[HTML1]
Note: there isn’t a U.N. Arms Trade Treaty. Not even a draft. Also, the President will only sign a gun grabbing U.N. Small Arms Treaty if he’s lost all the political instincts that carried him to the presidency in the first place. Nothing short of an Executive Order reinstating the assault weapons ban would do more to rally retaliatory Republicans than a U.N. document that even slightly abridges Americans’ Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. While some pundits point to the U.N. treaty as the “under the radar” gun control comment that Mr. Obama didn’t make, this would light up the right wing radar like a squadron of Russian nuclear bombers. Ain’t gonna happen. And even if it did, the Senate would shoot it down with extreme prejudice.
And even if they did sign it, no one in their mind will follow it especially criminals.
It would be extremely detrimental to legitimate arms manufacturers I am sure, although we haven’t seen any documentation. To that end Russia would probably veto it.
And even if they did what would the UN do? Shake their finger and say bad bad person??? Seriously the UN is a joke.
Treaties signed by the executive branch become part of international law even if they are not ratified by the Senate. Yes, if there is a treaty, Obama will sign it, right after the election. And then we’ll be stuck with it even if the Senate does not approve.
Example: the use of hollowpoint ammunition is only banned in a war between signers of the Hague Convention. The Taliban and the insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan never signed the Hague Convention, so the US forces are allowed to use such ammo by the very terms of the Convention. But we don’t, because we can’t. Go figure.
That’s more of a supply chain issue more than anything. We have millions and millions of rounds of FMJ and a pipeline set up to supply ever more FMJ. Buying enough hollow points to supply everyone in those theaters would be a pain in the butt and expensive. So they probably decided it wasn’t worth it.
It’s worth it. Homeland security recently ordered 450 million rounds of JHP.
That’s Homeland Security, ostensibly operating inside the US.
We have millions and millions of rounds of FMJ because we keep ordering millions and millions of rounds of FMJ. If not for the Hague Accords, that would change.
If I remember correctly from when I was looking in to getting a bullet swagging press, i’m pretty sure only 1 extra die is needed for HPs. Its not like the tooling cost would be prohibitively expensive.
we have something better than hollowpoints, its called open tip match (mk 262, mk 318). Stop worrying about why our military doesnt have hollowpoints.
I’m pretty sure the Lake City Army Ammunition Plant isn’t running on a few Dillon presses and it would be a little more involved to retool their machines than placing a few orders out of the Blue Press.
The open-tip match bullets used by snipers are not designed to expand after impact, which is why the lawyers decided the military can use them.
If the senate does not approve, then a treaty is binding only if the effect of the treaty only goes as far as executive power without the legislature goes.
That is, if the treaty only deals with policy that the president can make without congress being involved, then the treaty is binding with only his signing. If the president doesn’t have the power over the matter, then senate ratification is required.
The president does not have the power to enact gun control without congress, so ratification is necessary. It is an interesting way to pass laws when he controls the Senate but not the House. Seeing how they passed obamacare, I wouldn’t put it past them.
Also, treaties still have to be constitutional.
When Obamacare was passed, Democrats had a 59-41 majority in the Senate and held 59% of the House. They now have a 53-47 majority and do not control the House. Times have changed a bit.
The last time I was down range my M9 was carrying HP’s.
sorry, this guy needs to reread the constitution…well then, so again do supreme court justices, but i digress.
the section here in question:
“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 that 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.” ~ Article VI, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution
referring to trumping STATE CONSTITUTIONS, not THE Constitution…..do you think the founders would leave a giant loophole for amending the constitution via treaty? i dont’ think so!
I agree. I do believe the USSC ruled in Reid v. Covert, October 1956, 354 U.S which they also make mention of Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258.
A treaty can be nullified by a statute passed by the U.S. Congress (or by a sovereign State or States if Congress refuses to do so), when the State deems a treaty the performance of a treaty is self-destructive. The law of self-preservation overrules the law of obligation in others
Does anybody know where this lie came from that treaties are on the same level as or supersede a Constitutional amendment?
