90 replies to this topic

[laststate2havecarry]

Anyone keeping their eyes on what is unfolding at the UN regarding the Small Arms Treaty that Obama and his administration are waiting in line to sign us up for?
I know the senate would have to ratify the treaty for it to be binding to the USA, but it's looking like it might come to that, which is further than the UN has gotten on this issue before now.
It makes me nervous to rely on the last line of defense...being the US Senate, although it would be political suicide for this to come to a head before November, at least I would think.
How do you all think the UN discussions will end this time around?

[Talonap]

Here's a link to a Fox News article.

http://www.foxnews.c...-turns-to-iran/

They are also covering it on NRA News,

http://www.nranews.com/#/nranews (Go to "Viewing Guide" upper left, then "Archives".)

Edited by Talonap, 12 July 2012 - 05:21 AM.

[Tompo]

Taken directly from the State Dept. website--

• The Second Amendment to the Constitution must be upheld.
  
  • There will be no restrictions on civilian possession or trade of firearms otherwise permitted by law or protected by the U.S. Constitution.
    
  • There will be no dilution or diminishing of sovereign control over issues involving the private acquisition, ownership, or possession of firearms, which must remain matters of domestic law.
• The U.S. will oppose provisions inconsistent with existing U.S. law or that would unduly interfere with our ability to import, export, or transfer arms in support of our national security and foreign policy interests.

http://www.state.gov...rmstradetreaty/

[Bud]

And the present administration is soooooo trustworthy when it comes to keeping their word, right?

Here's a couple of Government issued press releases on other government initiatives:

"You will be able to keep your health care insurance"

"This is not a tax"

"I will run the most transparent administration ever"

"You will be able to keep your Doctor"

"President Obama promised us our premiums would go down $2,500 per family per year if we passed Obamacare" ( but family premiums increased 9 percent last year)

"The President promised us he wouldn't raise taxes on middle class families making less than $250,000 a year"( but Obamacare raises taxes on health plans, medical devices, prescription drugs, and employers, and 75 percent of the individual mandate tax will fall on the middle class)

[abolt243]

Don't forget the famous "The Emperor is wearing a fabulous, new suit of clothes!!".

"The check is in the mail"
"I'm from the government and I'm here to help"
"Yes Dear, Of course I'll respect you in the morning!"

[miztic]

You also have to be careful about the wording they use, they may not be restricting or banning small arms, they are trying to push the stupid microstamping BS again, the company with that tech has reps EVERYWHERE lobbying for it apparently.

http://www.ammoland..../#axzz20Q0q7yNZ

[mauserme]

Tompo, on 12 July 2012 - 06:44 AM, said:

Taken directly from the State Dept. website--

This would be the same State Department that continues to block the repatriation of historical Korean War era M1 Garands and M1 Carbines from South Korea.

Was it respect for our traditions or respect for gun owers you were trying to imply?

[Uncle Harley]

Tompo, on 12 July 2012 - 06:44 AM, said:

Taken directly from the State Dept. website--

• The Second Amendment to the Constitution must be upheld.
  
  • There will be no restrictions on civilian possession or trade of firearms otherwise permitted by law or protected by the U.S. Constitution.
    
  • There will be no dilution or diminishing of sovereign control over issues involving the private acquisition, ownership, or possession of firearms, which must remain matters of domestic law.
• The U.S. will oppose provisions inconsistent with existing U.S. law or that would unduly interfere with our ability to import, export, or transfer arms in support of our national security and foreign policy interests.

http://www.state.gov...rmstradetreaty/

It doesn't matter what they say, it's the interpratation of what they say that matters.


They don't see microstamping and the increased in costs associated with it a restriction.

They don't see a federal registration as a a restriction.

They don't think the ban on semi automatic weapons would violate  the 2a.

[Tompo]

mauserme, on 12 July 2012 - 08:50 AM, said:

Tompo, on 12 July 2012 - 06:44 AM, said:

Taken directly from the State Dept. website--

This would be the same State Department that continues to block the repatriation of historical Korean War era M1 Garands and M1 Carbines from South Korea.

Was it respect for our traditions or respect for gun owers you were trying to imply?

I was posting the FACTS on the treaty.
A UN treaty does not affect your Constitutional rights.   To do that, The Constitution must be ammended. Congress and, I believe, 3/4 of the states must ratified the Amendment.  That hasn't, and isn't going to happen.

