- Messages
- 6,779
- Reactions
- 1,274
Open or closed it will still get reposted in a week as the latest atrocity! And I'm certain there are old theads on that topic that are still open.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
UN troops have been soooooo successful everywhere else they have gone. I am sure that a bunch of Europeans in blue helmets...
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?????
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.
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?????
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??
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.
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."After the treaty is approved and it comes into force,<snip>"
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.
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.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.
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,...
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.
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.Please tell me about these "conspiracies" that have "become the norm".
You are the one that brought up what was "implied," as opposed to sticking to the facts of the statement.I'm not going to dignify your ad-hominem attack with a response.
I guess your impression of conspiracy depends on whose ox is being gored eh?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 too? Or are you pointing blame at history instead of current failures to lead?
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.
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.
GWB started it, BHO is gladly continuing it. I blame both history and Obama's current failure as a leader.
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.
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.