Posted on 06/07/2011 1:53:18 PM PDT by Scythian
Edited on 06/07/2011 6:03:37 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
It may not come as surprising news to many of you that the United Nations doesn’t approve of our Second Amendment. Not one bit. And they very much hope to do something about it with help from some powerful American friends. Under the guise of a proposed global “Small Arms Treaty” premised to fight “terrorism”, “insurgency” and “international crime syndicates” you can be quite certain that an even more insidious threat is being targeted – our Constitutional right for law-abiding citizens to own and bear arms.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.forbes.com ...
Britain and the IRA, for example, right?
My preference: go for the suits.
“Article six of the U.S. Constitution:
...”and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land...””
It’s well settled that the Constitution needs to be intercepted in such a way as to avoid conflicting clauses. Therefore a treaty cannot be contrary to any part of the Constitution. So just as any law passed by Congress is assumed null and void from it’s effective date if it violates the terms of the Constitution, any treaty must be treated in the same way.
One clause of the Constitution cannot nullify or alter another of itself or in any action done under it’s provision. Or, to put it shorter, the Constitution has no poison pills.
Makes sense. Unfortunately, it’d be left up to SCOTUS to decide. I’m not impressed with their track record, nor the undue deference their screwed up decisions get from congress.
The IRA effective units were small but were part of a large organization with international connections and good internal intel and commo. The larger organization picked where and when and made sure things were set up properly.
Look what a platoon of Marines can do, with the backing of a few tens of thousands of people, driving subs, controlling satellites, collecting intel and info. Without that backing they’d be a dangerous bunch for sure but much easier to deal with.
A few small bands on their own would not be that effective.
Look at a smakll neighborhood gang vs the Crips.
And then there were two guys with one rifle and a ratty old beatermobile who darned near shut-down the DC area for a couple of weeks a few years back, passing through roadblocks with impunity, and, to the best of my recollection, no external support.
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.