[Tompo]

Uncle Harley, on 12 July 2012 - 09:27 AM, said:

Tompo, on 12 July 2012 - 06:44 AM, said:

Taken directly from the State Dept. website--

• The Second Amendment to the Constitution must be upheld.
  
  • There will be no restrictions on civilian possession or trade of firearms otherwise permitted by law or protected by the U.S. Constitution.
    
  • There will be no dilution or diminishing of sovereign control over issues involving the private acquisition, ownership, or possession of firearms, which must remain matters of domestic law.
• The U.S. will oppose provisions inconsistent with existing U.S. law or that would unduly interfere with our ability to import, export, or transfer arms in support of our national security and foreign policy interests.

http://www.state.gov...rmstradetreaty/

It doesn't matter what they say, it's the interpratation of what they say that matters.


They don't see microstamping and the increased in costs associated with it a restriction.

They don't see a federal registration as a a restriction.

They don't think the ban on semi automatic weapons would violate  the 2a.

How can you interpret the first line any differently?

"The Second Amendment to the Constitution must be upheld."

[mauserme]

Tompo, on 12 July 2012 - 09:38 AM, said:

How can you interpret the first line any differently?

"The Second Amendment to the Constitution must be upheld."

You're of course referring to the "possession of a revolver in the home" interpretation.

[Tompo]

mauserme, on 12 July 2012 - 09:46 AM, said:

Tompo, on 12 July 2012 - 09:38 AM, said:

How can you interpret the first line any differently?

"The Second Amendment to the Constitution must be upheld."

You're of course referring to the "possession of a revolver in the home" interpretation.

I must have missed that part in the 2A.

[mauserme]

Tompo, on 12 July 2012 - 09:59 AM, said:

[I must have missed that part in the 2A.

No person of average intelligence would find that in the Constitution.

[bornhunter04]

Tompo, on 12 July 2012 - 09:37 AM, said:

mauserme, on 12 July 2012 - 08:50 AM, said:

Tompo, on 12 July 2012 - 06:44 AM, said:

Taken directly from the State Dept. website--

This would be the same State Department that continues to block the repatriation of historical Korean War era M1 Garands and M1 Carbines from South Korea.

Was it respect for our traditions or respect for gun owers you were trying to imply?

I was posting the FACTS on the treaty.
A UN treaty does not affect your Constitutional rights.   To do that, The Constitution must be ammended. Congress and, I believe, 3/4 of the states must ratified the Amendment.  That hasn't, and isn't going to happen.

Never say never.......

With an agenda and power anything is possible. The current powers that be have more than proven they are willing to do what's necessary to get their way even if they're acts are unconstitutional..... These guys haven't played by the rules set forth in the constitution yet, so why should we expect them to do any different?

[kurt555gs]

Tompo, on 12 July 2012 - 06:44 AM, said:

Taken directly from the State Dept. website--

• The Second Amendment to the Constitution must be upheld.
  
  • There will be no restrictions on civilian possession or trade of firearms otherwise permitted by law or protected by the U.S. Constitution.
    
  • There will be no dilution or diminishing of sovereign control over issues involving the private acquisition, ownership, or possession of firearms, which must remain matters of domestic law.
• The U.S. will oppose provisions inconsistent with existing U.S. law or that would unduly interfere with our ability to import, export, or transfer arms in support of our national security and foreign policy interests.

http://www.state.gov...rmstradetreaty/

And the Constitution says Copyrights last 14 years. The problem with treaties like the Berne Convention on Copyrights is they really can and do override the Constitution.

[Molly B.]

mauserme, on 12 July 2012 - 09:46 AM, said:

You're of course referring to the "possession of a revolver in the home" interpretation.

The definition used by Washington, D.C.

[Federal Farmer]

I think the only realistic danger to our gun rights from such a treaty is its effect on imports.  It might make it more difficult or more expensive to acquire foreign made firearms.

[DoYouFeelLucky]

Federal Farmer, on 12 July 2012 - 11:18 AM, said:

I think the only realistic danger to our gun rights from such a treaty is its effect on imports.  It might make it more difficult or more expensive to acquire foreign made firearms.

If a US firearms manufacturer is heavily restricted from international markets, the result may be a significant rise in prices as they will not be able to spread fixed costs across a higher number of manufactured units.  Our current administration is pretty crafty when it comes to ways to tax or price people away from a set of behaviors they deem unacceptable.  If they make it harder to exercize a right, then they have impacted that right of the people.

