Posted on 10/19/2009 8:55:35 AM PDT by mikelets456
As noted in “British gun control: Coming soon to a country near you? ” seven countries, led by the United Kingdom, are attempting to revive U.N. efforts to restrict imports and exports of small arms. On Wednesday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced the United States would reverse Bush administration opposition to international small arms control, potentially paving the way for the British-led effort, which calls for a vote by the U.N. General Assembly by year’s end.
The U.S. would support the “Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty” as long as it was conducted under rules of “consensus decision-making,” interpreted by some to require unanimous consent, Clinton said. Non-governmental organizations such as Amnesty International and Oxfam, which support international restrictions, objected to requirements for a consensus.
The Heritage Foundation, calling demands for consensus “irrelevant” and “dangerous,” expressed opposition to the conference. The NRA has long opposed treaty efforts on grounds they would be used to abridge American’s right to keep and bear arms guaranteed by the Second Amendment.
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
MOLON LABE. It’s coming to that, isn’t it?
As long as they leave it alone, the 2A means nothing. When they try and take it, the 2A means everything. They are activating the 2A.
I believe that the old "use 'em or lose 'em" saw is becoming more relevant with each passing day.
NOTE TO COMMIE DICATOR AND CRONIES IN SODOM ON THE POTAMAC: Come and get them. Bring large swat team of commie troops with you. TRUE, GOD BELIVING AMERICANS WILL NOT CAVE TOO YOUR DICTATORSHIP!
Since Britain “outlawed” guns, they’ve had a huge problem with stabbings. What should they do? Outlaw kitchen knives? Or how about we outlaw railroad ties? You know, the weapon of choice in Chicago./s
US out of the Godless Communist United Nations!
Traitorous Treaties will not stand.
I have long believed and advocated that we need a Constitutional Amendment that says to the effect that all treaties that the US is party to is subject to the Constitution of the US and that any portion of any treaty past present or future that is in violation of the Constitution is unenforceable.
Further, that any sitting US President requires 51% of the Senate to approve a treaty;
that the Senate must take up a floor vote within 60 days from the time the President presents the final treaty to the Senate;
that the text of the treaty must be printed and published to the public no less than 5 days before the Senate vote;
That the US can not become party to any treaty in secret; That no treaty may cause the lose of US Sovereign rights or the rights of US citizens within the borders and international waters of the United States;
And that no treaty may be agreed to that creates a tax on the citizens of the United States.
Further, that at any time, the President may begin the process to remove the US from a party of a treaty by publicly announcing such, notifying the other members of the treaty and submitting to the Senate a notice of removal. Like a normal treaty, the Senate must take up a vote within 60 days and if passed with a 51% majority, then the US is no longer a party of that treaty.
Hope you fellerz didn’t expend too much ammo this last weekend...;-)
May need the rest...
I thought one needed a 2/3 majority to ratify any treaties
It's been coming to that since 1934.
I was only born in 1985 and I could tell that's the only way we'll get anything done in these times.
Obama (Clinton & the UN): “You Sir, are not one of my vassals... who are you?
Ash: Who wants to know?
Obama: I am Obama the Red. Duke of Earl, Lord of the Kenyans and dearest Leader of its peoples.
Ash: Well, hello Mister Fancypants. I’ve got news for you pal, you ain’t leadin’ but two things right now: Jack and shit... and Jack left town.”
bump
This means that a simple majority of the Senate cannot make it official.
Unfortunately, treaties trump the US Constitution, and the RATS know it. They had to get control of the House, Senate and White House before they could make this move, and now that they have it all, they know exactly what they are doing. It's going to take a revolution to stop them, and it has to be soon. Are the Patriots in America ready to stand up to this evil administration?
It would be a grave mistake on their part.
Any attempt to quell it would become a Lexington & Concord / Fort Sumter moment.
It tries to undermine the Constitution of the USA and
would love to cripple our Constitutional Republic.
In over 60 years the only politicians who tried to get
the USA out of the UN were Goldwater and President
Ronald Reagan who did kick UNESCO out.
GW Bush invited UNESCO back in 2002.
16 out of 17 of the AMERICANS that were involved
in creating the UN were later identified, in sworn
testimony, as secret communist agents.
The first Secretary General was the AMERICAN Alger Hiss.
Alger Hiss served time in prison pursuant to his
involvement in a Communist spy ring.
Many of the other AMERICANS that were involved in
creating the UN fled the country, to avoid prosecution.
The ONE AMERICAN, that was involved in creating the UN;
and was NOT later identified, in sworn testimony, as a
secret communist agent, was Dean Acheson.
