Posted on 09/25/2013 9:05:44 AM PDT by Olog-hai
The United States, the worlds largest arms dealer, has joined more than 90 other nations in signing a treaty that regulates global arms trading, but there is strong resistance in the Senate, which must ratify it.
Secretary of State John Kerry, who signed the Arms Trade Treaty on Wednesday, said it was a significant step in keeping the world safe and preventing terrorists and others from obtaining conventional weapons.
Addressing U.S. critics of the treaty, the former senator said fears that it would undermine Americans constitutional right to keep and bear arms are not grounded in reality.
For one, the treaty does not regulate domestic weapons sales.
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
I agree.
“International law does not trump the Constitution. What part of soverignty do you not understand. “
What part of they don’t give a shit what you think the constitution says, they will use this treaty as a means to create a gun registry as outlined in that treaty and they will later use that registry against you. They violate the law all the time but here you naively think they will follow it somehow.
International law trumps the US Constitution in the minds of people like Kerry. And DC is polluted with like-minded politicians these days.
*GONE* around the bend? Respectfully, sir, have you not been paying attention? They've BEEN around the bend.
The good news is, I believe the system collapses well before they can put us in chains.
It’d be good news if it meant that other world powers don’t rise up and suddenly get very interested in our domestic affairs, to the point where they want to come visit with their militaries. If nobody’s commanding our military to stop them, that’d be more than just a slight problem . . .
I agree with your take on it, but they at least used to couch their anti-Conservative views. Today they just shout it from the mountain tops. It’s shocking to see what people who are Republicans stand for these days.
Obama does not care about, or even like, this (in his words) “deeply flawed” document. He will take the route of saying that we should follow “international norms”. This is what Rebecca Peters and her ilk at IANSA (International Action Network on Small Arms) have been pushing for years.
Would paper have stopped fast and furious?
What about the gun running out of Benghazi?
Stop Obama from supplying Al Quaeda in Egypt?
Yep. And that man went down fighting for freedom - freedom that was won through the blood of our Forefathers.
Sounds to me like there's a bunch of folks willing to settle for doing what we are told by king obama and his many minions.
There will be those who fight and die so that naysayers can live free as well. Cowards who would reap the benefits won by heroes.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL32528.pdf
and others.
In a legal sense, Kerry’s signature isn’t worth a bucket of warm spit. But there are those who will proceed as if it carries the weight of law. And may even convince some leftist judge to agree, setting a precedent.
Stay vigilant and stock up.
True, but we still have nukes, and someone at the state level will have access to them.
What does this “treaty” say about arming Muslim terrorist groups?
I, on the other hand, am reminded of that founding terrorist, who said: Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
I’d like to believe its dead in Congress, but can you be so sure anymore?
Wrong. The United States has respected the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties for over thirty years as "customary international law" despite never having ratified it. One provision of the Vienna Convention is that the parties agree to abide by treaty provisions upon the signature of any officer of the government. That is why, for example, Bush took the trouble to "unsign" the International Criminal Court treaty.
Of course this is all unconstitutional. That is apparently what "means nothing."
And they'll vote for his upcoming third term, too.
I really don't want to have to dodge bullets again, but if ya gotta, ya gotta...
What part of $17 trillion in debt do you not understand?
I really don't want to have to dodge bullets again, but if ya gotta, ya gotta...
Yes, they will.
No person in their right mind wants an armed revolution here in the USA. I agree, however, that the government we have is poking the tiger hoping it will bite so they can put it down - and that will not happen.
What will happen, is
1-they’ll take firearms away from those willing to give them up
2-they’ll register those arms of people willing to have them registered
3-they’ll buy back guns from those who will sell
4-they will enlarge gun free zones
5-they will demonize those who keep arms for safety
6-enrage patriots in an attempt to expose them - but it won't work, so they move on to:
7- this action is right around the corner and when implemented, whatever it is, there will be another “shot that is heard around the world”
“Kerrys signature isnt worth a bucket of warm spit”
It carries weight in that is signifies to the UN that the US President will now carry this to the US Senate for ratification. They have the votes in the Senate.
The workaround the Constitution is that it doesn’t outright ban weapons but it does setup a registry of all weapon owners and we all know the US Supreme Court will uphold such a registry as something that doesn’t prohibit bearing arms. We also know the US Supreme Court has ruled ANYTHING goes as long as it is in a form of a tax. Therefore, the treaty will be implemented as a tax; buy a gun, pay a tax, etc. Own a gun, pay a tax. In fact, just last year there was an IRS 1040 change being tossed around about paying taxes on firearms.
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.