More of his sneaking and underhandedness.

[U201491]

Sure could, but it doesn't even need to be. Despite popular belief, treaties are on equal footing with all other federal laws and can be overruled in whole or in part by a run-of-the-mill act of Congress.

This has been the law for 132 years.

(Scroll down to "Page 124 U. S. 194" for the relevant holding.)



There are plenty of other forums for sharing and discussing made-up conspiracy theories...

Spoken like a true liberal ???
First it isn't a conspiracy theory as the left tries to make it out to be. Second, being 100% vigilante is how we have saved most of the 2nd for the past 50+ years and
to just park it and not pay attention is exactly what the left wants us all to do. I think most of us are very capable of tracking ALL the threats that are made or waiting to be made without putting any of them aside.
To beat the anti's you avoid the apathy game and label "conspiracy" games. Everything is a conspiracy until it happens, and it will happen.

Apathy is thy enemy's friend. I would urge ALL to never fall for that trap ! If someone does not believe it they are free to ignore it, but also it is free mens right to alert and keep threats in the view of those willing to fight to keep that freedom. Every threat is real and worthy of observance and being reminded of that threat diminishes the threat.

 

[ZachS]

Spoken like a true liberal ???
First it isn't a conspiracy theory as the left tries to make it out to be. Second, being 100% vigilante is how we have saved most of the 2nd for the past 50+ years and
to just park it and not pay attention is exactly what the left wants us all to do. I think most of us are very capable of tracking ALL the threats that are made or waiting to be made without putting any of them aside.
To beat the anti's you avoid the apathy game and label "conspiracy" games. Everything is a conspiracy until it happens, and it will happen.

Apathy is thy enemy's friend. I would urge ALL to never fall for that trap ! If someone does not believe it they are free to ignore it, but also it is free mens right to alert and keep threats in the view of those willing to fight to keep that freedom. Every threat is real and worthy of observance and being reminded of that threat diminishes the threat.

You might want to go back and read my post again, maybe a couple of times, or however many times it takes for you to realize that there are facts out there that refute the ridiculous drivel you posted. I'm not denying that our rights are threatened - just that you are making an empty argument about the actual nature of that threat.

You know, a little like this guy.

Spreading these stories actually hurts the cause.

 

[Gunner3456]

Sure could, but it doesn't even need to be. Despite popular belief, treaties are on equal footing with all other federal laws and can be overruled in whole or in part by a run-of-the-mill act of Congress.

This has been the law for 132 years.

(Scroll down to "Page 124 U. S. 194" for the relevant holding.)



There are plenty of other forums for sharing and discussing made-up conspiracy theories...

As I said, I'm going to go take a nap.

 

[U201491]

You might want to go back and read my post again, maybe a couple of times, or however many times it takes for you to realize that there are facts out there that refute the ridiculous drivel you posted. I'm not denying that our rights are threatened - just that you are making an empty argument about the actual nature of that threat.

I would also suggest you do a little study on the subject before branding something a conspiracy theory,
Beginning with this
OAS Firearms Convention
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Re...ntion-Is-Incompatible-with-American-Liberties
and then start here.
http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&q=OAS+Firearms+Convention&btnG=Search

The only conspiracy is from those that would have all of us disregard this threat.
Also being 100% vigilante NEVER hurts the cause of protecting the Constitution. I am not sure what threat you refer to that does harm in this matter unless it is the threat to the left, of the people being informed and having the preparation to fight when the time comes.
Pro gun people already understand that one.

 

[ZachS]

I would also suggest you do a little study on the subject before branding something a conspiracy theory,
Beginning with this
OAS Firearms Convention
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Re...ntion-Is-Incompatible-with-American-Liberties
and then start here.
http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&q=OAS+Firearms+Convention&btnG=Search

The only conspiracy is from those that would have all of us disregard this threat.
Also being 100% vigilante NEVER hurts the cause of protecting the Constitution. I am not sure what threat you refer to that does harm in this matter unless it is the threat to the left, of the people being informed and having the preparation to fight when the time comes.
Pro gun people already understand that one.

Let me spell it out in terms that you'll be able to comprehend:


BY LAW, THE PRESIDENT CAN'T PULL SOMETHING LIKE THIS OFF BEHIND THE BACK OF CONGRESS OR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE

IF YOU KEEP TELLING PEOPLE THAT HE CAN, THEY WILL BE LESS VIGILANT WHEN THE REAL THREATS COME

 

[el gringo loco]

Of course we don't like the things Bush did, just like we don't like the fact we didn't buy Microsoft stock at it's IPO, but it's all history now. Bush is gone and has ceased to be a factor today, tomorrow and the next day, it's all Obama now baby! You liberals need to worry about the future, the past cannot be changed, only the mistakes of the past can be changed and Bush is not the one to look to, to make that change! The past can only serve as an excuse for poor leadership!

