What does an international treaty have to do with the 2A? - Page 6

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; Originally Posted by Hopyard The point is that there are things the private sector can not do, and when that is the case there is ...

Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456
Results 76 to 83 of 83

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

  1. #76
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    The point is that there are things the private sector can not do, and when that is the case there is nothing wrong with government doing what needs doing. I don't care whether that is building universities, or water reservoirs. The same concept applies. There is a real role for government when the private sector fails
    There is a role for the Federal government in public works projects?

    What do you think of this explanation?

    To refer the power in question to the clause "to provide for common defense and general welfare" would be contrary to the established and consistent rules of interpretation, as rendering the special and careful enumeration of powers which follow the clause nugatory and improper. Such a view of the Constitution would have the effect of giving to Congress a general power of legislation instead of the defined and limited one hitherto understood to belong to them, the terms "common defense and general welfare" embracing every object and act within the purview of a legislative trust. It would have the effect of subjecting both the Constitution and laws of the several States in all cases not specifically exempted to be superseded by laws of Congress, it being expressly declared "that the Constitution of the United States and laws made in pursuance thereof shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges of every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."
    )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) ))

    Oh, I forgot, you want to change the plain meaning of the Constitution. The above words are probably offensive to you and represent some archaic 'interpretation' superceded by our 'progress.'

    What say you?


  2. #77
    Ex Member Array United93's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Maine
    Posts
    911
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    I am only interested in conveying the absolutely true concept that you can be a loyal supporter of gun owners rights and carry rights, without endorsing other positions which are far to the right of center.
    Unless you can find politicians who really support gun owners' rights and carry rights while at the same time being against the "other positions" you write of, and you vote for them, your "absolutely true concept" is entirely out of touch with reality.



    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    To me, that is the key important DC related issue. 2A must be upheld and extended as a check upon the states, otherwise the game is over.
    That's a new one. Since when is the 2A a check upon the States, and of what "game" do you write?

  3. #78
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,669

    re:natticarry

    Quote Originally Posted by natticarry View Post

    I find this particularly offensive. I do not dispute that there are people of varying intelligence but I do dispute that it is impossible for anyone without a mental disability to pass HS.
    As I wrote, this is a debate for another time and place. My point was that there are reasons our schools don't do as well as we would like which have nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that they are run by government; and everything to do with unrealistic expectations. We are now so way off topic, let's let this one go. O.K.

    You claim these things (as a fact no less) would have never existed in these places but I do not believe that to be true where there is a true need and people are willing to pay there will always be a solution it just depends on if people want something bad enough.
    In 1947 I lived on a farm. Our nearest neighbor was 1 mile in each direction. There is no way the a for profit electric company was going to run wire to that location. Even with a rural electrification act passed by congress, our neighbor didn't get electricity until about 1955. Sometimes Uncle has to step in to make things go.

    Hoover, hilarious attempt at actual revisionist history. Hoover was just as meddling as Roosevelt if you actually looked at the history and is partially to blame for the continued depression. If you actually considered the time period Roosevelt was in power and when the economy turned around you would realize he was president for 7 years before things turned around.
    So? At least there were attempts to ameliorate things. The right, then as now refused to consider the need for amelioration of the suffering. Again, way off topic.

    [quote]deregulation caused Enron and and the mortgage's crisis?

    I didn't write that. I spoke of deregulation destroying the old line airline industry.

    We have now drifted so far from the initial point of the thread I'm not going to continue in this out of respect for the owners of the site.

  4. #79
    Member Array natticarry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    cincinnati
    Posts
    138
    to be brief since we are way off topic I will take you on the attempt to ameliorate things. The problem is "just doing something" often makes matters worse.
    During the depression so many rules were changed and then changed again it effectively killed any investment, because constant uncertainty in the rules of the economy scares people into not doing anything. Understanding what generation you are from it makes sense that you are reluctant to admit faults of a very charismatic, organized politician. I will simply state there is a reason the 22nd amendment was passed shortly after he died. Please do look up the Schechter brothers case it will make anyone's blood boil. As for businesses failing? Of course they do that is because they are inefficient and the market gets rid of them, government entities never fail(in terms of disappearing because they are not financially sound) because they get money from the tax payer no matter what.

