JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Well it could be left for people that want to view and no one is forced to go to any thread are they.
Seems like more a game to a few to get in there blast it and then close it.
Why not just let it go and ignore it. It will only come up again and again and again. Just shuting down a thread kind of reminds me of book burning <G> To me, shutting down threads that criticize pro gun organizations like the NRA and GOA are more deserving of censorship. After all this is supposed to be a pro 2nd Amendment forum, is it not???? or is it not?????

You're right, closing a thread on the blogospheres is *exactly* like book burning. I sure hope the UN doesn't enforce book burning or thread locking after taking all my guns.
 
BTW when a friend or new friend sends me any batch urgent notices by email I email back asking them to not send me email that is not personally for me from them. You can almost count down the days from the time a new person gets on the net before they will send an urgent "Net" warning to their 100 closest friends. :s0114:

Since my friends are (presumably) younger than yours, I don't get any of these from them - but I get a ton from my grandfater. I'll never ask him to stop sending them, either. :)


Well it could be left for people that want to view and no one is forced to go to any thread are they.
Seems like more a game to a few to get in there blast it and then close it.
Why not just let it go and ignore it. It will only come up again and again and again. Just shuting down a thread kind of reminds me of book burning <G> To me, shutting down threads that criticize pro gun organizations like the NRA and GOA are more deserving of censorship. After all this is supposed to be a pro 2nd Amendment forum, is it not???? or is it not?????

It's not like book burning or censorship. It's like kicking a drunk guy who keeps ranting about the Illuminati out of a house party. :s0114:


Like I said above, there are plenty of forums where the members and management welcome these kinds of posts.



Besides, it's not like NWFA applies this kind of scrutiny to every "emergency update" post -

http://www.northwestfirearms.com/forum/showthread.php?t=33207


Do you see the difference between that one and this one?
 
OK I have a solution for this topic.

First here is the UN paper that means nothing at this time.
<broken link removed>

Here is the original story that everyone's information uses as it's source. Notice the date Oct 14 2009
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE59E0Q920091015

This thread will be the only thread on this matter allowed from here on out until such time as it is a viable timely concern. All posts not having to do with this topic or using this topic to go off on a tangent will be deleted. All new threads started on this subject will be deleted or merged into this thread. In this way we can have out cake and eat it too.
 
To some extent I think it is natural for these articles to continue popping up. The first reason being the "vigilance" aspect.
Just like the proposed CIFTA treaty, gun organizations want to keep the issue in the minds of today's voter. Lets face it, the average American's attention span rarely survives an episode of "American idol" or "Survivor Antarctica." :s0114:
This vigilance is not necessarily a bad thing, and a I think venue for it here is appropriate. If it needs to be a sticky, so be it, but deleting them altogether/repeatedly furthers the agenda of anyone looking to diminish gun owner's vigilance.

The other aspect is one of further/greater examination by legal minds.
There may be ramifications of treaties or legislation that are not readily apparent to many of us commoners. Further examination by the country's legal minds may expose these as greater threats than initially thought. The process of exposure of potential problems may not happen early on in the examination of a proposal, but may be exposed as it is broken down point by point. I think that is the case here. A new/different legal view has been applied to a topic that is older, but still viable.
This is also a good thing IMHO. A great example of this is "The Patriot Act." On it's face it proposes to make Americans safer. In the wrong hands it offers avenues for abuse(s) with the potential to make Americans subjects.
In the immediate furor following 9/11 it sounded good to legislators and voters, but after further analysis, not so much. But now it's so entrenched that even the most liberal pres and congress in decades can't find the reasoning or political will to abolish it. This after spending the better part of decade decrying it's passage and application.

I know it becomes tiresome/tedious to see the topic returning repeatedly, but that is no reason to prevent civil discussion, because to do so constitutes censorship, about an aspect of a topic near and dear to most of us.

Of course those that lean to the left always feel compelled to come in and ridicule the poster, or the source of his/her info, but that only reinforces the validity of the argument, and further diminishes civil discourse.
Especially when sources quote legal minds that are dissecting the proposals for possible threats to our liberties, and may expose an aspect that constitutes a threat not readily apparent otherwise.

Legalese is rarely cut and dried. If it were, the SCOTUS would be in session for about 2 hours annually.

The dotgov and those in the education biz love for people to explore the "what-if" aspect of our lives. Until it interferes with their agenda(s).

And if you think they are without agendas, or that their agendas are purely altruistic/innocuous, you are incredibly naive, and need to go back to American Idol.
 
Any treaty is subject to the Constitution, and can be overridden by a simple act of Congress. Any organization claiming that a treaty has some special power to threaten our gun rights is lying.

Lying does not help the cause in any way, shape, or form.
 
Any treaty is subject to the Constitution, and can be overridden by a simple act of Congress. Any organization claiming that a treaty has some special power to threaten our gun rights is lying.

