
    February 16, 1962.
    *

    WHY do you think it really took FEMA so long to get into New Orleans after Katrina? It wasn't incompetence.
    It was because it required the states to ask for assistance. The Federal government actually did an excellent job. Nagin and the governor were incompetent.


    Oh and just to tie up one loose end, remember that the President has to be operating under a state of "emergency" before these orders can be tripped. Guess what? Every single year the President signs an order that renews such a state of emergency and this has been the practice since the Kennedy administration. Guess what else? NOBODY even knows what the definition IS of such a "state of emergency." But we're in one and have been since almost the time of my birth.
    You actually think we are in a 'state of emergency? And that we have for years. Try reading real news outlets. I suspect you are not getting accurate information.

  10. #39
    Distinguished Member Array P7fanatic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Texan in NWFlorida
    Posts
    1,588

    Cool

    Quote Originally Posted by MattLarson View Post
    Treaties are not on an equal footing with the Constitution, and no treaty can abrogate or modify and rights under the Constitution.

    See Reid v. Covert from 1957.

    Matt
    U.S. Constitution Article. VI. -

    '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.'

    *
    "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." -Thomas Jefferson

    "Liberalism is a Mental Disorder." -Michael Savage

    GOOD Gun Control is being able to hit your target! -Myself

  11. #40
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by P7fanatic View Post
    U.S. Constitution Article. VI. -

    '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.'

    Please note the contingency for treaties is to be UNDER the Authority of the United States. The Constitution is the Supreme law of the land and is the final authority. No treaty supercedes the Constitution.

  12. #41
    Member Array Horsetrader's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    now: here and there
    Posts
    225
    TODAY El Presidente Obama announced the signing of a treaty (without Senate discussion or approval) with Russia. The "head HE" approved and signed that the U.S. would reduce our Nuclear armament, no Senate action needed says HE since it is only a refinement of an "old" treaty with Russia. Yet and still, sounds like some Senate discussion and approval is necessary according to the Constitution.

    Clinton taught our presidents that the Presidents could sign many the "agreement" as long as the President doesn't use the legal term "Treaty". It all depends on what the meaning of "is" is. Don't get tangled up in the legalities of it all........its just an international agreement..Right ?
    "Improvise, adapt, overcome."

  13. #42
    Member Array torgo1968's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    420
    Quote Originally Posted by Horsetrader View Post
    TODAY El Presidente Obama announced the signing of a treaty (without Senate discussion or approval) with Russia. The "head HE" approved and signed that the U.S. would reduce our Nuclear armament, no Senate action needed says HE since it is only a refinement of an "old" treaty with Russia. Yet and still, sounds like some Senate discussion and approval is necessary according to the Constitution.

    Clinton taught our presidents that the Presidents could sign many the "agreement" as long as the President doesn't use the legal term "Treaty". It all depends on what the meaning of "is" is. Don't get tangled up in the legalities of it all........its just an international agreement..Right ?
    Wrong again. From the New York Times:

    The new treaty, to be finished by December, would be subject to ratification by the Senate and could then lead to talks next year on more substantial reductions.
    Do you people intentionally interpret news stories in a way that makes your paranoid fantasies seem believable, or are you just too lazy to read the entire news story?

  14. #43
    Ex Member Array PNUT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    913
    Quote:
    "The new treaty, to be finished by December, would be subject to ratification by the Senate and could then lead to talks next year on more substantial reductions.

    Do you people intentionally interpret news stories in a way that makes your paranoid fantasies seem believable, or are you just too lazy to read the entire news story? "

    Whatever it takes to be able to criticize President Obama. Who cares about facts or truth ? Slamming that uppity Obama is more fun.
    Tune in Fox radio and you'll understand....it's all "Hate Obama" all the time.

  15. #44
    Distinguished Member Array P7fanatic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Texan in NWFlorida
    Posts
    1,588

    Cool

    Quote Originally Posted by PNUT View Post
    Quote:
    Tune in Fox radio and you'll understand....it's all "Hate Obama" all the time.
    Now that just seems plain silly to me.
    I've watched quite a bit of news on the tele and news on the Fox channel is by FAR the most thorough, fair and balanced of any news network in existance today. Try and take the time to compare the news stories, anchors, pundits, guests or whoever on all networks.
    Analysis, questioning and the reporting of facts does not equal 'Hate Obamba' simply because others do not report it. And personally, I prefer it because I am not impressed by the overt fawning coverage of some networks or hearing about the 'tingle going up ones leg' when he hears the 'chosen' one speak.
    "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." -Thomas Jefferson

    "Liberalism is a Mental Disorder." -Michael Savage

    GOOD Gun Control is being able to hit your target! -Myself

  16. #45
    Ex Member Array PNUT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    913
    Here's a random sample from Rush / Hannity/ Ben Ferguson.......".In news today, 2 inches of rain in indiana, part of Obamas plan to wash nutrients out of the soil and cause crop failure,thereby starving millions of Americans" " Six American Soldiers killed in Afghanistan today, Obama secretly cheers " "Category 5 earthquake in California today, A plot by the Obama administration to tear off California and give it to the Chinese" "57 Abortions done on teens in Michigan clinics, part of Obamas plan to kill unborn Americans" "Obama meeting with Russian President today,secretly discussing how to make America Communist" " Beautiful weather expected for this weekend, because Obama hates America and wants the sun to burn it"......that's how it goes.

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

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
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Another Youtube Video On the Doomsday Treaty
    By tkruf in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: September 30th, 2010, 05:24 PM
  2. gun ban due to UN treaty
    By Tom G in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: March 3rd, 2010, 03:08 AM
  3. U.N. Gun Ban Treaty
    By ECHOONE in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: January 24th, 2010, 06:04 PM
  4. International Treaty to Ban Handguns?
    By tallgrass in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: January 18th, 2010, 10:52 PM
  5. CIFTA treaty :the Obama backdoor gun control
    By Horsetrader in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: May 3rd, 2009, 01:21 PM

Search tags for this page

can 2nd amendment be redacted due to treaty

,

does the international treaty carry the most power?

Click on a term to search for related topics.