“Does anybody know where this lie came from that treaties are on the same level as or supersede a Constitutional amendment?”
not sure, but it certainly elicits quite a response!
“Does anybody know where this lie came from that treaties are on the same level as or supersede a Constitutional amendment?”
Sure, those words come out of Dick Morris’ mouth in the video above – didn’t you watch it? I’m not aware of anyone else taking this position. Although I expect the MSM and Democrats to take that position if O signs the treaty.
Aren’t we coming up on something like 20 years since Dick Morris was actually relevant?
If he did sign it, I would say hold him before congress on treason charges. You can’t go against the constitution regardless of reasoning.
Patriot Act? Internment of citizen of Japanese background? Lincoln and habeus corpus?
German American citizens was also interned. Along with German and Italian non-citizens on US soil.
I’m waiting to see what this treaty actually consists of. Gun rights organizations like the NRA have been portraying this as some sort of gun-grabbing attempt by the UN for years, yet thus far haven’t been able to describe what it would do and why it would threaten American gun owners.
It’s entirely possible that this will be along the lines of previous arms-control treaties which seek to govern the transfer of weapons of war to unstable parts of the world. In which case, all of the outrage about it will have seemed silly. On the other hand it might be exactly as critics describe it, but the entire point is that we simply don’t know yet.
I guess we’ll see.
It’s the unstable regions that have the greatest need of arms!
This is what I’ve heard. Is has nothing to do with individuals possessing arms, only control over the transfer of weapons (small arms) to the hot spots in the world where most of the killing is going on. One must never forget that the US, Russia and China are the largest arms dealers on the planet, and none of them will do anyuthing that prevents them from selling weapons of war. Think of it as a program to try and control all of the illegal gun dealers, the “Lords of War.” And no, there is no real possibility that this summer’s meeting will produce anything other than an outline or discussion draft; the festivities are not intended to produce a treaty, but rather to start drafting a treaty.
The list I read (I forget where) was something along the lines of :
* Restricting manufacturing of weapons and ammo
* Restrictions on importing weapons and ammo from another country
*Banning militaries from selling once used brass
* National (or maybe global? I forget) registry of all weapons
And I’m sure there was more, but that’s all I remember.
* National (or maybe global? I forget) registry of all weapons
We have been there for a long time, the ATF’s eTrace database is available to 120 foreign nations. The trail from when it is manufactured to the 4473 goes in to it, I wouldnt be surprised if they enter the data they copy from FFLs bound books too.
They may have my pistols registered, but I bet my shotguns aren’t on the list.
Obama is not stupid. (Incompetent, yes; stupid, no). He knows there are certain thing he should or should not do before an election. However, he is also extremely arrogant. Beware of what he might do after the election.
“this would light up the right wing radar like a squadron of Russian nuclear bombers”
Not a fair comparison. Last I heard they were grounded because of lack of maintenance funds. That may of course have changed.
They did just ground their SU-27s after one crashed….
You missed the news where the Russians did a fly by off Alaska a few weeks ago during all of the Putin comments on Europe as a “reminder”.
http://freebeacon.com/the-bear-at-the-door/
They actually do that all the time.
Let’s hope…
Rob, it’s been publicized by non-firearms related media that they’re doing their month long anti-gun meeting at the UN right now and Obama and Hillary have voiced their support for it.
Why do you continue to defend this man who wants nothing more than to ban all non-government personnel across the planet from owning guns?
There is no credible evidence that he intends to do so. (I know what Holder has said, but Obama shut him up pretty quick, as I recall, shortly after he was sworn in.) A man who has so willingly wielded the weapons of war in the defense of this country’s interests abroad, I think, is unlkely to make any such effort, irrespective of his belief. The Office changes every man who has held it.
And this man has said he has a radically different view that he Hopes will Change the USA.
He never said that he’d change it for the better.
Mark N.