Lying does not help the cause in any way, shape, or form.

my understanding of a treaty is that is is equal to the Constitution and is 'law of the land'.

i also understand that a treaty needs to the ratification of the Senate before it becomes our law.

what i don't know is can a treaty be imbedded into a bill, example such as obamacare and 'slip through' being hidden in a 2000 page document??
 
my understanding of a treaty is that is is equal to the Constitution and is 'law of the land'.

i also understand that a treaty needs to the ratification of the Senate before it becomes our law.

what i don't know is can a treaty be imbedded into a bill, example such as obamacare and 'slip through' being hidden in a 2000 page document??

Your understanding of a treaty is wrong. To be 'equal to the Constitution,' they'd need to be ratified like constitutional amendments, with 3/4 of state legislatures approving them. I've posted the controlling Supreme Court decision in two threads in the last week.

After a treaty is ratified by the Senate, it has the same force as any other federal law. If a treaty contradicts an earlier federal law, the treaty is given force. If a later federal law contradicts a treaty, the law is given force. This has been true since our country was founded, and it was memorialized by the Supreme Court 132 years ago.

A treaty cannot be imbedded into a bill. It must be ratified by the Senate. Even though the President can make agreements with other countries that have the general force of treaties, they're still subject to the same limitations - and probably far more, to the extent that they implicate domestic policy.
 
Any treaty is subject to the Constitution, and can be overridden by a simple act of Congress. Any organization claiming that a treaty has some special power to threaten our gun rights is lying.
Lying does not help the cause in any way, shape, or form.

Okay Zach, so tell us all which part of the OP's reprinted letter is a lie.
And don't forget that much of what was said is predicated on this prerequisite, as stated in the letter:
"After the treaty is approved and it comes into force,<snip>"
You are telling others here that they don't need to be concerned. But yet you admit that it is possible for this treaty to have the force of law given the right circumstances and processes.

So we shouldn't write a letter or two to our respective lawmakers reminding them that a vote for ratification is political suicide?
I am certain there are those in PDX and Eugene that are willing to write the same Reps/Senators encouraging them to vote FOR ratification.

And like I've said in a number of threads here:
There is nothing in The Constitution that guarantees you the right to:
Build your own guns.
Build your own ammunition.
Buy the components to do either.
Customize your guns.
Prevent you from needing a license to do so. A license that may be tied to "no warrant" searches if you want to pursue those hobbies.
Prevent high taxes on ammunition and guns to help pay for increased government programs.

CIFTA and the U.N.'s proposed arms treaties are real threats for gun owners that cease vigilance and/or refuse to vote their gun rights.
 
And like I've said in a number of threads here:
There is nothing in The Constitution that guarantees you the right to:
Build your own guns.
Build your own ammunition.
Buy the components to do either.
Customize your guns.
Prevent high taxes on ammunition and guns to help pay for increased government programs.
Prevent you from needing a license to do so. A license that may be tied to "no warrant" searches if you want to pursue those hobbies.

CIFTA and the U.N.'s proposed arms treaties are real threats for gun owners that cease vigilance and/or refuse to vote their gun rights.

If a treaty with those terms was ratified by 2/3 of the Senate, which it wouldn't be, it could be overruled at any time by Congress. That's all I'm saying. There is nothing special about a treaty, and most people in Congress wouldn't stand for one that had such large effects on domestic policy: they'd be (rightly) afraid of getting voted out of office.

The terms of any treaty the US ratifies are ultimately controlled by democratic processes, not underhanded politicians and shadowy international conspiracies. Any organization that implies otherwise is lying.
 
If a treaty with those terms was ratified by 2/3 of the Senate, which it wouldn't be, it could be overruled at any time by Congress. That's all I'm saying. There is nothing special about a treaty, and most people in Congress wouldn't stand for one that had such large effects on domestic policy: they'd be (rightly) afraid of getting voted out of office.

Nice crystal ball you got there Zach. I may ask to borrow it sometime.
You might be surprised by what "lame ducks" have been known to approve. They know their political future is over anyway, they have nothing to lose. The best we can hope for is a sunset clause like was negotiated in the AWB.

The terms of any treaty the US ratifies are ultimately controlled by democratic processes, not underhanded politicians and shadowy international conspiracies. Any organization that implies otherwise is lying.
With today's standard of governance, passing bills in the middle of the night, voting for bills they haven't read etc., underhandedness and conspiracies have become the norm.
Or did you fail to factor those actions into your statement?

And if we are going to discuss implications instead of facts, the implication involving your arguments here, coupled with your law student status in Eugene, OR puts you squarely in the liberal anti-gun camp,... :p

Bolton wasn't lying, by implication or statement.
If one lives in a glass house, one shouldn't throw stones.

Vigilance dear gun owning readers. Stay ever vigilant for there are forces at work against you.
 
Nice crystal ball you got there Zach. I may ask to borrow it sometime.
You might be surprised by what "lame ducks" have been known to approve. They know their political future is over anyway, they have nothing to lose. The best we can hope for is a sunset clause like was negotiated in the AWB.


