PDA

View Full Version : WOW!!!! This is some Scary S***!!!


quick draw mcgraw
01-19-2010, 9:19 AM
http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDMeDmV0ufU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDMeDmV0ufU)

Long video but very interesting

Cougar
01-19-2010, 9:34 AM
It is.

Before the FUD’sters arrive and say that it can not happen, be forewarned that treaties are international law.

Even if the President signs a treaty that is never ratified by the Senate, that treaty has very significant weight and force.

The Administration*** can (and would) craft all sorts of Administrative Law in line with the treaty.

That treaty absolutely would shape the operational attitudes of various agencies.

Federal courts, including the Supreme Court would stray from interpreting “our laws” and incorporate that treaty in their thought process. We have already seen direct evidence of this in the past.

They absolutely would find, in the “penumbras of the constitution” (AKA: Foggy Logic) as the Supreme Court did in Griswold v. Connecticut all sorts of excuses to do so, and to cover their tracks.

*** The administration is merely headed by the President (and appointees) for a few brief moments in history. Meanwhile, career bureaucrats are the long term driving force.



Take the threat very seriously.


.

gef
01-19-2010, 9:38 AM
If you want to see the next revolution just let them try this.

Swatguy10_15
01-19-2010, 9:47 AM
It is a very serious threat. But many, including myslef would rather fight and die than be defenseless sheep.

fullrearview
01-19-2010, 10:05 AM
If you want to see the next revolution just let them try this.

I think you would quickly see a few states form a new union....They are patient. They will not just openly ban then from our legislation or the UN....It's going to take generations to do it, if they can at all.

quick draw mcgraw
01-19-2010, 10:09 AM
This is nothing more than the scourge of Socialism and Tyranny masquerading as human rights while attacking the freedoms of the very people who saved the world from it once before!!

MrClamperSir
01-19-2010, 10:14 AM
Before the FUD’sters arrive and say that it can not happen.....International laws take precedence over those of an individual country

I'm no "FUD’ster" but I can't see where the people would go along with this kind of international law, myself included. Tell me exactly how are they going to enforce these "laws"?

andalusi
01-19-2010, 10:16 AM
It saddens me how few people read the Constitution, yet proclaim to be its champion. Here's the plain facts: the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. A treaty cannot give the federal government any greater authority or power than those granted by the Constitution. A treaty cannot abrogate any of the clauses in the Constitution.

And the idea of a treaty not ratified by 2/3 of the Senate having any force, let alone "very significant weight and force," is so out-and-out ridiculous as to not deserve further commentary.

The supremacy of the Constitution over treaties is well established by both the written intentions of the Founding Fathers and the judiciary's insistence on this point. There are real threats to liberty out there, but Chicken Little nonsense like this ain't one of 'em.

SIGscout
01-19-2010, 10:35 AM
Hopefully we will never have to find out if all those people who talk are worth there weight in salt.
Our forefathers spoke not only with words, but with firm, unshakeable actions.
I dearly hope our government, who was created to serve 'of and for the people' have become our masters, will never have to be physically reminded of there position in this once great nation.

Surf&Skeet
01-19-2010, 10:44 AM
[QUOTE=Cougar;3665535]It is.

Before the FUD’sters arrive and say that it can not happen, be forewarned that treaties are international law.

International laws take precedence over those of an individual country. They preempt everything, including the Constitution.

Cougar, although I don't disagree with your conclusion that this should be taken seriously, I just want to make a correction in your statement. At least technically, the Constitution outweighs treaties (although other countries might not like this idea), the US cannot enter into nor enforce a treaty that would violate any portion of the Constitution.

That being said, the reason I agree that we should be concerned is that our "leaders" tend to pay little attention to whether an action is constitutional or not these days. So, even though the law should prohibit them from taking such an action, it will likely end up being a small obstacle to them achieving whatever they want. It is called tyranny, and is one of the reasons we believe in RKBA.

So, I just wanted to clear up that you are technically incorrect in the letter of the law, but unfortunately probably correct in its application.

rkt88edmo
01-19-2010, 10:50 AM
International laws take precedence over those of an individual country. They preempt everything, including the Constitution.


Enforced by whom? (did I get my whom right?)

A signature from an agent without the authority to sign has no meaning

nobody_special
01-19-2010, 10:56 AM
It is.
Before the FUD’sters arrive and say that it can not happen, be forewarned that treaties are international law.