Did Europe have credible evidence in January 1939 that Hitler was going to start WWII? No, they didn’t have that precious evidence. Do you have prior evidence that someone who kicks in your door at 2am holding a butcher knife intends any harm ‘before’ running forward and yelling his intentions?
Whilst I don’t always believe the NRA bombast, I am coming around on this one. I think folks should make up their own minds. In furtherance of that, let me provide a link to the UN organization working on this issue.
http://www.un.org/disarmament/convarms/SALW/
To me it does read as a rather scary agenda. You will note that it is NOT an agenda about the military exclusively. The wording clearly ties into civilization ownership of firearms and ammunition. IMHO this is a problem we have to follow. The UN is diametrically opposed to anything our founding fathers believed in. As for whether a treaty is ultimately signed or not, that is an irrelevancy. International law serves as precedent these days. It is being taken into account by Judges in courtrooms here. So, I see this as a creeping disease. Might not be this summer but every day brings it closer on one of a hundred different fronts. e.g. If Italy signs something or Switzerland, then Beretta and SIG have to abide by it. These are multinational companies and have to comply with such nonsense to stay in business.
“Might not be this summer but every day brings it closer on one of a hundred different fronts. e.g. If Italy signs something or Switzerland, then Beretta and SIG have to abide by it. These are multinational companies and have to comply with such nonsense to stay in business.”
Good point . I had not considered that aspect of the treaty, only looking in a (tunnel-visioned) way towards how it might directly be inflicted on the USA and its citizenry.
It must be remembered that most world governments don’t recognize an individual RKBA , and the nations that recognize legal self defense can be counted on one hand. As such this UN SALW treaty proposal only codifies what’s already law for a majority of the signatory nations, except of course ourselves.
The frightening thing about this issue is that there are millions of Blue State liberals who would see such a treaty as a “Good Thing” for America, since effectively this small arms treaty is already law for citizens of California, NJ, IL, and most of the East Coast. They wouldn’t see any change in day to day life or legality,and this treaty gives the “enlightened progressives” the perfect means to bootstrap us racist redneck country backward gun toters out of the 19th Century. Never mind that more people die from gunfights in 2012 Chicago than have ever been killed in the Wild West….
Good luck getting ANY “international firearms treaty” through the Senate when the Ds have the majority of seats to defend in 2012. They’re ideologically blinkered but they’re not stupid, which is why 58 Senators have already told the President that they will not vote to approve anything that comes close to restricting the 2A. Funny how they can do math when it comes to reelection margins and the size of voting blocs, but when it comes to national solvency, eh, not so much.
I agree with our host, BHO will not sign this…unless he’s re-elected, in which case it gets inked on the Wednesday after the first Tuesday in November.
http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2517&context=faculty_scholarship&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3Dunratified%2520treaties%2520and%2520the%2520law%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D2%26sqi%3D2%26ved%3D0CFIQFjAB%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fscholarship.law.duke.edu%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D2517%2526context%253Dfaculty_scholarship%26ei%3Dqh72T7XqBsbW0QH5m634Bg%26usg%3DAFQjCNEKfWaCAdF_77O2FjVJB_lCL0j2gw#search=%22unratified%20treaties%20law%22 does a good job of explaining the effect of unratified treaties. It isn’t encouraging.
First off Obama will sign this treaty.
Secondly, here is what I believe we will see in it when the ink dries:
Prohibition on civilian ownership of the following:
Handguns.
Semi-auto long guns (rimfire/centerfire).
Select fire firearms (All).
Pump action shotguns.
Any long gun capable of holding more then three rounds.
Any long gun capable of long-range work (.338 .50BMG, etc.).
Possession of more than three long guns by any one person.
Mandatory registration of all firearms, gun owners, ammunition.
Mandatory storage requirements.
Mandatory licensing of all guns, ammo and their owners.
Numerical limits on how much ammunition any one person can own (no more than 50 rounds per firearm).
Now all that being said, if the Senate is stupid enough to ratify it ………… we will have a civil war on our hands.