Dean Acheson’s law firm was the legal representative of
the Soviet Union, in US courts.
If the AMERICANS that were involved in creating the UN
were Communists, what do you think we got from the rest
of the world?
I think they misread the protest march on DC. Because there were no arrests from violence or an unruly bunch of protesters they saw it as a sign of weakness. They don't realize that we are law abiding citizens, who will come unglued when our freedom is threatened.
Very interesting...do you have a link, I want to send it around in an email.
At the least a larger swat team means more targets.
It appears that there’s been a lot of “messing with the Constitution” lately.
Or as Patton said during the Korean war,
“Men they have us surrounded, that means
we can fire in ANY direction!”
They can cede that which is theirs but do not try it with MINE.
I’m of the opinion that an overwhelming majority in either house would be sufficient to pass anything, whether it be a bill or treaty with foreign nations, this way they can’t get a “simple majority” to pass something that gives away our freedom.
Remember what things Pelosi and Reid said would only require a simple majority.
I added the item about UNESCO this year.
They’re coming already. Not to your door of course, but to choke off your supply chain.
Cheap imported ammo will be shut off. The habit/hobby of burning up the stuff will only be curbed when people start running out of it and can’t get more. Can’t feed ‘em = can’t use ‘em. (Yes there is a huge amount stockpiled, but step one is kill the resupply.)
Cheap/popular foreign-made arms, and parts thereof, will be stopped. Like Glocks? FNs? HKs? C&R imports? etc. Remember, US manufacturing has been outsourced to large degree.
“Molon Labe” is a worthy sentiment, but it can’t stop there. They’re content to leave you alone - very, starkly, alone.
WHat Reid and Pelosi say versus what the constitution says are two different matters. Interesting, senate.gov has the appropriate part of the consitution featured today.
General Patton was not involved in the UN
mandated Korean Police Action.
Our Constitution is over any treaty, no amendment needed as long as our lawmakers and judges follow precedent.
Hillsdale College Imprimis, July 2009, The Constitution and American Sovereignty.
“The Constitution provides for treaties, and even specifies that treaties will be “the supreme Law of the Land”; that is, that they will be binding on the states. But from 1787 on, it has been recognized that for a treaty to be valid, it must be consistent with the Constitution—that the Constitution is a higher authority than treaties.”
http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2009&month=07
I still don’t see how this can work with no shadow government in place, no visible tactical leadership, and practically no guarantee that anyone will show up for a revolution much less anything remotely resembling a disciplined fighting force. I only know of a couple of fellows that there is any comfort level with, but I know a ton of loud mouths that would have no practical worth in a fight except to draw fire away from the main body.
Ok, 2/3rs ... but then it becomes that much harder to REMOVE the US from a treaty. The “missing” part of the current configuration of the Constitution is how to get OUT of a treaty. There is no provision for such.
Sorry, meant Chesty Puller.
You’d think a Marine wouldn’t make a mistake
like that but my brain was stuck on P for some
reason, my god I’m gettin old.
I am sure all the Liberal Free Trader Globalists...with their syncophants at the UN....are happy about this.
Anyone who thinks “global” on anything just surrenders American soverignity
Actually, you need 2/3 of the Senate to approve any Treaty the US signs
Of course, none of the Anti-American Free Trade Agreements or other soveriginty robbing deals of the past few years were ever approved in accordance with the US Constitution. Most of these deals would never have received 2/3 of the vote
Scarier, is the Memoranda of Understanding that Bush and Obama have been signing in recent years, which robs our soverignity even more....without any congressional review
Could we write it in and make it retroactive?
Ok, 2/3rs ... but then it becomes that much harder to REMOVE the US from a treaty. The “missing” part of the current configuration of the Constitution is how to get OUT of a treaty. There is no provision for such.
Yes there is. You simply do not follow it. You either ignore it, or, abrogate it
All treaties are made to be broken.
“And what is it that allows us to judge whether a treaty is consistent with the Constitution? Alexander Hamilton explained this in a pamphlet early on: “A treaty cannot change the frame of the government.” And he gave a very logical reason: It is the Constitution that authorizes us to make treaties. If a treaty violates the Constitution, it would be like an agent betraying his principal or authority.”
"We must evolve away from an ownership society, and I plan to force everyone to start by giving up ownership of their guns. Everything else they own will then be that much easier to 'give up'."
George S. Patton? Neat trick, as he died right after hostilities ceased in WWII.
You should have read farther, I caught my mistake,
getting dotty in old age.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
