Come and get em.
Posted on 05/27/2010 7:23:33 AM PDT by cycle of discernment
>>While you were watching the oil spill, and other critical crises, Hillary Clinton signed the small arms treaty with the UN.
OBAMA FINDS LEGAL WAY AROUND THE 2ND AMENDMENT AND USES IT. IF THIS PASSES, THERE COULD BE WAR
On Wednesday Obama Took the First Major Step in a Plan to Ban All Firearms in the United States
The Obama administration intends to force gun control and a complete ban on all weapons for US citizens through the signing of international treaties with foreign nations.
Once the US Government signs these international treaties, all US citizens will be subject to those gun laws created by foreign governments.
The laws are designed and intended to lead to the complete ban and confiscation of all firearms.
Obama can appear before the public and tell them that he does not intend to pursue any legislation that will lead to new gun control laws, while his Secretary of State, cloaked in secrecy is committing the US to international treaties and foreign gun control laws.
We will wake up one morning and find that the United States has signed a treaty that prohibits firearm and ammunition manufacturers from selling to the public.
We will wake up another morning and find that the US has signed a treaty that prohibits any transfer of firearm ownership. And then, we will wake up yet another morning and find that the US has signed a treaty that requires US citizens to deliver any firearm they own to the local government collection and destruction center or face imprisonment.
THIS IS NOT A JOKE OR A FALSE WARNING.
As sure as government health care will be forced on us by the Obama administration through whatever means necessary, so will gun control.
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE59E0Q920091015
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
Sheesh, don’t these people realize they are completely discrediting themselves by relying on false scary chain letters for their information? http://cbcf.boardhost.com/viewtopic.php?id=81
Treaties are made by the President and Congress under their executive and legislative powers, and so are subject to constitutional restraints. This is basic constitutional analysis, so commonly understood that there are not in fact that many cases on it, but here are two of the leading ones: Foster v. Neilson, U.S.Sup.Ct., 1829, a treaty must "be regarded in courts...as equivalent to an act of the legislature" page 254
Reid v. Covert, U.S. Sup. Ct., (1957), No treaty "can confer power on the Government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution." page 16 (End quote)
JUSTICE HOLMES delivered the opinion of the court in State of Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416 (1920) Quote: It is said that a treaty cannot be valid if it infringes the Constitution, that there are limits, therefore, to the treaty-making power, and that one such limit is that what an act of Congress could not do unaided, in derogation of the powers reserved to the States, a treaty cannot do. Acts of Congress are the supreme law of the land only when made in pursuance of the Constitution, while treaties are declared to be so when made under the authority of the United States. It is open to question whether the authority of the United States means more than the formal acts prescribed to make the convention. We do not mean to imply that there are no qualifications to the treaty-making power, but they must be ascertained in a different way. It is obvious that there may be matters of the sharpest exigency for the national wellbeing (sic) that an act of Congress could not deal with, but that a treaty followed by such an act could, and it is not lightly to be assumed that, in matters requiring national action, "a power which must belong to and somewhere reside in every civilized government" is not to be found
The treaty in question does not contravene any prohibitory words to be found in the Constitution.
It does. It does not, however, trump the Constitution.
The order is:
Two points:
There are a lot easier and cleaner places to hide guns than the ground, and GPR is not help there. Bottom line is this, when they come to confiscate weapons in violation of the Second Ammendment, at that moment, civil war will erupt, and you will not have to wonder where the guns are IMO.
> “Ground penetrating radar.” <
Oh, forgot to mention. Two-2.5 acre ponds, nice big rocks along the 3000 ft of river front; 65 acres of tall southern pines and hard woods... I have climbing spikes as well.
Tee, hee.
It would be easy to bury scrap Iron and old car parts all over the place. Wonder how long they would keep looking and keep digging, when false positives are placed everywhere.
Diversion is a basic skill set for evasion.
Treaties have to be ratified.
She can sign whatever she wants. Wilson signed some document creating the League of Nations. Congress failed to ratify it.
I’d like to see anybody try to disarm the average joe in the US.
Come and get em.
> “easy to bury scrap Iron and old car parts all over the place.” <
Knowing my wife’s family farm and the old homestead as well as I do, there ARE plenty of old tractor parts, cultivating blades, bolts, nuts, barbed-wire and rock that will set off any metal detector. I trip over stuff all the time.... maybe I should just leave the items in the ground as a diversion?
But then again we have become good stewards of the the old home place.
Please explain this:
Was there a 67 vote majority in the Senate I haven’t heard of?
Yes, and then they find their way here....
So, are you saying that the Supreme Court didn’t cite an unratified treaty in one of their rulings? Or are you just stating your opinion on World Net Daily?
Here is the background of the issue from a liberal site;
http://www.parentalrights.org/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={51229502-5B66-423C-A7DE-94FF771D6EB8}
Here is the opinion:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-7412.pdf
go to page 30 (pdf page 34) for citation of the unratified treaty along with what is customary in other countries.
Personally, I don’t understand why people who call themselves conservative criticize World Net Daily. Is it the “birher” issue?
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.