  5. #80
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    So? At least there were attempts to ameliorate things. The right, then as now refused to consider the need for amelioration of the suffering.
    It is most definitely not a function of government to alleviate or even mitigate the 'suffering' of the lazy. That function, if it is performed at all, is the responsibility of the community and/or the church. It is antithetical to our society to force me to pay the way for a worthless bum, unable to take care of himself.

    In your opinion of how society should be, To each according to their needs, from each according to their ability.

    Does that satisfactorily characterize your view? If not, how is your view different?

  6. #81
    Senior Member Array Devone6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    South of North, North of South
    Posts
    654
    It's like a train wreck, you don't want to watch, but you just can't help yourselve once it starts...........
    and
    One third (the bunch with a roughly 90 or lower IQ) are not capable of learning much and we waste our resources attempting to force them through to a HS degree, let alone have any expectation that they attend college.
    --that is completely uncalled for Hopyard, with respect, just because someone may not have the aptitude to pick up on something as quick as I suppose you think you do, it isn't a waste of resources to help them, as "force" is an inappropriate word here......

    Since the last few pages hasn't even had an attempt to be on topic, I'll add
    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
    I agree with Matt on this, a treaty can not overide the Constitution.
    My heroes are Veterans and My Father (who was a veteran).

    I believe prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance should have REMAINED in schools, and the Ten Commandments should have REMAINED in schools, courthouses, and everywhere else it was before the ACLU got involved.

  7. #82
    Distinguished Member Array GWRedDragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Posts
    1,413
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    First, our constitution is silent on the matter of economic system. So even if it were remotely true that the present administration wanted to introduce a socialistic system, that would not prohibited.
    Not exactly.

    Article 1, section 10:

    No State shall...pass any...Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts...
    And of course article 1, section 8, the enumeration of powers. Congress has no powers other than these:

    The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

    To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

    To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

    To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

    To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

    To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

    To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

    To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

    To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

    To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

    To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

    To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

    To provide and maintain a Navy;

    To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

    To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

    To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

    To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

    To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
    I don't see anything about establishing a socialist state in there.
    "Trust in God with hand on sword" -Inscription on my family's coat of arms from medieval England
    ---Carry options: G26/MTAC, PF9/MiniTuck, PPK/Pocket, USP40/OWB---
    ---NOTE: I am not an expert. If I ever start acting like a know-it-all, please call me on it immediately. ---

  8. #83
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,669

    Argh, I so wanted this to go back on topic

    Quote Originally Posted by GWRedDragon View Post
    Not exactly.

    I don't see anything about establishing a socialist state in there.
    It is a stretch to interpret the minimal comments in our founding document about contracts and patents to mean that the founders endorsed any particular economic approach. They did not. The only economic system they sort of endorsed was slavery. I guess you can infer they endorsed property rights from that.


    Beyond that, they were silent. The words capitalism, socialism, communism appear nowhere in there. The words free enterprise appear nowhere in there. There is no reference to a stock market, or to a bond market. There is a clear reference to authority to tax and obligation to promote the general welfare. And it obvious that would happen through the power of taxation.

    Quoting the document as you posted: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes,and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;"

    Your and my argument turns on the precise meaning of the term
    "general welfare" and what is permitted to promote it, and what is prohibited to promote it.

    We will as a society argue till eternity over what that means. What it clearly does not mean is that there is a prohibition against government ownership and control of anything if that ownership is for the promotion of the general well being of the populous.

    And now we own a car company, and an insurance company, thank you. I don't much like that at all, but it is clearly not either illegal or unconstitutional. My objection is not that we own these, but that I am not sure our collective welfare was served by making the purchase.

    Again, this is about treaties and 2A. We are way off topic and being too disrespectful of Bumper. Please guys, let's cool it. We could go on forever to no point.

Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456

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.