I think you’ve taken some bad acid. The Senate “ratifies” treaties; it “passes” laws (along with required passae in the House as well) and sends them to the President for signature or veto. With a Republican majority in the House, and plenty of conservative democrats in the Senate, there is no chance of any such onerous laws passing, particularly in the face of (a) the huge popularity of firearms, and (b) the huge number of unregistered firearms floating around the country right now that no level of police action could ever eradicate. You wouldn’t need a civil war–politicans voting for such a plan would be quickly voted out of office (except in California and New Jersey).No matter how much you may dislike Obama, it is generally agreed that he is not stupid; and there has only been one politician in our history to date who was stoopid enough to start a civil war–Jeff Davis. Obama is too smart to start another.
you are acusing people of taking bad acid and then you say things like “plenty of conservative democrates in the senate?”
please tell me what you are smoking and what fantasy land it takes you to. im intrigued.
Mark has some fanatical devotion to the myth that Obama isn’t anti-gun, despite Obama’s many anti-gun rants and his anti-gun votes as a senator and his anti-gun policies regarding bringing back US weapons from South Korea.
Fifty-eight senators signed a letter saying that they will oppose this treaty, but there are only forty-seven Republicans in the U.S. Senate at present. Does that answer your question?
Mark,
The bulk of my post was what I believe we will see in the treaty, I don’t believe that the anti-gun crowd will let an opportunity like this treaty to go by without getting all of their wish list covered, and no I haven’t taken any acid, good/bad or indifferent.
Did the Senate ratify or ignore the treaty Bush signed with Mexico that on paper created something of a NAU? The Senate both often the loud angry opposing Democrats and the usual supporting Bush NeoCon Republicans ignored it.
here is morisis’s theory: obama knows he is going to lose in november. therefore, in his lameduck session, obama will sign several of these treaties to further his radical leftist agenda even after he has been kicked out of office. many of these treaties have been floating around for years and years but never signed or ratified by any of our presidents. and yes the treaty would mean bad things for gun owners, such as the ability to purchase weapons from foreign manufactures (ie glock, beretta, sig, hk and yes i know some of those mentioned weapons are made here). and i trust morris on this, he was one of the higher ups in Clition’s campaign. he would know more about this than anyone else here, unless of course someone here ran a presidental campaign for a president (even if it is clinton who i very much dislike). ps Mr. Farago, quit lying to yourself by saying obama wouldnt do this and he hasnt done anything to adavance gun control. obama is a statist and despises anything that helps individual freedom. plus, if this last month has told us anything about the president, is that he doesnt give a rats ass about the constitution or what would be politically smart or stupid (ie executive priveliage with F&F, executive order for dream act, etc.). he figures he has the media on his side (which he does) and that the population of the USA is dumb enough to buy it.
tl;dr…
can you elaborate?
@Ralph on his link about unratified treaties
what you you specifically like me to elaborate on? morris doesnt go very deep in this little video, but he has in interviews and such. he has given good examples on how the treaties (more than just this one mentioned in this video) affect the USA. the easist to undersand that he gave was on such treaty (dont know the name off of the top of my head) that the US has not ratified, but many other nations have, that declares “acts of aggression” as a war crime. Bush 43 soon after he was out of office, was to recive an award in switzerland or sweeden (somewhere in that area), but was affraid to leave the USA for fear of being arrested for an “act of aggresion” with Iraq and Afghanistan. these treaties manage to effect us even is we dont ratify them, however if we did, the effects would be much worse
I believe the United States Constitution ceased to be of relevance on June 28th, when the Supreme Court ruled that I could be taxed for not purchasing something from a private vendor. If Congress can tax me for not buying health insurance, then they can tax me for not buying an electric car, not buying solar panels for my house, or for that matter for not donating to the Brady Campaign.
Our King…oops President…apparently feels no compulsion to enforce laws he doesn’t like, and create laws by His Divine Right…oops again, I meant Executive Order, when the actual Legislative Branch of Government doesn’t pass them.