[spec4]

Anything the USA does with the UN is bad news.  That the US is even considering this is despicable.

[Tompo]

mauserme, on 12 July 2012 - 10:06 AM, said:

Tompo, on 12 July 2012 - 09:59 AM, said:

[I must have missed that part in the 2A.

No person of average intelligence would find that in the Constitution.

You proved my point.

[ilphil]

Tompo, on 12 July 2012 - 09:37 AM, said:

mauserme, on 12 July 2012 - 08:50 AM, said:

Tompo, on 12 July 2012 - 06:44 AM, said:

Taken directly from the State Dept. website--

This would be the same State Department that continues to block the repatriation of historical Korean War era M1 Garands and M1 Carbines from South Korea.

Was it respect for our traditions or respect for gun owers you were trying to imply?

I was posting the FACTS on the treaty.
A UN treaty does not affect your Constitutional rights.   To do that, The Constitution must be ammended. Congress and, I believe, 3/4 of the states must ratified the Amendment.  That hasn't, and isn't going to happen.

I wouldn't get too overconfident. The constitution is whatever a majority of the SCOTUS says it is at any given point in time. Obamaites on the court have already publicly stated that they feel Heller and McDonald were decided wrong.
Does anyone really think that if Obama gets to put another leftist on the Court that they won't revisit and reverse those decisions at the earliest opportunity.They won't be bound by precedents they feel are wrong.

[mauserme]

Tompo, on 12 July 2012 - 04:21 PM, said:

mauserme, on 12 July 2012 - 10:06 AM, said:

Tompo, on 12 July 2012 - 09:59 AM, said:

[I must have missed that part in the 2A.

No person of average intelligence would find that in the Constitution.

You proved my point.

I must admit I missed the part of your posts where you were critical of those making an "in the home" argument.  

When Uncle Harley mentioned the possibility of different Constitutional interpretations causing us problems,  you asked "How can you interpret the first line any differently?"  It seemed as if you saw no possibility that those opposing our rights would contort recent court rulings to mean something they do not.

In any event it's heartening to know that we agree those contortions not only exist but are the views of complete and utter fools, regardless of which groups we might normally align ourselves with.

[TFC]

This was all supposed to click with the Obama Administration's so called "assault weapons ban II,  using "Fast and Furious" as it's rallying cry. But, being the incompetents that they are, it all blew up in their faces when the people saw what was going on.
If surrendering of the Second Amendment to the U.N. doesn't constitute treason I don't know what does.
You don't negotiate on issues of sovereignty. Everyone know that.

[colt-45]

what i would like to know is what happens if he does sign the treaty? are we at war or are we going to give them up? is anyone going to make a stand?

[Tompo]

I was reffering to the first line from the State Dpet. website, reagrading the treaty--The Second Amendment to the Constitution must be upheld.  How can that line be interpreted any differently?

[Xwing]

Molly B., on 12 July 2012 - 10:34 AM, said:

mauserme, on 12 July 2012 - 09:46 AM, said:

You're of course referring to the "possession of a revolver in the home" interpretation.

The definition used by Washington, D.C.

You forgot to add "with a child lock and dis-assembled"...

Yes.  That's how Obama views the 2nd amendment.  Since he doesn't beleive in the actual intent of the amendment, him saying "upheld" means little.  His promises aren't worth the paper they are printed on.  Our only real defense in this horrible treaty is the Senate.  No Republicans would vote for that horrible treaty (hopefully), so as long as the Dems don't get 60 members (or a few foolish traiters), we'll be ok.

[mauserme]

Tompo, on 13 July 2012 - 07:17 AM, said:

I was reffering to the first line from the State Dpet. website, reagrading the treaty--The Second Amendment to the Constitution must be upheld.  How can that line be interpreted any differently?

What does the Second Amendment mean?

Is the meaning you give it the same meaning for the State Department?  The same for the President?  For Eric Holder?

How about the Brady Campaign?

A cynic might say the sentence you quoted is desinged to play to people's assumptions.  Even if it isn't so designed, many people are unwilling to assume any part of the administration interprets the Second Amendment in a pro-rights manner.

Having said that I do understand that you are willing to trust them.  I, on the other hand, see the State Department's history of blocking sales of historically significant rifles as reason to doubt their motives.