International laws take precedence over those of an individual country. They preempt everything, including the Constitution.


Incorrect:


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 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 of the Constitution which even suggests such a result. These debates, as well as the history that surrounds the adoption of the treaty provision in Article VI, make it clear that the reason treaties were not limited to those made in "pursuance" of the Constitution was so that agreements made by the United States under the Articles of Confederation, including the important peace treaties which concluded the Revolutionary [p17] War, would remain in effect. [n31] 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. [n32] 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 the Senate combined.

hamster
01-19-2010, 12:34 PM
Didn't Obama give interpol the ability to operate in US territory without supervision recently? That's at least what I heard on the radio. Could that also mean that interpol being an international organization wouldn't be limited by the US constitution?

quick draw mcgraw
01-19-2010, 1:27 PM
What authority would Interpol have if they are/were operating within the country?

racinginthestreets
01-19-2010, 2:12 PM
Orig post by andalusi:
Here's the plain facts: the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. A treaty cannot give the federal government any greater authority or power than those granted by the Constitution. A treaty cannot abrogate any of the clauses in the Constitution.

You are absolutely correct. While I think the UN does provide a needed service in some respects. I don't believe that the quest to ban firearms owned by the general public of the US will ever come to pass without a revolt by its citizens.

The primary reason these other countries are so quick to ban firearms to their citizens is that none of these other countries have a founding document like the US Constitution (where its citizens are given a Constitutional right to bear arms).

I have not found an agreed to treaty adopted by the US that struck down a Constitutional right. If you know of one please post it.

MR2Chuck
01-19-2010, 2:16 PM
[QUOTE=andalusi;3665707]It saddens me how few people read the Constitution, yet proclaim to be its champion. Here's the plain facts: the Constitution is the supreme law of the land...

Granted, but we do see changes that creep like "contintal drift*" away from the drafter's intent. Example: Executive Order 12425, signed without fanfare last month gives Interpol free hand in U.S. according to some analysts. Each attempt must be challenged.

* Yes, deliberate pun.

aermotor
01-19-2010, 2:35 PM
Insanity. Take away the people's right to defend themselves from their Government and you're asking for Civil War. I hope this day never comes in these United States.

Tarn_Helm
01-19-2010, 2:35 PM
http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDMeDmV0ufU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDMeDmV0ufU)

Long video but very interesting

Read this CATO Policy Report from March/April 2004, Vol. XXVI No. 2, if you want to witness how the previously unrestricted right to bear arms has virtually disappeared in the United Kingdom as part of the global, socialist/statist agenda.

Self-Defense: An Endangered Right (http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/v26n2/cpr-26n2-1.pdf) by Joyce Lee Malcolm (http://www.law.gmu.edu/faculty/directory/fulltime/malcolm_joyce)

http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/v26n2/cpr-26n2-1.pdf

Most folks have never been to the United Nations building in New York.

They don't know that this "art" stands in front of its entrance:
http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p13/AimSmllMssSmll/UNgunart.jpg

Always remember:
http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p13/AimSmllMssSmll/GunControlISABOUTCONTROLSMALLER.jpg

woodey
01-19-2010, 3:48 PM
Scary, you know this is what Fienstien want's

Glock21sfsd
01-19-2010, 3:52 PM
I dont know about any one else on this site but as for my self I will die defending my right to own a firearm, I would rather be dead than defenseless

gravedigger
01-19-2010, 3:57 PM
It saddens me how few people read the Constitution, yet proclaim to be its champion. Here's the plain facts: the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. A treaty cannot give the federal government any greater authority or power than those granted by the Constitution. A treaty cannot abrogate any of the clauses in the Constitution.

And the idea of a treaty not ratified by 2/3 of the Senate having any force, let alone "very significant weight and force," is so out-and-out ridiculous as to not deserve further commentary.

The supremacy of the Constitution over treaties is well established by both the written intentions of the Founding Fathers and the judiciary's insistence on this point. There are real threats to liberty out there, but Chicken Little nonsense like this ain't one of 'em.

Gosh, thanks! you saved me a lot of typing! :D

Meplat
01-19-2010, 4:11 PM
'The people' don't agree with Obama care either but that does not seem to be slowing down the progressives does it?

I'm no "FUD’ster" but I can't see where the people would go along with this kind of international law, myself included. Tell me exactly how are they going to enforce these "laws"?

