UN To Push For A Gun Control Treaty- Obama Agrees

secondamendmentfreedom.blogspot.com ^ | 11/02/09 | Sasparilla

[Gritty]

[Landru]

"This treaty will regulate production, supply, transfer, acquisition and storage of small arms by the end user, among others, all U.S. gun owners.

zerO had better have a plan for dealing with the US constitution before signing anything.

It's a very small step from claimed "accusation(s)" to demonstrable fact.

[antisocial]

That isn’t the only one.
http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/1109/1109howtosaveamerica.htm

[sport]

That was then. This is now. Neither obama or the Democrat Party is going to let a small thing like the Constitution stand in the way of them accomplishing their agenda. And they will be aided and abetted each step of the way by the alphabet propganda oganizations.

[andy58-in-nh]

I agree: there are a number of such threats to our sovereignty. Yet I do not believe that a free, self-governing people ought ever be bound by the designs of those who share no other bond with them save the desire to control that which they would otherwise need to obtain in trade or win in war.

[An Old Man]

You said: "I thought all foreign treaties needed 67 Senate votes for resolution? This according to the Constitution..."

That would work out well and fine except for a few details.

Do you really believe that 67 senators have the authority under the Constitution to approve something that volates the constitution?

If that were true, then 67 senators could get together and have you do anything they wish you to do. Is that what you believe?

[Chode]

Where will we draw the line?

When will we say enough??

What will finally provoke spontaneous direction action???

[supercat]

. Under international law, treaties supersede national law and oblige their signatories to enforce all relevant provisions by use of their domestic authorities.

A "treaty" which is not signed and ratified according to the laws of a country cannot be binding upon that country. The Constitution clearly specifies that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. In other words, any governmental action which would infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms is illegitimate. Nothing in the Constitution authorizes anyone to sign any treaty whose terms would violate the Constitution.

[andy58-in-nh]

A "treaty" which is not signed and ratified according to the laws of a country cannot be binding upon that country.

That is exactly right. The problem is: what happens if such a treaty is ratified? Our Constitution would become subservient to the pertinent international law, and the only "way out" would be for the other signatories to agree to release us from our obligation.

Such an eventuality would be noxious and likely unenforceable in the case of primary freedoms (in which I would include the 2nd Amendment), but it would, for whatever it is worth, make us an international "outlaw". That is what is at stake, and why we ought to oppose such a result with all means necessary.

[Joan Kerrey]

Worse, once a treaty is ratified, it cannot simply be renounced in the future

---

What can those cockroaches do to us if we break the treaty?
Maybe try to pass a resolution that we could veto?
It’d be very gratifying to give the finger to that nest of despots. Iran can do it. We can also.

[Jacob Morgan]

I never could figure out why half the countries in the UN are represtented by people who do not represent the respective countries—a dictator no more represents a country than a hostage-taker or kidnapper represents their victims. It would be like a home invasion rapist showing up at the home owners’ association meeting to vote on what trees to plant. Why do they have a place at the table? Their place is to dangle at the end of a rope.

But this strage arrangement being the case, it makes a lot of sense that the kidnappers, hostage-takers, and all the other dictators prefer their victims to be defenseless.

[clee1]

Agreed.

But they better bring a company of the 101st Airborne - I have the average SWAT team out gunned.

[FlyingEagle]

And the Present thinks the talybannies are trouble.....

[Carry_Okie]

I thought all foreign treaties needed 67 Senate votes for resolution? This according to the Constitution...

Uh, You can fix that mistaken impression:

Treaty Law: The Constitution's Original Trojan Horse and

Patrick Henry "Ratified": The Treaty Power, Its Perils and Portents.

Make sure you've cleared the immediate area of sharp objects.

[Carry_Okie]

Anyone who thinks a treaty takes ratification to be legally binding is seriously mistaken.

If any agent of the United States government signs that treaty, the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties says that we are bound by it in principle.

[guitarplayer1953]

We aren’t the British and the Austrians who gave their guns over, they will need to take our firearms and if most of us are like the average gun owner who has plenty of fire power and boocoo ammo to take a stand. right now I have over 1,000 rounds for each of my firearms and I ain’t done yet stock piling for that day.

[Avoiding_Sulla]

Due to the special position that treaties were granted by our constitution, you don’t even need 67 Senators to agree to denying you rights you thought were protected by our Constitution.

Go to post 74 and read the links. You will then up to speed and be informed better than I was before I read it. Our courts have already denied us property rights that are “guaranteed” by our Constitution because the courts obeyed the provisions of earlier treaties. That means provisions in treaties have been permitted to SUPERSEDE our rights before. There IS precedent.

If you want to preserve your gun rights, you must be very loud and tell our government “Do NOT sign that treaty.”

You might say that we have ignored treaties with other nations before. Take our treaties with the Indians as an example. Right? But the fly in the ointment is that Indians were never holding our debt. Get the picture? Whom the treaties are with make a difference.

Go read. Understand the inherent dangers. It may light a fire under An Old Man. :)

[Lancer_N3502A]

I actually hope they DO pass this legislation. I really, really, really, do.

MWAHAHAHA!