Skip to comments.
The U.N. is coming for your guns(7/27/2012)
Obama admin pushing for global arms control
Washington Times ^
| 7/5/2012
| Washington times
Posted on 07/09/2012 12:11:28 PM PDT by mikelets456
The United Nations is deliberating over a treaty that will place comprehensive limits on the international weapons trade. The language of the draft agreement is so expansive it wouldnt take an Obama-appointed judge very long to extend the treaty to cover the domestic firearms market as well. If American jurists continue to be enamored by the popular trend to consider international precedence when making U.S. rulings, you can kiss the Second Amendment goodbye.
This week, the U.N. General Assembly began formal discussion of the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), which seeks to establish common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms. The scope of the proposed treaty is vast. It covers tanks, military vehicles, aircraft (including drones), ships, submarines, missiles and ammunition. It seeks to regulate arms import, export, transfer, brokering, manufacture under foreign license and technology transfer. The proposed global regulation instructs countries to take the necessary legislative and administrative measures, to adapt, as necessary, national laws and regulations to implement the obligations of this treaty.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Front Page News; Government; Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: 2012; armstradetreaty; att; banglist; comeandtakeit; criminal; democrats; donttreadonme; guncontrol; gungrabbers; guns; liberalfascism; obama; treason; tyranny; un; waronliberty; youwillnotdisarmus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-36 next last
To: mikelets456
Good thing it is established precedent that treaties do not supercede the constitution when in direct conflict of the constitution. I don’t even think Roberts could find a way around that one.
To: wolfman23601
I dont even think Roberts could find a way around that one. Don't worry. Roberts will make it a tax and it will be ok... /sarcasm
3
posted on
07/09/2012 12:18:40 PM PDT
by
justice14
("stand up defend or lay down and die")
To: mikelets456
...wouldnt take an Obama-appointed judge very long to extend the treaty to cover the domestic firearms market... Is that because liberal judges are too stupid or read? Or that they're corrupt?
4
posted on
07/09/2012 12:18:40 PM PDT
by
GOPJ
(Speak truth to lies - to ignorance. Speak honesty to corruption . Stand-up to liberal elite liars..)
To: mikelets456
And this is why we have Fast and Furious: to garner support for treaties like this.....
5
posted on
07/09/2012 12:19:15 PM PDT
by
Tzimisce
(THIS SUCKS)
To: mikelets456
...wouldnt take an Obama-appointed judge very long to extend the treaty to cover the domestic firearms market... Is that because liberal judges are too stupid to read? Or that they're corrupt?
6
posted on
07/09/2012 12:19:15 PM PDT
by
GOPJ
(Speak truth to lies - to ignorance. Speak honesty to corruption . Stand-up to liberal elite liars..)
To: wolfman23601
Unfortunately, Roberts found a way to REDEFINE what a tax is.
To: mikelets456
8
posted on
07/09/2012 12:21:23 PM PDT
by
2ndDivisionVet
(In honor of my late father, GunnerySgt/Commo Chief, USMC 1943-65)
To: wolfman23601
I would rather have a constitutional amendment that specifically states that all treaties are subject to the Constitution. Precedent is far to easily overturned by activist judges.
To: taxcontrol
Agreed. I’d actually like an amendment banning treaties altogether.
To: mikelets456
If American jurists continue to be enamored by the popular trend to consider international precedence when making U.S. rulingsThere are a number of FReepers who feel that way too. They got on my case during the runup to ObamaTAX.
Now that the Dread Pirate Roberts has made his ruling, they've largely shut up. Funny how that works...
11
posted on
07/09/2012 12:31:30 PM PDT
by
Old Sarge
(We are now officially over the precipice, we just havent struck the ground yet)
To: GOPJ
Is that because liberal judges are too stupid or read? Or that they're corrupt?... or maybe both?
12
posted on
07/09/2012 12:32:36 PM PDT
by
ArmyTeach
(Our liberties, we prize and our rights we will maintain ... USS Iowa BB 61)
To: taxcontrol
"I would rather have a constitutional amendment that specifically states that all treaties are subject to the Constitution. Precedent is far to easily overturned by activist judges." No need to because the Constitution is not subject to subordination to the UN or any other nation regardless of the whims of the UN, Zero, or Hillary. They cannot circumvent the Bill of Rights even though they imply they can. I'll stand by that statement.
13
posted on
07/09/2012 12:42:14 PM PDT
by
Old Badger
(Don't bother me! I still like Palin because she will tell like it is! (Newt too!))
To: All
14
posted on
07/09/2012 12:45:59 PM PDT
by
musicman
(Until I see the REAL Long Form Vault BC, he's just "PRES__ENT" Obama = Without "ID")
To: mikelets456
,,,,,,,, from my cold dead fingers maybe . . .
15
posted on
07/09/2012 12:55:10 PM PDT
by
Lionheartusa1
(-: Socialism is the equal distribution of misery :-)
To: GOPJ
Is that because liberal judges are too stupid or read? Or that they're corrupt? Those things aren't necessarily mutually-exclusive.
16
posted on
07/09/2012 12:57:08 PM PDT
by
Bob
To: wolfman23601
Doesn't matter any more if it's legal or constitutional ... All you need is a Dem Senate to approve the treaty and Obama will sign it. If it is legally challenged, then it goes to the Roberts Supreme Court where it will be fixed up to become legal and constitutional.
THE ONLY HOPE LEFT IS TO TAKE EVERY GOVERNMENT OFFICE THERE IS, FROM DOG CATCHER TO PRESIDENT, AWAY FROM THE DEMOCRATS. Then pass a law making the Democrat Party ILLEGAL!
17
posted on
07/09/2012 1:06:02 PM PDT
by
ThePatriotsFlag
(Boiling tea makes it stronger. I'm a Tea Party Patriot...and I AM BOILING!!!)
To: mikelets456
18
posted on
07/09/2012 1:10:57 PM PDT
by
momincombatboots
(Back to West by G-d Virginia. 2016 starts today! Walker, Issa, Rubio,)
To: Old Badger
the Constitution is not subject to subordination to the UN or any other nation regardless of the whims of the UN, Zero, or Hillary. They cannot circumvent the Bill of Rights even though they imply they can. I'll stand by that statement. I'm with you -this is huffing and puffing on the part of mean spirited, but stupid - liberals. They wish they could impose the international crap on us - but they can't...
19
posted on
07/09/2012 1:21:11 PM PDT
by
GOPJ
(Speak truth to lies - to ignorance. Speak honesty to corruption . Stand-up to liberal elite liars..)
To: mikelets456
Don’t think even the stupids in the Senate would ratify that one, and not live in serious fear.
And NO that is not a threat, just an observation so don’t send some fed baboso around for a talk.
20
posted on
07/09/2012 1:24:02 PM PDT
by
Joe Boucher
((FUBO) Hey Mitt, F-you too pal)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-36 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson