Originally posted by links234
Please contact your senators to encourage them to approve this treaty.
Don't fall victim to the moronic hyperbole.
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.
Meaning the USA is not beholden to that requirement cited by the NRA.
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...
Let the hysteria continue...
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.
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.
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."
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
should be concerned as that ban will equate to higher gun prices in this country
Originally posted by CB328
Good, maybe that will slow down our insane gun mania a bit.
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.
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.