Winners lead, losers blame!

I probably should have picked something more recent than the Patriot Act to make my point. However, the same people who were saying that you have nothing to fear if you aren't doing anything wrong (listening to phone calls with out a warrant) and don't think terror suspects arrested on US soil by civilian law enforcement should be read Miranda rights, seem to be many of the same people who scream so loudly about these conspiracy theories involving a treaty signed over a decade ago.

Bush is still a factor, in that many of the unconstitutional laws, rules, & policies enacted during that administration have effects that carry over to today. President Obama, in his insane desire to try to extend an olive branch to the right, has been negligent on these issues as well. His comments on Miranda and his continuation of many Bush era policies make him complicit in these Constitutional violations. My point was that Bush/Cheney actually routinely disregarded the Constitution, and yet, people seemed to be more riled up about possible Constitutional violations involving complex conspiracies when discussing our current president.

The Second Amendment is not the only right we have. When we stand by as other rights are infringed upon, we are paving the road for those who wish to infringe on the rights that more directly affect us (ie. the Second Amendment). I care about infringements on ANY of my rights, whether those attacks come from the right or the left. Our Constitution seems to lay out the principles/values/etc. by which our government shall conduct itself with regard to our people. When we let any ideology or political opinion or desire trump our basic principles, we become a morally bankrupt nation.

Right wing talk radio and think tanks like the Heritage foundation like to stir the pot with these made up issues because it causes a visceral reaction that entrenches people on the right and makes them less likely to debate reasonably- or even listen-on other issues. (NOTE: The left does the same thing,but on other issues-see Brady campaign for further information). These right wing agitators are not lying when they present issues in this manner because they discuss only ratifying the treaty and what that treaty says, not the major legal impediments to enforcing the terms of the treaty.

The fact is that it would take more votes to ratify the treaty and pass legislation to enforce the treaty than it would to just pass regular run of the mill gun control legislation. That's right, President Obama would not need to dig up a treaty signed over a decade ago and backdoor gun control. He would have an easier time digging up votes for an Assault Weapons Ban that would be more likely to weather any challenge on Constitutional grounds than to go the route described in the OP's link. It's not that this theoretical route to gun control is not possible, it is just that it is wholly improbable. It is possible that I could pass through CA, NV,UT, FL, NY, PA, OH, ND, and twenty other states when I drive to Seattle. However, it is much more likely that I would just hop on I-5 and drive north for a few hours.

 

[2zuks]

I probably should have picked something more recent than the Patriot Act to make my point. However, the same people who were saying that you have nothing to fear if you aren't doing anything wrong (listening to phone calls with out a warrant) and don't think terror suspects arrested on US soil by civilian law enforcement should be read Miranda rights, seem to be many of the same people who scream so loudly about these conspiracy theories involving a treaty signed over a decade ago.

Bush is still a factor, in that many of the unconstitutional laws, rules, & policies enacted during that administration have effects that carry over to today. President Obama, in his insane desire to try to extend an olive branch to the right, has been negligent on these issues as well. His comments on Miranda and his continuation of many Bush era policies make him complicit in these Constitutional violations. My point was that Bush/Cheney actually routinely disregarded the Constitution, and yet, people seemed to be more riled up about possible Constitutional violations involving complex conspiracies when discussing our current president.

The Second Amendment is not the only right we have. When we stand by as other rights are infringed upon, we are paving the road for those who wish to infringe on the rights that more directly affect us (ie. the Second Amendment). I care about infringements on ANY of my rights, whether those attacks come from the right or the left. Our Constitution seems to lay out the principles/values/etc. by which our government shall conduct itself with regard to our people. When we let any ideology or political opinion or desire trump our basic principles, we become a morally bankrupt nation.

Right wing talk radio and think tanks like the Heritage foundation like to stir the pot with these made up issues because it causes a visceral reaction that entrenches people on the right and makes them less likely to debate reasonably- or even listen-on other issues. (NOTE: The left does the same thing,but on other issues-see Brady campaign for further information). These right wing agitators are not lying when they present issues in this manner because they discuss only ratifying the treaty and what that treaty says, not the major legal impediments to enforcing the terms of the treaty.

