This could be really bad.
07-07-2012 | 05:44 PM
#1
Thread Starter
Nontypical Buck
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,672
Likes: 0
From: Anne Arrundle County, Maryland
07-07-2012 | 05:56 PM
#2
Giant Nontypical
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 9,557
Likes: 0
From: Colorado
I've read about this. I can't see it being a problem. Does Obama want any chance of being re-elected? Any idea how many voters own guns?
Ban guns? I thought he was trying to create jobs? What about all the businesses that make, repair, and sell guns? What about the revenue from hunting?
Does he want everybody who he turns against him, to be a gun owner?
Ban guns? I thought he was trying to create jobs? What about all the businesses that make, repair, and sell guns? What about the revenue from hunting?
Does he want everybody who he turns against him, to be a gun owner?
07-08-2012 | 04:33 AM
#3
Boone & Crockett
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,823
Likes: 5
From: Eastern PA
That can only be passed through congress and they already told Obama they would not pass any treaty that jeapordized the second amendment.
And even if they did, do you think the largest army in the world (armed US citizens) would give up their guns without a fight? Also, in so much as every congressman, law enforcement officer, and military individual pledged to defend the Constitution of the United States of America from all enemies both foreign and domestic, who would enforce such an action which directly violates the Constitution?
And even if they did, do you think the largest army in the world (armed US citizens) would give up their guns without a fight? Also, in so much as every congressman, law enforcement officer, and military individual pledged to defend the Constitution of the United States of America from all enemies both foreign and domestic, who would enforce such an action which directly violates the Constitution?
07-08-2012 | 09:03 AM
#4
Fork Horn
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 220
Likes: 0
From: Michigan
that can only be passed through congress and they already told obama they would not pass any treaty that jeapordized the second amendment.
And even if they did, do you think the largest army in the world (armed us citizens) would give up their guns without a fight? Also, in so much as every congressman, law enforcement officer, and military individual pledged to defend the constitution of the united states of america from all enemies both foreign and domestic, who would enforce such an action which directly violates the constitution?
And even if they did, do you think the largest army in the world (armed us citizens) would give up their guns without a fight? Also, in so much as every congressman, law enforcement officer, and military individual pledged to defend the constitution of the united states of america from all enemies both foreign and domestic, who would enforce such an action which directly violates the constitution?
07-08-2012 | 05:47 PM
#6
Boone & Crockett
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 10,918
Likes: 1
From: River Ridge, LA (Suburb of New Orleans)
Darn, i clicked the link without my double layer tinfoil hat on.
07-09-2012 | 04:46 AM
#7
Boone & Crockett
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 11,410
Likes: 1
From: Comance county, OK
The arms provisions giving an agency of the UN authority over certain gun rules in sovereign countries is real,
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/htm...4_0001_ZO.html
Article VI, the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, declares:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof, and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; . . .
There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution. Nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification of the Constitution which even suggests such a result. These debates, as well as the history that surrounds the adoption of the treaty provision in Article VI, make it clear that the reason treaties were not limited to those made in "pursuance" of the Constitution was so that agreements made by the United States under the Articles of Confederation, including the important peace treaties which concluded the Revolutionary [p17] War, would remain in effect. [n31] It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights -- let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition -- to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power under an international agreement without observing constitutional prohibitions. [n32] In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government, and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and the Senate combined.
There is nothing new or unique about what we say here.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof, and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; . . .
There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution. Nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification of the Constitution which even suggests such a result. These debates, as well as the history that surrounds the adoption of the treaty provision in Article VI, make it clear that the reason treaties were not limited to those made in "pursuance" of the Constitution was so that agreements made by the United States under the Articles of Confederation, including the important peace treaties which concluded the Revolutionary [p17] War, would remain in effect. [n31] It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights -- let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition -- to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power under an international agreement without observing constitutional prohibitions. [n32] In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government, and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and the Senate combined.
There is nothing new or unique about what we say here.
http://www.huntingnet.com/forum/poli...enda-21-a.html
07-09-2012 | 06:34 AM
#8
Boone & Crockett
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 10,918
Likes: 1
From: River Ridge, LA (Suburb of New Orleans)
That may be so. But once a treaty like that is signed you never know what a future liberal Supreme Court may decide. If Obama gets a second term he will likely be appointing two new Supreme Court justices. The Court will be heavy on the liberal side. The thing to do when a camel sticks its nose under the tent is to kick it in the nose very hard. That's why everyone should be screaming about this treaty.
07-09-2012 | 06:43 AM
#9
Boone & Crockett
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 11,410
Likes: 1
From: Comance county, OK
i'm finished with this one. If anyone wishes to debate the proposed treaty see:
http://www.huntingnet.com/forum/poli...enda-21-a.html
http://www.huntingnet.com/forum/poli...enda-21-a.html
07-12-2012 | 11:18 AM
#10
Nontypical Buck
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 2,332
Likes: 0
From: Hayes, Va.
i'm finished with this one. If anyone wishes to debate the proposed treaty see:
http://www.huntingnet.com/forum/poli...enda-21-a.html
http://www.huntingnet.com/forum/poli...enda-21-a.html
Once that treaty is ratified, it will be upheld by the supreme court - period.
