Our friends at the U.N. are at it again!

[ThreeFingerPete]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/06/07/u-n-agreement-should-have-all-gun-owners-up-in-arms/

Rand Paul's view

http://www.nagr.org/UN_lp_survey2.aspx

http://www.examiner.com/article/20-republicans-set-to-uphold-controversial-un-treaty

[Vertnut]

Hillary Clinton is about 2 weeks away from signing this treaty, too. Barry is all for this. It's a great way to go after our gun's.

[Moose242]

Treaties do not supersede the US Constitution, as per the Supreme Court's rulings.



The U.S. Supreme Court has made it very clear that

1) Treaties do not override the U.S. Constitution.

2) Treaties cannot amend the Constitution. And last,

3) A treaty can be nullified by a statute passed by the U.S. Congress (or by a sovereign State or States if Congress refuses to do so), when the State deems a treaty the performance of a treaty is self-destructive. The law of self-preservation overrules the law of obligation in others. When you've read this thoroughly, hopefully, you will never again sit quietly by when someone -- anyone -- claims that treaties supercede the Constitution. Help to dispell this myth.

"This [Supreme] Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty." - Reid v. Covert, October 1956, 354 U.S. 1, at pg 17.


All of this "UN SMALL ARMS TREATY GUNNA GET OUR GUNZ" shit has been sensationalist bullshit since day one.

[Vertnut]

Due to recent events, I'm a little concerned about what the "supreme court" thinks, and what our own president thinks of our constitution. Other than using it to wipe their asses with as of late.

[Moose242]

Due to recent events, I'm a little concerned about what the "supreme court" thinks, and what our own president thinks of our constitution. Other than using it to wipe their asses with as of late.

Doesn't matter, Heller Vs. DC AND McDonald Vs. Chicago are both pretty fucking solid rulings that will stand regardless, and both stated that the second amendment is an individual right and that we can own pistols.

[mustang_revival]

[Vertnut]

Doesn't matter, Heller Vs. DC AND McDonald Vs. Chicago are both pretty fucking solid rulings that will stand regardless, and both stated that the second amendment is an individual right and that we can own pistols.

To say it "doesn't matter" is a little naive. It all matters. It may not have a big impact now, but the constitution can always be attacked/challenged by activist judges. It also won't help if that treaty she signs is ratified. Does it supercede the constitution? No, but it won't help either.

[Sean88gt]

^LMFAO! I see a big period of 'un-do' after Obama is ousted.

[Moose242]

To say it "doesn't matter" is a little naive. It all matters. It may not have a big impact now, but the constitution can always be attacked/challenged by activist judges. It also won't help if that treaty she signs is ratified. Does it supercede the constitution? No, but it won't help either.

Let me say it again. It doesn't matter. See: my posts above.

[Vertnut]

Let me say it again. It doesn't matter. See: my posts above.

LOL. I saw your post above. So I guess there are no amendments to the constitution, and none of it is left up to interpretation. We just saw the most conservative supreme court justice throw us under the bus with an obviously unconstitutional ruling. Why would you think anything in iron-clad?

[Moose242]

LOL. I saw your post above. So I guess there are no amendments to the constitution, and none of it is left up to interpretation. We just saw the most conservative supreme court justice throw us under the bus with an obviously unconstitutional ruling. Why would you think anything in iron-clad?

I think that our gun rights are not threatened by the UN or any treaties they make now or in the future.

Say they ratify this. The Supreme Court, nor Congress, nor the President could just go "Okay, gibbe us all ur gunz now, lolz". It is much more complex than that.

[Vertnut]

I think that our gun rights are not threatened by the UN or any treaties they make now or in the future.

Say they ratify this. The Supreme Court, nor Congress, nor the President could just go "Okay, gibbe us all ur gunz now, lolz". It is much more complex than that.

You're giving the system an awful lot of undue credit for doing the right thing. We laughed at socialized medicine a few years ago, too. I know it's complex, but it's just another step in the direction we don't need to go.

[Moose242]

You're giving the system an awful lot of undue credit for doing the right thing. We laughed at socialized medicine a few years ago, too. I know it's complex, but it's just another step in the direction we don't need to go.

So tell me what will happen if this is ratified then? Maybe give me a timeline like this-


2012: Obama enters second term

2013: A democrat controlled congress passes the 28th amendment effectively eliminating the right to bear arms

2014: Cops go house to house for a year and a half getting peoples firearms, who hand them over willingly and without a fight. The NRA dissolves and becomes a branch of the ACLU.

2016: Full US citizenship given to all citizens of Mexico, as well as free healthcare, money, and education.

2017: 29th amendment suspends the 22nd amendment

2018: Obama elected to third term



This is what right wing conservitards actually believe.

[ThreeFingerPete]

So tell me what will happen if this is ratified then? Maybe give me a timeline like this-


2012: Obama enters second term

2013: A democrat controlled congress passes the 28th amendment effectively eliminating the right to bear arms

2014: Cops go house to house for a year and a half getting peoples firearms, who hand them over willingly and without a fight. The NRA dissolves and becomes a branch of the ACLU.

2016: Full US citizenship given to all citizens of Mexico, as well as free healthcare, money, and education.

2017: 29th amendment suspends the 22nd amendment

2018: Obama elected to third term



This is what right wing conservitards actually believe.

Given the subversive nature of the current president, and the absolute refusal to hold him or almost anyone in Washington to any sort of standards, when should a moderate American become concerned? In your mind, when does a real threat to our way of life (beyond it's current diminished state) exist?

[Moose242]

Given the subversive nature of the current president, and the absolute refusal to hold him or almost anyone in Washington to any sort of standards, when should a moderate American become concerned? In your mind, when does a real threat to our way of life (beyond it's current diminished state) exist?

I do not fear an international treaty, nor do I foresee a legitimate outside threat to our ability to defend ourselves with firearms.

Real threats to our current way of life exist outside of our ability to own firearms. I am much more concerned about the dollar being ditched as the world reserve currency for example. That will fuck most people over more than any legislation or treaty pertaining to guns.