Obama to sign UN Arms Treaty this month while congress is in recess - small arms involved

page: 2
20
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 15 2013 @ 03:44 PM
link   
Please contact your senators to encourage them to approve this treaty.

Don't fall victim to the moronic hyperbole.




posted on Aug, 15 2013 @ 03:51 PM
link   
To show how meaningless the real laws are to Obama, and how he ignores them, but mandates them for everyone else, look no further than fast and furious which may be still continuing in a covert manner.

I wonder if the UN's so called small arms treaty would have stopped Obama and Eric Holder from giving guns to terrorists and gangsters that resulted in the death of a federal agent? Nahhh, They seem to exempt themselves from pesky things like laws, as seen by their constant examples.



posted on Aug, 15 2013 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by links234
Please contact your senators to encourage them to approve this treaty.

Don't fall victim to the moronic hyperbole.


Yes Yes of course.

I will do that right now.



Thanks for the sound advice !!



posted on Aug, 15 2013 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by links234
 




You're smart.



posted on Aug, 15 2013 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by DivisiveConformity
 


Smart enough to read a treaty before denouncing it as an attack on our freedoms!




posted on Aug, 15 2013 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 





Now...that of course interferes with US Gun Manufacturers profit from shipping small arms abroad to third world unstable hell-holes...So the NRA and other Lobbyists are forced to gin up opposition in face of the fact it will have no impact on US gun owners.


Well Sir that is an outright lie considering the EXPORT restrictions on firearms that goes all the way down to even nightviision products.

Biggest reason that is a lie is because of all the AK-47s I see in gang member hands,pirates and the infamous terrorist.

Last time I checked American manufactures don't make Ak-47s not a single one not in the full auto version kind see those people aren't like Americans who settle for semi auto crapola.




Meaning the USA is not beholden to that requirement cited by the NRA.


Straight up the USA government is beholden to the second and ninth amendments rather clear as HELL what they say.




Alas...The NRA still managed to protect thier masters interests in international gun-dealing and the GOP in congress refused to OK the Treaty...thus Pres. Obama will sign it in Recess...


Want to try again with that political trolling ?

He can't sign it simple fact any 'regulation' is done under the false pretense of the interstate commerce clause.




Let the hysteria continue...


Mean let the hyperbole and vitriol and political trolling fly manufacturing boogieman to institute fascism under the false pretense of 'make the little people safe'.

While those government's pick their winners and losers and ARM THEM with worse things that are denied to US and the rest of the world.

You know any flavor of the day they deem to be 'friendly'.
edit on 15-8-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2013 @ 05:11 PM
link   
I really think Obama does this kind of stuff just to piss off the Right...and look how well it works.

If you are certain it won't be ratified, why all the paranoia and panic???

I wish it was ratified, we need to break our addiction to fear and guns in this country.



posted on Aug, 15 2013 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by AlienScience
 


You really think this will only tick off the right think again. Removing any part of our Constitution should and will piss off most Americans.



posted on Aug, 15 2013 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96

Well Sir that is an outright lie considering the EXPORT restrictions on firearms that goes all the way down to even nightviision products.

Biggest reason that is a lie is because of all the AK-47s I see in gang member hands,pirates and the infamous terrorist.


Wait...cuz you see guys with AK-47's in the news...US Gun Manufacture's don't export??/



The United States produces the vast majority of firearms in this country. It's also the world’s leading weapons exporter by far.

America exported $336.5 million worth of firearms in 2011, according to customs data compiled by the Norwegian Initiative on Small Arms Transfers, NISAT. That’s $200 million more than Italy, the next leading exporter.

...

However, those figures are based on legal, government-approved transfers. Experts say a lack of data makes it difficult to come up with an estimate of illegal arms sales.


www.globalpost.com...
edit on 15-8-2013 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2013 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 


And the point is ?

Don't see AR-15s in their hands or m4's.



posted on Aug, 15 2013 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 


You are pointing to data that is refering to legal shipping. Somehow I don't see the Russians or the Chinese being the types to make commercial sales like those stats. The US can't just drive trucks over the borders to say Syria. When they want guns to fall into the right people's hands they authorize gun running or drop the guns from planes. And before you get your knickers in a twist over that last statement, think about how we drop supplies to troops in a war zone. CIA ops in the 80's anybody? Governments don't play by the rules the actual manufactures do.



posted on Aug, 15 2013 @ 05:56 PM
link   
I wouldnt sign that crap if I were him.
Not a good idea.



posted on Aug, 15 2013 @ 10:13 PM
link   
reply to post by thesaneone
 


Yes he can regardless if the U.N has jurisdiction because it states in our own constitution or bill of rights that all treaties signed are as enforceable as the constitution itself..... So it's not a question of jurisdiction but on using our own laws to nullify other laws. It sounds redundant but it's just another back door attempt.
To put it another way, if said treaty is signed and the old law is still in place them the court takes the matter into its own hands to decide which is the law of the land and it'll be the new law because it will be made the most recently thereby giving the illusion that it is the people's new choice and the 2nd amendment is an antiquated law that should be removed ( I am a staunch supporter of the 2nd amendment).
Can it be enforced...? Sorry to say but yes



posted on Aug, 15 2013 @ 10:28 PM
link   
Under Article II of the constitution, a president can sign an international treaty, but it must be ratified by two-thirds of the Senate before it becomes law.