They are already enforcing them a little teeney bit at a time.

pnkssbtz
01-19-2010, 4:34 PM
International laws take precedence over those of an individual country. They preempt everything, including the Constitution.

Law is meaningless without enforcement.

Who is going to enforce such a low on us?

Liberty1
01-19-2010, 4:43 PM
:TFH::willy_nilly:

welchy
01-19-2010, 4:46 PM
I need to buy more guns.

B Strong
01-19-2010, 4:48 PM
The all-time classic comment on the subject belongs to John Ross, in Unintended Consequences:

UN troops enforce a gun ban in the U.S. "...Undertakers in Kentucky will be working three shifts..."

It's about as worrisome as Canada invading the U.S.

Thanks to the other posters taking note of Constitutional Supremacy.

Crusader Matt
01-19-2010, 5:11 PM
First thing, that is scary.

I agree and understand other people's arguments that an international treaty can't override the U.S. Constitution. But I disagree that this isn't something to worry about.

You say that a treaty like this couldn't be passed because it infringes on the second amendment, specifically individual private ownership of firearms. Problem is, the majority of congress, the UN, and several other nations responsible for a possible treaty such as this DO NOT believe the second amendment is to be interpreted as the individual RKBA (yes i understand the importance of Heller, but were far from secure in our right, duh). Anti-gunners don't believe a treaty such as this would infringe on the second amendment because they dont see the second amendment in its pure form like we do. If a group of people (meaning our congress backed by the UN) passed a law saying civilians can't own firearms, and simultaneously interpreted the second amendment as not pertaining to individual ownership (meaning they believe the wack-job interpretations that its talking about the military or specifically the National Guard, which they do believe), then there is no infringment. Treaty passed.
Besides, these are changing times, you can't take the Constitution literally, ESPECIALLY the second amendment (sarcasm). People literally think like this.

Not as far fetched as you think. This is the way the world is moving, its happened in other nations, anti-gunners/liberals are begging for it. Heller and incorporation are important because its sets precedence that the Second Amendment does apply to the individual RKBA, but precedence is absolutely no guarantee on future decisions being those branches have decided several times against precedents to create new precedents.

All one has to do is reinterpret the Constitution, which is actively happening in this day and age obviously, especially by anti-gunners. I wish it was as easy as 'they cant do that because the SA says so', but unfortunately the Constitution lost its purity nearly a century ago. There are more organizations than one can count that have explicitly and literally declared the SA does not grant the RKBA (Brady, ACLU, UN etc), so how is a treaty like that related? Sure it'll piss us off but for them, only unintelligent rednecks, right wing extremists, the religious crowd, and primitive Americans believe they can cling to their guns. I mean this is the modern age (more sarcasm).

Anthing is possible with enough time. People claim SA victories as of late (which they are indeed), but don't lose perspective. Look how far we've come since the National Firearms Act of 1934: machine guns banned to assualt weapons laws, rosters, wait periods, background checks, locks and safes, handgun bans etc.

I could go on forever. Just my opinion. Keep fighting the good fight. Load up. I could very well be wrong or paranoid, but heck i'd be glad if i was, I don't want something like that happening.

Oh one more thing. Whose gonna enforce it right? Well good luck finding hardware or ammunition when manufacturers are banned from commercial sales and imports (yes its a far fetched scenario i get it, but still have you not listened to what I'm saying?). Hell even with them pumping out full capacity there still was a drought when Obama was elected, still is. Imagine them gone completely. "NOT IN MY LIFETIME!" maybe not, but maybe in the next generation or two for sure. I'm done.

B Strong
01-19-2010, 5:20 PM
I support the NRA, but the truth is that with Heller, and incorporation looking very good, they need to have a boogyman.

UN gun bans for the U.S. fit the bill nicely.

I'm more worried about UOC causing us problems in the long run in California than I am about the U.N.

Edit: Crusader, read this:

http://lawreview.law.wfu.edu/documents/issue.43.837.pdf

Best case scenario for gun banners, there is currently a 400 year supply of weapons in the U.S.

picasso
01-19-2010, 5:35 PM
I don't think that even if we sign the treaty, it will or can trample upon our Constitution. If it will, then it will be tantamount to meddling with our internal affairs.

Also the direct effect will be felt by the arms suppliers more so than individual gun owners in the US.