So, why would the King…I mean President…wait for the Senate to ratify a treaty before signing it? I would put nothing past this man as he scrambles to create a voting block of small groups to win a second term (or at least get close enough to steal one).
And it would not be easily enforced in most of the US. I’d like to see the blue helmets go house to house looking for arms in rural parts of this country, it would not be pretty.
The blue helmets wont, itll be local LEOs supported by the US military. From the Whiskey Rebellion to the Bonus Protests to Kent State, they have been more than willing to assault and murder their fellow countrymen or even fellow veterans, because a politician told them to. It is difficult to stop their blood lust once unleashed, they will even refuse direct orders from their Commander and Chief to stop, as demonstrated by Gen MacArther in 1932 in Washington DC.
It won’t matter if your local LEOs refuse to comply and side with the resistors, that happened with the KKK, and the Justice Department still managed to take them down.
Then many traitors will die.
the “under the radar” gun control comment that Mr. Obama didn’t make
FLAME DELETED If he didn’t make the statement, it would not have taken his minions two years to deny it after Sarah Brady publicized it.
Just another reminder that elections matter.
I think Dick Morris knows a bit more about what he is talking about than most folks here except Ralph. “It can’t happen here” sounds like circa 1934 in Germany.
This is some scary shit, and anyone who thinks Obama won’t do away with firearms anyway he can is only fooling himself. We may be in for some dark days in America.
Dick Morris knows a lot, but most of it is how to get publicity for himself. He is a lot like a Kardashian, but in his case, he once did matter.
It’s too bad Ralph is as confused as anyone else.
A treaty like this wouldn’t affect current privately owned firearms, but could very much be used as a pretext to either ban, or radically increase the paperwork on, transfers and sales of firearms. After all, you say you’re buying that Glock for home protection, but I think you’re going to send it to Sierra Leone, so we’re going to need a special End User License, a more detailed background check, special registries, etc.
Ya wanna know what?
He’s stupid.
Besides, the Senate isn’t stupid enough to ratify it, so it’s not much of a threat.
Man this reeks of Bull-dung.
If Obama signs this treaty, once it’s finally written, he will have added to the list of things that alienate him from a large portion of the American voting population. But the Senate won’t ratify it. Ratification requires a two-thirds yea vote in the Senate, and that isn’t going to happen.
What such a treaty would mean is that guns made by foreign companies could become hard to get, and military surplus guns won’t travel here as easily. We also may not get any more cheaper foreign ammunition. American manufacturers might see this as a blessing.
One of the bloggers at Volokh.com — a well-respected ConLaw blog started by UCLA Prof. Eugene Volokh — is taking the treaty quite seriously. He posted about it a little while ago.
Barry is so evil and anti-american, it’s a wonder how he can get elected by majority vote to be president of the USA… oh wait…
The Spanish government lost its civil war in the 1930’s primarily because of an international arms embargo that forced them to make a deal with the devil, Stalin and his purges, in order to get weapons. International arms control is dangerous to the freedom of the people in the entire world.
…if he’s lost all the political instincts that carried him to the presidency in the first place
The political instincts that led him to pick Joe Biden as Veep?
He doesn’t have political instincts. He had good handlers and an incompetent opponent.
What will keep him from signing this thing is pride. He knows it has zero chance of getting through the Senate, and doesn’t want to be humiliated again.
Amendment II “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
Question:
“Is the ‘right of the people to keep and bear arms’ granted by Amendment II in the Constitution of the United States?”
Granted? No.
Protected? I used to think so.
This post’s tone is far too authoritative.
Is this in regard to the Amendment II question?
If it’s not a ‘right’ granted by Amendment II in the Constitution of the United States then what is it?
Rights are not granted; their existence is assumed by virtue of our existence. Something which is granted may be revoked.
Thank you for the reply.