Treaties Do Not Supersede
the Constitution


Myths and fact of treaties.


The following qualifies as one of the greatest lies the globalists continue to push upon the American people. That lie is: "Treaties supersede the U.S. Constitution".

The Second follow-up lie is this one: "A treaty, once passed, cannot be set aside".

HERE ARE THE CLEAR IRREFUTABLE FACTS: 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.

This case involved the question: Does the NATO Status of Forces Agreement (treaty) supersede the U.S. Constitution? Keep reading.

The Reid Court (U.S. Supreme Court) held in their Opinion that,

"... No agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or any other branch of government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution. Article VI, the Supremacy clause of the Constitution declares, "This Constitution and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all the Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land...’
"There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification which even suggest such a result...

"It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights – let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition – to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power UNDER an international agreement, without observing constitutional prohibitions. (See: Elliot’s Debates 1836 ed. – pgs 500-519).

"In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and Senate combined."

Did you understand what the Supreme Court said here? No Executive Order, Presidential Directive, Executive Agreement, no NAFTA, GATT/WTO agreement/treaty, passed by ANYONE, can supersede the Constitution. FACT. No question!

At this point the Court paused to quote from another of their Opinions; Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258 at pg. 267 where the Court held at that time that,

"The treaty power as expressed in the Constitution, is in terms unlimited except by those restraints which are found in that instrument against the action of the government or of its departments and those arising from the nature of the government itself and of that of the States. It would not be contended that it extends so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids, or a change in the character of the government, or a change in the character of the States, or a cession of any portion of the territory of the latter without its consent."


www.sweetliberty.org...

So let Obama sign anything he wants, the Constiution will always win. (at lest for now)
edit on 15-8-2013 by marg6043 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2013 @ 11:10 PM
link   
Gawd this is funny. Even the tiniest whiff of gun takers..and Americans get all ansy...


You do know that the world looks at Americans as one of the most pathetic countries around...dependent on thier guns. You all make it sound if they are taken away you would all curl up in a ball and wet yourselves. You make yourselves sound pathetic.

Good job.



posted on Aug, 15 2013 @ 11:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Onslaught2996
 


Then why are people trying to come to this pathetic country.

Nice fail try again



I also find it funny you said the same thing in the other thread verbatim, are you trolling?
edit on 15-8-2013 by thesaneone because: to add



posted on Aug, 15 2013 @ 11:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by thesaneone
reply to post by Onslaught2996
 


Then why are people trying to come to this pathetic country.

Nice fail try again



I also find it funny you said the same thing in the other thread verbatim, are you trolling


Yeah,
I noticed that too.

Someone doing a copy paste to two threads.
Wonder if they even stick around to read the replies.


Mike



posted on Aug, 16 2013 @ 12:22 AM
link   


should be concerned as that ban will equate to higher gun prices in this country


Good, maybe that will slow down our insane gun mania a bit.



posted on Aug, 16 2013 @ 01:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by CB328
Good, maybe that will slow down our insane gun mania a bit.


You know what I find funny about the type of people who reside on your end of the political spectrum? If you saw a grown man get robbed, then run and cry to his mommy, you'd laugh at him and call him pathetic. But if you saw that same man get robbed, then run and cry to the police, you'd consider it an acceptable response.

Congratulations, you've made the government your mommy. As opposed to those of us on the more sane side of the political spectrum who know how to defend ourselves, as adults, and aren't afraid to use the tools at our disposal to do it.

So tell me, who is the pathetic, insane one?

I'm not even a Conservative and I'm tired of Liberals. You'd all demand a government agency and re-education program on how to tie your shoes (at a 500% inflated market value expense to the taxpayers, of course) if you weren't so busy destroying what little remains of this country.



posted on Aug, 16 2013 @ 01:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by elouina

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by elouina

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
It doesn't matter.

The UN has no jurisdiction in America.

So it's a moot point. Obama can sign all the things he wants.

~Tenth


You are right about this. But Obama should not be doing this "symbolic" signing in the first place. Pure brazenness... By pretending to go through the motions he will be tricking the American public and the world, into thinking it is a done deal.
edit on 15-8-2013 by elouina because: (no reason given)


*Yawn* More lame threads regarding non-issues.


Then why sign something he is not authorized to sign in the first place?


Tenth just explained it to you. Nothing more than harmless international relations. It looks good, but has no meat to it. No big deal.






No big deal just look the other way and make the progressive scum bags in other countries happy......................How stupid can you get?



Maybe I am wrong but treaties out trump our laws. Even if they don't why on earth would people stand by and let there rights be swept away. Apathy and weakness are the words that describe most of the people today.
edit on 16-8-2013 by SubTruth because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
20
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join