[Hatchet]

Tompo, on 13 July 2012 - 07:17 AM, said:

I was reffering to the first line from the State Dpet. website, reagrading the treaty--The Second Amendment to the Constitution must be upheld.  How can that line be interpreted any differently?

That sentence means one thing. But the the actual amendment means different things to different people. To us, the right to own and carry any firearm for our own defense. Others have said it means you have the right to own a musket in your home only, as modern rifles and handguns dont apply to that. It all depends on who makes the definition. Cause there are alot of those definitions out there.

[belercous]

Kurt: The Const. does not say copyrights last 14 yrs., I have no idea where you've got that idea from. I do agree that copyright protection is a bit extreme, but if one isn't willing to spend a few million lobbying Congress, one has little recourse when the laws don't turn out to one's liking.

If one is afraid that a U.N. treaty will change the Const., then one should be afraid. Be very, very afraid. The rest of us know that the Const. can only be changed in 3 ways; A Constitutional Convention can be called (never happened), the Const. can be amended (not an easy process), or SCOTUS can re-interpret the document (judicial activism).

Please understand there is a judicial doctrine called "stare decisis" (Latin for "let the decision stand") which gives continuity to the law. It has been found useful several hundred years ago in the English courts. We thought it a good idea so we adopted it since it seems to work. Also understand that the Heller & McDonald decisions were acts of judicial activism, it changed 220+ years of const. understanding (& I'm good with that). Sometimes judical activism is a good thing.

There are presently 2 Justices on SCOTUS who are on record as saying they do not feel bound by precedent (will ignore the doctrine of stare decisis). Both are extreme right-wingers; Scalia & Thomas. Most SCOTUS Justices take their positions very seriously and don't like to make sweeping changes in the law. I'd imagine that even if a member of the right on SCOTUS were to be replaced with an uber-liberal tomorrow, that the Heller & McDonald decisions would still stand. The 2A may not get expanded, but I'd doubt they'd get over-turned. There simply wouldn't be 5 votes to do it. Justices often won't vote to overturn a law they disagree with so as to maintain continuity in the law.

I say the above as I believe it to be true. I've spent a few years studying the judicial history of SCOTUS decisions & the Const. I've read quite a few SCOTUS decisions in the process. I realize that a bit of in-depth knowledge of a subject is no match for those with an opinion based upon emotion/belief. Only the future knows for sure.

[Thanks2mcdonald]

belercous, on 14 July 2012 - 10:33 PM, said:

Kurt: The Const. does not say copyrights last 14 yrs., I have no idea where you've got that idea from. I do agree that copyright protection is a bit extreme, but if one isn't willing to spend a few million lobbying Congress, one has little recourse when the laws don't turn out to one's liking.

If one is afraid that a U.N. treaty will change the Const., then one should be afraid. Be very, very afraid. The rest of us know that the Const. can only be changed in 3 ways; A Constitutional Convention can be called (never happened), the Const. can be amended (not an easy process), or SCOTUS can re-interpret the document (judicial activism).

Please understand there is a judicial doctrine called "stare decisis" (Latin for "let the decision stand") which gives continuity to the law. It has been found useful several hundred years ago in the English courts. We thought it a good idea so we adopted it since it seems to work. Also understand that the Heller & McDonald decisions were acts of judicial activism, it changed 220+ years of const. understanding (& I'm good with that). Sometimes judical activism is a good thing.

There are presently 2 Justices on SCOTUS who are on record as saying they do not feel bound by precedent (will ignore the doctrine of stare decisis). Both are extreme right-wingers; Scalia & Thomas. Most SCOTUS Justices take their positions very seriously and don't like to make sweeping changes in the law. I'd imagine that even if a member of the right on SCOTUS were to be replaced with an uber-liberal tomorrow, that the Heller & McDonald decisions would still stand. The 2A may not get expanded, but I'd doubt they'd get over-turned. There simply wouldn't be 5 votes to do it. Justices often won't vote to overturn a law they disagree with so as to maintain continuity in the law.

I say the above as I believe it to be true. I've spent a few years studying the judicial history of SCOTUS decisions & the Const. I've read quite a few SCOTUS decisions in the process. I realize that a bit of in-depth knowledge of a subject is no match for those with an opinion based upon emotion/belief. Only the future knows for sure.

Good post

Edited by Thanks2mcdonald, 15 July 2012 - 09:22 AM.