While it’s understood there’s no obligation for any response:-
Since it’s obvious that government grants rights, why would anyone believe Amendment II isn‘t exactly that? A grant of rights?
The question remains open to any and all who choose to respond.
“If it’s not a ‘right’ granted by Amendment II in the Constitution of the United States then what is it?”
“Since it’s obvious that government grants rights”
——
And right there is where we disagree. Cheers!
Governments don’t grant rights. Good governments recognize rights; bad governments abuse their powers and block the expression of the rights of citizens. The Bill of Rights ennumerates rights that the Founders believed were necessary to be specific about.
I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make.
Did you all miss the first line of the post?
“Note: there isn’t a U.N. Arms Trade Treaty. Not even a draft.”
Most of the comments are pure fantasy, willful ignorance, and partisan teeth gnashing.
Not to argue over this, but please understand the “process” that these things take. There are all sorts of meetings, intermediary reports, agreements, agreements to reports, drafts and final reports/documents, that all lead up to said treaty. The international world and UN are vast bureaucracies. Its like the DMV gone wild.
If you have a president and secretary of state that keep going with the flow all along this process we will loose. Also remember that none of this goes away. What was agreed to 20 years ago by one president still is in force and can be picked up by some other numbnuts who gets into office. I would draw your attention to the International Criminal Court which has be an ongoing issue for 30 years. Just saying…
Again – This is just vaporware. People are chasing ghosts, rumors, and just repeating what they heard on the interwebz.
Unless someone has something concrete and verifiable, this is just as valid as the opinion poll showing that American’s prefer President Obama’s leadership in the face of an alien invasion.
In answer to the question “Is healthcare in America a privilege, right or a responsibility,” the President’s answer was “I think it should be a right.”
Since the law is now in effect, what is it, if not a grant of rights?
Janet Napolitano of the Department of Homeland Security stated to the effect that government was providing for a grant of deferred action to allow persons in the country illegally to remain in the country without the threat of impending removal.
( certain, specified persons )
Isn’t this a grant of rights by government?
Since the law is now in effect, what is it, if not a grant of rights?
Calling a horse a zebra doesn’t make it so. Just because Obama said the thought it should be a right, and a law was passed giving some form of health care to almost everyone (in theory anyway, but that’s a topic for another time), that does not equate to the government “granting a right.” It’s still a privilege. A privilege of living in a first world society, perhaps, but a privilege nonetheless.
The difference is this: rights are things that are generally believed to be accorded to us simply by virtue of being human. The right of free expression, the right of self-defense, the right of people to be secure in their persons… these are all things that every man, everywhere should have. The rest is a privilege. You do not, simply by virtue of being born, have the right to health care.
Think of it this way: absent society, would you still, as a human, have the right to do and say what you want? Yes, you would. Would others try to infringe on that right in pursuit of their own power? Perhaps, but that makes them in the wrong, and their attempt at doing so wouldn’t negate your possession of those rights.
In contrast, absent society, would you, as a human, have the right to affordable health care? Of course not.
I could even make the argument that Neanderthal man had the right of free expression, and the right to defend his own life. He didn’t have the fundamental right to be seen by the witch doctor.
I have a proposition to make, one that is eminently testable and falsifiable. Our host, Mr Farago, has made a prediction (if a bit weasely with the “if he’s stupid” bit). Many of you are making the opposite prediction, that Obama will sign this as-yet-not-even-written treaty after the election. In the next four and a half years, we will have our answer. I’ll stand for the other side, if Mr Farago will not. This is the substance:
Once President Obama leaves office, whether next year or in 2017, if he has signed the UN treaty on small arms, I will thenceforth yield any debate over future actions of presidents/politicians regarding gun rights to anyone who claimed the opposite in this thread and responded affirmatively to this proposition. The converse is also true, if you wish to take me up on it. If the president leaves office without signing this treaty, you will automatically yield any prediction debate regarding this sort of situation to me, and anyone who agreed with me and answered the affirmative in this thread.