Maybe this is a dupe----->http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=255936&highlight=afraid+of+your+guns

Corbin Dallas
01-19-2010, 6:25 PM
This guy "Henry Smith" from Amnesty International has his head so far up his own arse it makes me laugh!!


The US citizens do not have a blanket right to use these weapons as they feel fit.


Really Henry? I beg to differ. Maybe this is how "YOUR" country works, but MY country allows me the freedom to do what I like as I feel fit as long as it does not violate any laws.


Attorney Mark Bennison said:

They (AI) think gun owners are primitives who need to be brought into the modern world.


Damm rigth!! OOHHHHH OOOOHHHH OOOOOOOH!!!!!!


I got news for the UN. IF and that's a BIG IF they are able to change the constitution there will be resurgence of what the Japanese referred to as the "Sleeping Giant".

Don't wake him unless you're looking for a whoopin.

Vinz
01-19-2010, 7:23 PM
another media scare tactic...how many of you are outraged and have the urge to buy more guns?

...what time does Big 5 close?

grain of salt, just look at the related video list to the right. Its a crock.
vinz

tube_ee
01-19-2010, 7:44 PM
there is Supreme Court precedent to the effect that treaties cannot override the Constitution or acts of Congress, right?

Read the Supremacy Clause carefully... all it does is set out the primacy of acts of the Federal Government over acts of State governments, and bind the Courts of the States to those acts.

The handwringings of liberal internationalists and conservative conspiracy theorists aside, the phrase "treaties are the supreme law of the land" doesn't mean what most people think it does.

--Shannon

crud
01-19-2010, 7:51 PM
another media scare tactic...how many of you are outraged and have the urge to buy more guns?

...what time does Big 5 close?

grain of salt, just look at the related video list to the right. Its a crock.
vinz

Don't ruin it for me! I'm still gunna buy more guns!

quick draw mcgraw
01-19-2010, 11:31 PM
I think that whether or not a UN treaty would preemt the Constitution and whether or not they would actually have any real legal precedent to override the 2A and ban any and all firearms in this country we should be concerned with this perceived "Moral Majority" and not pass it off as a farce. As others have noted these people don't really care about your 2A "rights" and apparently will stop at nothing to acheive their socialist agenda, legal or not, constitutional or not.

slipangle
01-20-2010, 1:50 AM
Edit: Crusader, read this:

http://lawreview.law.wfu.edu/documents/issue.43.837.pdf

Best case scenario for gun banners, there is currently a 400 year supply of weapons in the U.S.

I just finished reading this. It was long, but WELL WORTH the time to read. Thank you very much for the reference. It seems to be written by a "realistic" gun-grabber.

In this case, "realistic" means that the gun-grabbing author realizes the massive resistance that would ensue, and the difficulties in trying to remove 300 million guns from Americans (gun-nuts and otherwise).

It is also recently written (post Heller), and contains many lessons (expounded upon by a gun-grabber!!!) that we must remember. These aren't new lessons, it's just interesting to see them discussed all in one place by the "other side"



Heller (and other 2A legislation) is only a few justices away from defeat at any given moment.

The constitution is a living document, and our 2A freedoms are NOT permanently guaranteed.

Registration paves the way for confiscation.

"No-paper" transactions are our best friend.

We must fight VICIOUSLY against ANY and ALL incremental gun control schemes.

We should strongly consider further development and expansion of the accessibility and quality of "homebuilt" firearms.

Really, the article is a great read! I strongly recommend it!

CDFingers
01-20-2010, 5:01 AM
andalusi is correct. The Constitution is the law of the land, and no international law can cover the Constitution without ratification.

I think the video is hype and FUD.

CDFingers

Ford8N
01-20-2010, 7:40 AM
Heller (and other 2A legislation) is only a few justices away from defeat at any given moment.

The constitution is a living document, and our 2A freedoms are NOT permanently guaranteed.

Registration paves the way for confiscation.

"No-paper" transactions are our best friend.

We must fight VICIOUSLY against ANY and ALL incremental gun control schemes.

We should strongly consider further development and expansion of the accessibility and quality of "homebuilt" firearms.

Really, the article is a great read! I strongly recommend it!

I feel the NRA should put some effort into killing 922(r). That would go a long way in protecting our Constitutional rights on many levels.;)

Of course, I'm just a lone voice among bird hunters who have no use for "those kind of guns".:rolleyes:

Meplat
01-21-2010, 6:51 AM
Best case scenario for gun banners, there is currently a 400 year supply of weapons in the U.S.

