RED ALERT: The U.N. comes after America’s guns: Barack Obama’s OK of a Gun-Control Treaty Would

Originally posted by HauntWok
reply to post by Merlin Lawndart

 

It's still a bunch of hogwash as the US Constitution trumps any international treaty anyway. There is no way shape or form in which the UN could possibly enforce this treaty on the US. We will ignore it like we ignore all other treaties we signed in this country since it's inception. (really, has anyone anywhere figured out that the US doesn't really give a crap about treaties?)

Don't worry "Law abiding gun owners" will still be able to shoot up schools, and churches, and theatres, and marketplaces just like always.

If it is so meaningless and our constitution trumps these laws and treaties, then why would Obama sign it? For what reason if it holds no binding authority? You make no sense.

reply to post by Phoenix


Ok, this is for you, and the three idiots who starred that completely illiterate post of yours.

Simply put the second amendment prevents our government from having a thing to do with this, so yes when the Article cited or the OP says its treason - well it is.

No, it isn't.

Why? Because you haven't bothered to actually READ the United States Constitution beyond the second part of the 2nd Amendment enough to know the actual definition of TREASON as defined by Article III Section III of the United States Constitution.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

www.archives.gov...

reply to post by Merlin Lawndart

If it is so meaningless and our constitution trumps these laws and treaties, then why would Obama sign it? For what reason if it holds no binding authority? You make no sense.

Why? Cause it plays to his base. That is all it does. It in fact will do absolutely nothing to curtail gun sales or manufacturing or gun violence in this country. But it sounds nice. Ultimately though it's worthless. But it makes tree hugging hippy liberals happy as they sit in their green clouds they can feel just a little safer knowing that this UN Treaty is out there. In the end though, our Constitution trumps it and it won't do jack squat to "Law abiding gun owners"

reply to post by Merlin Lawndart

on another side we could create jobs by administering such measures to the armed forces first and then when all the wackos there are vetted and properly psychoanalyzed we can start with the common folks

reply to post by HauntWok


I still stand on treason because the case could be made even using the constitutional wording, any attempt disarming citizenry can be deduced to "aiding and abetting enemies" especially with visitor list at WH in mind.

See I can even post without resorting to name calling or questioning your educational level and intelligence.

Originally posted by HauntWok
Why? Cause it plays to his base. That is all it does. It in fact will do absolutely nothing to curtail gun sales or manufacturing or gun violence in this country.

I'm gonna have to disagree with you on this point HauntWok. It's an international treaty, it's meant for international reasons. Mainly, illegal arms and to curtail the $85 billion a year arms trade industry propped up by the US, Russia and China. If anyone would actually read the treaty, it's mainly aimed at tanks, warplanes, artillery and rocket launchers. Small arms are just one part of it.

reply to post by links234


You are absolutely correct on the international level. This is the point of this treaty. (despite what the chicken little gun nuts would have people believe)

But in the end, it's basically worthless as the US Government doesn't really ever care about international treaties anyway. We will still sell our arms to other countries, or we will use proxy countries that haven't ratified the treaty to get around it.

It doesn't do anything against the personal armed civilian in the US. But it does sound good to Obama's liberal base. Even though in the end it won't mean jack squat.

reply to post by Phoenix

I still stand on treason because the case could be made even using the constitutional wording, any attempt disarming citizenry can be deduced to "aiding and abetting enemies" especially with visitor list at WH in mind.

Actually no it can't, reality gets in the way.

Stretch it all you want, Treason is well defined under Article III Section 3 of the United States Constitution and your imagined interpretation of if doesn't even come remotely close to what Treason is.

reply to post by HauntWok

Don't worry "Law abiding gun owners" will still be able to shoot up schools, and churches, and theatres, and marketplaces just like always.

What them gun free zone signs don't work ?

Originally posted by Merlin Lawndart

Related Thread:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Please add further comments to the ongoing discussion in the above linked thread.
Thanks

**Thread Closed**