The fact is that it would take more votes to ratify the treaty and pass legislation to enforce the treaty than it would to just pass regular run of the mill gun control legislation. That's right, President Obama would not need to dig up a treaty signed over a decade ago and backdoor gun control. He would have an easier time digging up votes for an Assault Weapons Ban that would be more likely to weather any challenge on Constitutional grounds than to go the route described in the OP's link. It's not that this theoretical route to gun control is not possible, it is just that it is wholly improbable. It is possible that I could pass through CA, NV,UT, FL, NY, PA, OH, ND, and twenty other states when I drive to Seattle. However, it is much more likely that I would just hop on I-5 and drive north for a few hours.

Again, Obama extended the Patriot Act! Where is the liberal outrage there? I don't get it. I still to this day hear libs complaining about Bush signing the Patriot Act, but have yet to hear any liberals complaining about Obama extending it!

 

[ZachS]

Again, Obama extended the Patriot Act! Where is the liberal outrage there? I don't get it. I still to this day hear libs complaining about Bush signing the Patriot Act, but have yet to hear any liberals complaining about Obama extending it!

There was plenty of griping about it from the left, as there is about a lot of other things Obama does. The MSM chose not to report on it, therefore it might as well not have happened.

I'm sure you know the feeling.

 

[Gunner3456]

There was plenty of griping about it from the left, as there is about a lot of other things Obama does. The MSM chose not to report on it, therefore it might as well not have happened.

I'm sure you know the feeling.

Yeah, but please notice that not only did Obama extend that horrible Patriot Act, but Gitmo is closed, exactly as Obama promised while campaigning.

Oh yeah, the troops are out of Iraq right on time as promised, too.

 

[Gunner3456]

Let me spell it out in terms that you'll be able to comprehend:


BY LAW, THE PRESIDENT CAN'T PULL SOMETHING LIKE THIS OFF BEHIND THE BACK OF CONGRESS OR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE

IF YOU KEEP TELLING PEOPLE THAT HE CAN, THEY WILL BE LESS VIGILANT WHEN THE REAL THREATS COME

Bless your little pea pickin' heart for believing that this will be understood.

 

[bugeye]

Again, Obama extended the Patriot Act! Where is the liberal outrage there? I don't get it. I still to this day hear libs complaining about Bush signing the Patriot Act, but have yet to hear any liberals complaining about Obama extending it!

The extension of the patriot act was sent to Obama on 2/25/2010, the Dems in the Senate lacked the 60 vote super majority in order to put in protections that would grant us some privacy. The Repubs would have voted as a block against any such measures and made honest debate on the senate floor impossible. The supreme court has said that the constitution grants us no assurance of privacy and since then it has moved even further to the right where our privacy is considered expendable. IMHO, the right to privacy should be an amendment it was on oversight the fonders made because they lacked the technology to see that it could ever be a problem on the scale it is today.

And by the way, liberals have complained about it, were have you been? Even with the passed law there seem to be no new legal cases involveing abuses of privacy conducted by the justice department, and the operation of that department under Obama has been far better if you value privacy at all.

It really boils down to how easy the voters are to fool, I can hear the repub attack adds now, "Senator ______________ voted to hamstring law enforcement and make it easy for terrorists to operate with government protection!".

Of course, you can't blame the Repubs, the voters are easy to fool so why not take advantage.

 

[Bubba Rogowski]

Man, this treaty would get laughed out of Congress.

 

[2zuks]

The extension of the patriot act was sent to Obama on 2/25/2010, the Dems in the Senate lacked the 60 vote super majority in order to put in protections that would grant us some privacy. The Repubs would have voted as a block against any such measures and made honest debate on the senate floor impossible. The supreme court has said that the constitution grants us no assurance of privacy and since then it has moved even further to the right where our privacy is considered expendable. IMHO, the right to privacy should be an amendment it was on oversight the fonders made because they lacked the technology to see that it could ever be a problem on the scale it is today.

And by the way, liberals have complained about it, were have you been? Even with the passed law there seem to be no new legal cases involveing abuses of privacy conducted by the justice department, and the operation of that department under Obama has been far better if you value privacy at all.

It really boils down to how easy the voters are to fool, I can hear the repub attack adds now, "Senator ______________ voted to hamstring law enforcement and make it easy for terrorists to operate with government protection!".

Of course, you can't blame the Repubs, the voters are easy to fool so why not take advantage.

I don't know. I don't hear much about Obama extending the Patriot Act. I agree that the msm does not report a lot of stuff that they should. I guess what pisses me off is when people take the time to blame Bush for the Patriot Act, when Obama is just as much to blame now. I guess to me it is time for Obama to start taking responsibility for his administration. I can't hear any negative thing about this admin without someone screaming that it's Bush's fault! lol

 

[CEF1959]

So if all this is "sneaking around" and "underhandedness," (as the OP claims) how is it that all of us know about it?