I see a lot of talk in here, just the same sort I used to see in ’03 and ’07 from left-wing idiots claiming that George Bush was going to institute martial law and cancel the election. Put your opinions where your opinions are, in other words. If you really, really think that this is going to happen, you have nothing to lose. And if you are wrong, well then, you weren’t a very astute observer of the nation, and we probably should take any further predictions with a grain of salt, yes? Obama will not sign this treaty. I’m willing to stake a certain amount of credibility on that proposition, because I’m a bit tired of the constant paranoia. Are you willing to do the same?
Thank you Moonshine7102 and Mr. Greg Camp.
Paraphrasing…
So it’s now been established that ‘governments don’t grant rights’; ‘good governments recognize rights‘; ‘bad governments abuse their powers and block the expression of the rights of the citizens’; and the Bill of Rights ‘enumerates rights’…&etc.
So Amendment II to the Constitution of the United States has now been established as an ‘enumerated’ right.
If Amendment II in the Constitution of the United States is, in fact, an ‘enumerated right’ not granted by government, then answers to part of the question have now been provided.
Questions as follow: What is Amendment II — in addition to being an ’enumerated right’, and what purpose was it intended to serve?
…what purpose was it intended to serve?
We can’t know exactly what was intended without being in the Framers’ heads. Luckily, we have other writings from many of them that flesh out where they stood on many subjects, not just this one. This conversation has been hashed and rehashed at length for a couple hundred years, so I’m not going to do it again here.
Where exactly are you going with this? A half dozen of your comments in, I’m pretty sure I’m not the only one that has nfc what you’re trying to do here. Please find a direction quickly, I’m losing interest in chasing the rabbit.
Thank you Matt in FL:
Open questions:
True or False.
Amendment II to the Constitution of the United States is a further declaratory and restrictive clause enacted for the purposes of preventing misconstruction or abuse of ( those few and expressly-limited ) powers afforded to the federal government.
‘And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.’
Is or is not Amendment II to the Constitution of the United States a ‘law’?
Final question:
Did persons in the federal congress enact a ‘ban on assault weapons’?
OK, yeah, I’ve got no idea what the hell you’re trying to get to, so I’m done. Someone else can play the game with you, if they’d like.
If you have a point to make, just make it, instead of trying to get there by asking question after question, using each answer to ask the next question. This isn’t a classroom, and you’re (sure as hell) not Socrates.
I think I heard someone say, “Dick Morris before he Dicks you!”
This is his way of trying to appease the gun control freaks like the Bradey people.
He will be able to say to them that he attempted to follow up on his promise of instituting they’re agenda, if it weren’t for all them pesky republicans blocking it with the aid of the republican funded, even more evil NRA. I’m a card carrying Democrat, life member of the NRA, and will not be voting for this lunatic again.
U.N. Gun Control Treaty… what an absurd idea. Because if there is one thing the world needs, its more regulations!
COME PRY THEM FROM MY COLD DEAD FINGERS IF YOU CAN KILL ME BEFORE I KILL YOU!!!
Barry Soetoro Hussein Obama has, I would submit fascist-like, been doing extra-Constitutional end-runs around Congress for a couple of years now (see Kimberly Strassel’s “Imperial Presidency” article in today’s Wall Street Journal). To think that (after the election) he’d let the mere lack of Senate ratification stop him is the height of folly and delusion.
Thanks to those who responded, special thanks to Matt in FL
Excellent explanation on the difference between rights vs. privileges.
For whatever benefit may be derived from those who may not know, the Founder’s did in fact, provide a brief statement of the intent and purpose for Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. Excerpt as follows:
The First 10 Amendments to the Constitution as Ratified by the States December 15, 1791
PREAMBLE Congress OF THE United States.
“THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution..”
Amendment II “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
I don’t understand a lot the political rules,laws,etc. I’m just a blue collar, country boy from the south. If Obama thinks singing this treaty is gonna make things better he’s an idiot. and if he thinks people of this country will just submit and surrender their guns ,he’s a even bigger idiot! our founding fathers set an amendment to give us the right to have guns . stuff like this is gonna raise crime ,hurt economy, and has potential to cause another civil war!
