Posted on 03/21/2013 7:52:05 AM PDT by EXCH54FE
Bureaucrats from 150 nations are ramping up efforts to impose gun control through international pact. Here in the United States, the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty has become the vehicle to drive an agenda that is deeply controversial because once a treaty is ratified by the Senate, it becomes the supreme law of the land.
Last week, Secretary of State John F. Kerry — no friend of the Second Amendment — announced support for the treaty, which calls for international regulations on firearms, including personal firearms as well as military weapons. During the presidential campaign, President Obama was evasive about his position on the treaty. Now that he has fully “evolved” on the Second Amendment, he has the “flexibility” of not having to face voters again, and is pushing for the treaty.
There are plenty of reasons to be concerned about what’s being cooked up in Turtle Bay. Proponents say the treaty is only meant to crack down on illegal gun-smuggling, and the only people who ought to be concerned are military strongmen looking for a good deal on black-market rocket launchers. Of course, there’s more to the story. The exact wording of the agreement, and more importantly, how vague passages can be interpreted and twisted by the courts, will determine what the treaty actually means. It could, for example, force America to implement a national gun-registration scheme, ban importation of weapons and impose burdensome regulations on transfers.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Let’s see... we know Lindsey Graham and John McCain are spineless, so that’s two the Democrats can count on to vote in favor of it. So that creates a wider margin in support of it. Then you have to think who they’re going to convince that it’s a good thing. McConnell?
Anecdotal.
Unless you have talked to Generals, Admirals and Senior Enlisted Advisors who don't fear being purged by Obama, it means squat.
You have made some good points. I think the bottom line question is: Can a Treaty with the UN or any foreign Government over ride our Constitution, even if it has been ratified by the required number in the senate?
A lot of posts seem to think that the Senate can't approve a Treaty that will nullify or change any part of the 2nd Amendment. Most feel that it would take an Amendment to the Constitution to make that type of change.
I must admit that I do not know the answer to that question, however I do feel that those that do not know the definition of a “ Natural Born Citizen” and those that passed the “obamacare” will try to do what they want, Law or no Law.
What say you?
As evidenced by the excerpts from Jefferson's writings and the Reid v. Covert opinion which I had included in my previous post, I think that your concern has been resolved. WH and Senate negotiators who are working with the UN to try to take away our 2A clarified gun rights via phony constitutional loopholes need to be charged with treason imo.
YES, YES, YES, and YES!!!! 100% correct on that one.
I did see that Senator Rand Paul offered a budget amendment that will make it more difficult for the implementation of ANY international treaty creating an international gun registry or gun ban. So I think that he also has some concerns with this Treaty issue.
Like I said, the Dem’s will try to remove our 2nd Amendment rights and take all of our Guns, Law or no Law.
it does not have to pass the senate, just never voted on.
there is ANOTHER treaty in which the united states is treated as if it ratified a treaty until it is AFFIRMATIVLY voted down.
If reid blocks the vote, the treaty stands as if ratified.
there is a seperate treaty that established that signator nations are to act as if the treaty has been ratified in their country until rejected.
Also just signing on can impose the treaty if you reach a tipping point.
see kyoto global warming treaty. That battle was about reaching the tipping point.
Kissinger wrote the way to bypass the constitution was via treaty.
yes.
Wrong, wrong, wrong! 34 senators treaty quorum
Not 67...a mere 34!
See 90!ll
And you're wrong, cll, just like the writers of this article.
From The American Ideal of 1776
The Twelve Basic American Principles
Limited Government in Relation to The Constitution's Treaty Clause
The Constitution is supreme over laws and treaties; it expressly states (Article VI, Section 2) that: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land . . ." This means that any such Law (Act of Congress) which violates the Constitution is automatically made null and void to start with--nullified by the Constitution itself--and therefore cannot be a part of the "supreme Law of the Land." This is also true as to treaties.
See 91!
“You need 2/3 of the Senate.”
And compliance of the people.
Do you guys think it's willful ignorance or deliberate attempts to confuse?
Yes, Restoration too.
People keep making themistakein thinking that UN troops will be enforcing this, but they won't. It will be your local police, and their fedeal buddies in the FBI, ATF, etc. So IF you're prepared to use condign second amendment action, it will be county and city police who you will have to stop. Every true patriot will have to take on the mindset of Timothy McVeigh and realize it is your fellow americans who are the enemy. Those who supposedly uphold the law will be the enemy, and if this passes they will do their best to enforce it.
See post 96
Considering the results of the last election I wouldn't think that's much of a barrier.
“Wrong, wrong, wrong! 34 senators treaty quorum”
Get a life.
Its going to take 67 votes and its not going to happen.
Worry about something that is really going to happen like a bi-partisan bill to let all 11-20 million illegal aliens stay and get on a path to citizenship.
Worry about the DHS taking those 2 billion rounds of ammo, 7,000 full auto assault rifles and 2717 armored trucks and start jack booting the general public or help Obutnik take over and declare himself President for life.
Worry about 39,000 drones flyng over your house on an hourly basis spying on everything you do.
I can say for a fact that it was a pattern on California threads during the recall of Gray Davis and that it appeared to me they were hired GOPe operatives. It was just too repeatable. I can't say I've seen a pattern that consistent with these Small Arms Treaty threads.
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.