With today's standard of governance, passing bills in the middle of the night, voting for bills they haven't read etc., underhandedness and conspiracies have become the norm.
Or did you fail to factor those actions into your statement?

And if we are going to discuss implications instead of facts, the implication involving your arguments here, coupled with your law student status in Eugene, OR puts you squarely in the liberal anti-gun camp,... :p

Bolton wasn't lying, by implication or statement.
If one lives in a glass house, one shouldn't throw stones.

Vigilance dear gun owning readers. Stay ever vigilant for there are forces at work against you.

Please tell me about these "conspiracies" that have "become the norm". Outside of the ones between the executive branch and military contractors. Or oil companies.

I'm not going to dignify your ad-hominem attack with a response.
 
Please tell me about these "conspiracies" that have "become the norm".
If you think bringing a vote to the floor of The House and/or Senate in the middle of the night (as has been done multiple times in this congress) isn't underhanded and/or conspiratorial you are delusional.
They didn't want the public to witness their acts. They did what they could to hide them from voters. This conduct also serves to silence dissenting opinions, as most voters can't stay up to watch C-SPAN etc. to witness the proceedings and call their reps. Any message left on the Rep's answering machine isn't heard until after the fact.
I'm not going to dignify your ad-hominem attack with a response.
You are the one that brought up what was "implied," as opposed to sticking to the facts of the statement.
Conviction by "implication" is closely akin to circumstantial evidence. Apparently you don't like it applied to you, but you approve of applying it to others.
That doesn't wash.
Outside of the ones between the executive branch and military contractors. Or oil companies.
I guess your impression of conspiracy depends on whose ox is being gored eh?
GWB's reign is over, so I take it you mean BHO is in collusion with these folks? Or are you pointing blame at history instead of current failures to lead?
 
I guess your impression of conspiracy depends on whose ox is being gored eh?
GWB's reign is over, so I take it you mean BHO is in collusion with these folks too? Or are you pointing blame at history instead of current failures to lead?

GWB started it, BHO is gladly continuing it. I blame both history and Obama's current failure as a leader.
 
Please tell me about these "conspiracies" that have "become the norm". Outside of the ones between the executive branch and military contractors. Or oil companies.

I'm not going to dignify your ad-hominem attack with a response.

I don't know. I would say the Sestak scandal is a good example of a conspiracy that has become the norm. Now several others have come through saying they were also approached by the president or his lackies. They were bribed with a job offer in order to step down from office so that Obama could get people in that would support his agenda against the law.

So do you think that it is o.k. for the administration to create a 1500 page mess like Obamacare and shove it through without allowing the time for Congress to actually read it before they vote for it? That has happened a good amount so far. We the people don't have any idea what impact some of this stuff is going to have on us, and probably won't for some time to come.
 
After a treaty is ratified by the Senate, it has the same force as any other federal law. If a treaty contradicts an earlier federal law, the treaty is given force.

So I do understand correctly then (as what you've said above is what I also said)

Regarding a contradiction, do you have an example where this has happened? I'd like to understand the process of identifying contradictions in laws and how one would take precedence over the other as I really have little faith. I mean, the 2nd amendment is clear to me but I still look everywhere and see infringement as so many laws are written which infringe (or simply take away) that particular right.
 
GWB started it, BHO is gladly continuing it. I blame both history and Obama's current failure as a leader.

Dude. I expect better out of you than that liberal crap. You ask for examples and someone gives them to you. Instead of logically processing the info, your response is GWB started it! Really! That is the liberal battle cry!

The bottom line is that our country is falling apart right now. It is time to stop all of this crap. If we just excuse Obama for his failures because Bush started it, are we getting anywhere? Nope.
 
So I do understand correctly then (as what you've said above is what I also said)

Regarding a contradiction, do you have an example where this has happened? I'd like to understand the process of identifying contradictions in laws and how one would take precedence over the other as I really have little faith. I mean, the 2nd amendment is clear to me but I still look everywhere and see infringement as so many laws are written which infringe (or simply take away) that particular right.

I've posted or linked to a Supreme Court decision about this three times in the last week, including earlier in this thread. By "contradiction," I mean the usual dictionary definition of the word. If you don't understand how that concept fits into the Anglo-American legal system, I can't really help you, but this book might. Or, if you don't have time to read that, you could start here.

Dude. I expect better out of you than that liberal crap. You ask for examples and someone gives them to you. Instead of logically processing the info, your response is GWB started it! Really! That is the liberal battle cry!

The bottom line is that our country is falling apart right now. It is time to stop all of this crap. If we just excuse Obama for his failures because Bush started it, are we getting anywhere? Nope.

You weren't able to parse my two sentence post in which I explicitly did not excuse Obama, but instead stated that he's responsible for carrying on practices initiated by the Bush administration. I really don't think I'll get anything out of further political discussion with you.
 

Upcoming Events

Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top