Then it is a very good thing that the treaty doe not exist for him to sign. And who said he would sign it anyway. That is just an assumption.
Even more bothersome than Obozo signing some treaty…. going back to the above comment about Homeland Security obtaining 450 million rounds of hollow points….. what in the HELL would Homeland Security, a Nazi SS-like government branch who fights American citizens at home and does not go to war with other countries, need with 450 million rounds of hollow points?
Yeah, there might be a war……. a Civil War.
…what in the HELL would Homeland Security…need with 450 million rounds of hollow points?
Enhance your calm, D. B. Lawton. It’s not really the big deal you’re making out of it. It was discussed on this site at some length back in March. You can find the post here.
IF YOU ARE FOR UN GUN CONTROL THIS COUNTRY IS SCREWED.
1. Guns have only two enemies rust and politicians.
2. It’s always better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.
3. Cops carry guns to protect themselves, not you.
4. Never let someone or something that threatens you get inside arm’s length.
5. Never say, “I’ve got a gun.” If you need to use deadly force, the first sound they hear should be the safety clicking off.
6. The average response time of a 911 call is 23 minutes; the response time of a .357 is 1400 feet per second.
7. The most important rule in a gunfight is: Always win – cheat if necessary.
8. Make your attacker advance through a wall of bullets . . . You may get killed with your own gun, but he’ll have to beat you to death with it, because it’ll be empty.
9. If you’re in a gunfight:
a. – If you’re not shooting, you should be loading.
b. – If you’re not loading, you should be moving.
c. – If you’re not moving, you’re dead.
10. In a life and death situation, do something . . . It may be wrong, but do something!
11. If you carry a gun, people call you paranoid. Nonsense! If you have a gun, what do you have to be paranoid about?
12. You can say ‘stop’ or ‘alto’ or any other word, but a large bore muzzle pointed at someone’s head is pretty much a universal language.
13. You cannot save the planet, but you may be able to save yourself and your family.
DICK ACT of 1902… CAN’T BE REPEALED (GUN CONTROL …
Mar 29, 2009 … The Dick Act of 1902 also known as the Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654, of June 28, 1902 invalidates all so-called gun-control laws. It also …
http://www.knowthelies.com/node/3949
I do not even know why they r going through senate they have already said they will go to war if un said before the senate even approved they will do what un says??? This is the begining of a gun take over..SORRY!!!!
Lisa Cacciatore: Please check the location of your mouse, I think you misclicked. This is not Facebook.
No UN gun control!!! Do not sign it!!!
everyone freaking out about this treaty infringing on the second amendment or gun rights in the united states needs to shut the f#@k up and actually read the treaty. it says nothing about gun control within any country. it deals explicitly with monitoring the trade of all armaments (from main battle tanks on down to small arms) between member countries for the purpose of diminishing the use of these weapons in crimes, genocides, arming terrorist organizations, etc. no part of the treaty deals with taking away gun owners’ rights or guns. so all of you gun-crazy rednecks flipping sh*t about the government trying to take away your dozen assault rifles can calm down and put them back on the rack. your rights aren’t being infringed on by this treaty and president obama doesn’t care about taking your guns.
everyone freaking out about this treaty infringing on the second amendment or gun rights in the united states needs to shut the f#@% up and actually read the treaty. it says nothing about gun control within any country. it deals explicitly with monitoring the trade of all armaments (from main battle tanks on down to small arms) between member countries for the purpose of diminishing the use of these weapons in crimes, genocides, arming terrorist organizations, etc. no part of the treaty deals with taking away gun owners’ rights or guns. so all of you gun-crazy rednecks flipping out about the government trying to take away your dozen assault rifles can calm down and put them back on the rack. your rights aren’t being infringed on by this treaty and president obama doesn’t care about taking your guns.
Comments are closed.