How about Ammo?

randy
01-22-2010, 2:09 AM
It saddens me how few people read the Constitution, yet proclaim to be its champion. Here's the plain facts: the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. A treaty cannot give the federal government any greater authority or power than those granted by the Constitution. A treaty cannot abrogate any of the clauses in the Constitution.

And the idea of a treaty not ratified by 2/3 of the Senate having any force, let alone "very significant weight and force," is so out-and-out ridiculous as to not deserve further commentary.

The supremacy of the Constitution over treaties is well established by both the written intentions of the Founding Fathers and the judiciary's insistence on this point. There are real threats to liberty out there, but Chicken Little nonsense like this ain't one of 'em.

Thank you very well said.

dawson8r
01-22-2010, 8:58 AM
Suppose this was the problem that the international community were trying to solve:

1. Country X is a dictatorship that severely oppresses its subjects.
2. Country X commits horrible atrocities against its subjects.
3. Country X does not have the capability to domestically produce small arms.

So the international community decides a treaty is in order to prohibit selling of small arms to Country X in an attempt to change its behavior.

Sounds reasonable, huh? If that treaty doesn't contain any language about whether private citizens of a country are prohibited from owning firearms and specifically narrows the scope of the treaty to trading small arms with out-of-control dictators then such a treaty seems like the right thing to do on behalf of the subjects of Country X.

Unfortunately, many of us are rightfully suspicious of our government, particularly when a number of its leaders have public records of anti-gun statements. And who has the authority and what are the criteria to declare a country as rogue and subject to this treaty?

I, for one, would not like to hand that authority over to a UN committee full of representatives of countries that already hate the USofA and would like nothing more than to diminish our standing in the world.

On the other hand, if the treaty is only about import and export of small arms and clearly contains no language about private ownership and registration, particularly select fire arms, then I suppose it isn't that big a deal since most of us can't purchase those types of arms anyway and even if we could, we have some of the best firearms manufacturers in this country. Besides, don't we already have import/export laws for small arms? Isn't that what all the US part count compliance is all about?

Anyway, I'd like to read the actual text of the treaty, assuming is isn't so full of legal ambiguity that I can't understand it, before I start to get bent about it.

cbn620
01-22-2010, 9:34 PM
It is.

Before the FUD’sters arrive and say that it can not happen, be forewarned that treaties are international law.

International laws take precedence over those of an individual country. They preempt everything, including the Constitution.

Even if the President signs a treaty that is never ratified by the Senate, that treaty has very significant weight and force.

The Administration*** can (and would) craft all sorts of Administrative Law in line with the treaty.

That treaty absolutely would shape the operational attitudes of various agencies.

Federal courts, including the Supreme Court would stray from interpreting “our laws” and incorporate that treaty in their thought process. We have already seen direct evidence of this in the past.

They absolutely would find, in the “penumbras of the constitution” (AKA: Foggy Logic) as the Supreme Court did in Griswold v. Connecticut all sorts of excuses to do so, and to cover their tracks.

*** The administration is merely headed by the President (and appointees) for a few brief moments in history. Meanwhile, career bureaucrats are the long term driving force.



Take the threat very seriously.


.

Even if we flush the Constitution down the toilet and completely and literally forget it ever existed:

Our own country's government has shown time and time again that they really don't give two shakes of a lamb's tail about international law. So tomorrow if the UN says they want to ban all guns internationally, what makes you think the US is just gonna go, "Oh? OK. Sounds reasonable."

The UN has shown time and time again that it will not even attempt to enforce its own laws. So if tomorrow for the billionth time the UN writes a strongly worded "cease and desist" letter, this time to our government on the subject of gun ownership, what makes you think they are going to actually do anything about it? They couldn't even tell Qaddafi to get off the stage when his ten minutes were up...and they let him rant for what, 2 hours?

Don't get me wrong, if you want to spread awareness about the issue more power to you. Just don't hold your breath for anything. For one, the NRA has been sending people letters about this since before I was born. In all this time, not only has the UN failed to mobilize its efforts beyond the talking stage, the NRA has failed to take this issue head on. Don't get me wrong, they've done some good things on a number of issues, but I've seen them do next to nothing about the dangerous UN threat.

I don't even think they believe this is that big of a threat, and yet every other month they're sending me a letter or calling me on the phone to tell me about this end of the world scenario and ask for money.