 

[lccalan]

Bush is still a factor, in that many of the unconstitutional laws, rules, & policies enacted during that administration have effects that carry over to today. President Obama, in his insane desire to try to extend an olive branch to the right, has been negligent on these issues as well. His comments on Miranda and his continuation of many Bush era policies make him complicit in these Constitutional violations. My point was that Bush/Cheney actually routinely disregarded the Constitution, and yet, people seemed to be more riled up about possible Constitutional violations involving complex conspiracies when discussing our current president.
.
.

Right wing talk radio and think tanks like the Heritage foundation like to stir the pot with these made up issues because it causes a visceral reaction that entrenches people on the right and makes them less likely to debate reasonably- or even listen-on other issues. (NOTE: The left does the same thing, but on other issues-see Brady campaign for further information). These right wing agitators are not lying when they present issues in this manner because they discuss only ratifying the treaty and what that treaty says, not the major legal impediments to enforcing the terms of the treaty.

The fact is that it would take more votes to ratify the treaty and pass legislation to enforce the treaty than it would to just pass regular run of the mill gun control legislation. That's right, President Obama would not need to dig up a treaty signed over a decade ago and backdoor gun control. He would have an easier time digging up votes for an Assault Weapons Ban that would be more likely to weather any challenge on Constitutional grounds than to go the route described in the OP's link. It's not that this theoretical route to gun control is not possible, it is just that it is wholly improbable. It is possible that I could pass through CA, NV,UT, FL, NY, PA, OH, ND, and twenty other states when I drive to Seattle. However, it is much more likely that I would just hop on I-5 and drive north for a few hours.

The T-party types on this thread spouting the talk-radio nonsense about "possible violations of the Constitution" by Obama would do well to listen more clearly what to el gringo loco is saying --- he has it nailed pretty darn well. He certainly makes a lot more sense than the "sky is falling, the sky is falling" ducky luckies and henny pennys who have been ranting against his well-thought views.

 

[Gunner3456]

"el gringo loco has got it right!"

You got part of it right.

 

[bugeye]

I don't know. I don't hear much about Obama extending the Patriot Act. I agree that the msm does not report a lot of stuff that they should. I guess what pisses me off is when people take the time to blame Bush for the Patriot Act, when Obama is just as much to blame now. I guess to me it is time for Obama to start taking responsibility for his administration. I can't hear any negative thing about this admin without someone screaming that it's Bush's fault! lol

I understand your point, but this is a political issue, the law gives the authorities the power to investigate just about anyone for just about anything, but it is the justice department that determines how, or if, the law is actually used.

Obama signed the law for a one year extension, it was passed pretty much unaltered by the house and senate, however it is the operation of the justice department that determines who and how the law works. The Patriot act was revised by the house and senate in 2005 with some small reforms toward privacy and notification of 'sneak and peek' searches. For example the justice department is to notify you within 30 days if they have done a 'sneak and peek' on you, and that's a nice feature because without that you wouldn't know and wouldn't be able to prove anything related to these searches in order to bring suit against the justice department!

 

[U201491]

Let me spell it out in terms that you'll be able to comprehend:


BY LAW, THE PRESIDENT CAN'T PULL SOMETHING LIKE THIS OFF BEHIND THE BACK OF CONGRESS OR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE

IF YOU KEEP TELLING PEOPLE THAT HE CAN, THEY WILL BE LESS VIGILANT WHEN THE REAL THREATS COME

You can say that til you are blue in the face.
With the behind closed doors tactics and law changes that he plays with along with Pelosi, Biden and the rest that are in the Majority now, you cannot be 100% sure of any of it. Also it is a great concern all accross the pro firearms community nation wide to a degree that it is still imperative all stay on top of this issue as well as all anti gun issues and to side sweep it you underestimate the enemy and when you do that you know the results, if you have any militry experience, you lose the battle. He and his party are not known for ethical and proper proceedure on any issue to date. There is no "sky is falling" issue in the 2nd ammendment battle. All possibilities are valid and worthy of study. If they can find a way they will, and even by exutive order, he can twist and change things to pervert them to slide his back door agendas through. There will be no safety against his tactics until after November when we take back the house and senate. After that we have to keep it.
Again, underestimate an enemy and he will kill you.
We all know what is supposed to be, but believeing that they cannot possibly do this is grossly underestimating the snake. This is but one of hundreds of issues that all need to be observant of and in mind and vigilant of.

 

[ZachS]

Bless your little pea pickin' heart for believing that this will be understood.

You win....