Washington Times Editorial: UN Threatens 1st and 2nd Amendments

[zeezee]

[Washington Times Editorial: UN Threatens 1st and 2nd Amendments
Today's Washington Times features an editorial about the UN's Arms Trade Treaty. They call it a threat to both the First and Second Amendments of our Constitution. Of course, they are right. The editorial follows on the heels of a report released by the Heritage Foundation on the UN and "arms control".

Theodore Bromund, one of the authors of the Heritage Foundation's report, is quoted as saying that he thinks micro-stamping will be included, that there will be some sort of gun registration and licensing system, that this licensing system will cover both guns and ammo, and that there may even be restrictions on trade between private individuals.

The Washington Times takes a dim view of the whole thing as well as the role of the Obama Administration in it.
Any U.N. Arms Trade Treaty will undermine freedom around the world. The right to bear arms is an individual's protection against oppression anywhere. It took herculean efforts by George W. Bush's administration to thwart this U.N. power grab a few years ago. Unfortunately, we now have a left-wing White House working to make this dangerous treaty a reality.]

Read More

 

[SOTC]

Link?

 

[ZachS]

Why any American would pay attention to a newspaper published by a Korean cult leader who thinks he's the messiah is beyond me...

 

[Jamie6.5]

EDITORIAL: U.N. threatens Second and First Amendments - Washington Times

 

[Jamie6.5]

That's it Zach, don't attack the article for any facts you can find in error,...

Attack the owner.
As if he wrote the opinion personally. :huh:

 

[zeezee]

Link?

EDITORIAL: U.N. threatens Second and First Amendments - Washington Times

 

[ZachS]

That's it Zach, don't attack the article for any facts you can find in error,...

There are no facts, just opinions. And since this is an editorial, they're the opinions of the newspaper's publisher, a cult leader who thinks he's the messiah.


I don't know about you, but I don't trust the opinions of anybody who thinks they're the messiah. I've met a couple of them up close....

 

[Bam]

A civil war would be fun.

 

[quaintance]

There are no facts, just opinions. And since this is an editorial, they're the opinions of the newspaper's publisher, a cult leader who thinks he's the messiah.


I don't know about you, but I don't trust the opinions of anybody who thinks they're the messiah. I've met a couple of them up close....

Aeons ago, in a galaxy far, far away, my logic professor would have called those remarks either Argumentum ad Hominem or Ignoratio Elenchi, but what the heck did he know?

As far as the UN's authority goes, Article II, Sec. 2, Clause 2 says, "[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur. . . ."

So, until 67 Senators agree to give up sovereignty, something two years ago I would have said was impossible (but we live in interesting times), the UN can go pound sand.

 

[ZachS]

Aeons ago, in a galaxy far, far away, my logic professor would have called those remarks either Argumentum ad Hominem or Ignoratio Elenchi, but what the heck did he know?

As far as the UN's authority goes, Article II, Sec. 2, Clause 2 says, "[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur. . . ."

So, until 67 Senators agree to give up sovereignty, something two years ago I would have said was impossible (but we live in interesting times), the UN can go pound sand.

First of all, it is not an ad hominem attack for me to believe that a person with one irrational and insane belief (being the messiah) is likely to have other irrational and insane beliefs. For the same reason, I don't fact-check the claims my schizophrenic friend makes when I take him out to lunch.

Second, treaties have the same force as any other Federal law - no more, no less. They can be overridden with a simple majority vote of the Senate. The UN cannot use them to sneak around the Constitution. Fact.

If you believe otherwise, please do a search for "treaty" here. This topic has been discussed ad nauseum on NWFA, and I'm not going to get into it again.

 

[Gunner3456]

First of all, it is not an ad hominem attack for me to believe that a person with one irrational and insane belief (being the messiah) is likely to have other irrational and insane beliefs. For the same reason, I don't fact-check the claims my schizophrenic friend makes when I take him out to lunch.

Second, treaties have the same force as any other Federal law - no more, no less. They can be overridden with a simple majority vote of the Senate. The UN cannot use them to sneak around the Constitution. Fact.

If you believe otherwise, please do a search for "treaty" here. This topic has been discussed ad nauseum on NWFA, and I'm not going to get into it again.

I agree with you, and I also believe there wouldn't be 67 senators who would vote to ratify such a treaty.

 

[quaintance]

First of all, it is not an ad hominem attack for me to believe that a person with one irrational and insane belief (being the messiah) is likely to have other irrational and insane beliefs. For the same reason, I don't fact-check the claims my schizophrenic friend makes when I take him out to lunch.

Second, treaties have the same force as any other Federal law - no more, no less. They can be overridden with a simple majority vote of the Senate. The UN cannot use them to sneak around the Constitution. Fact.

If you believe otherwise, please do a search for "treaty" here. This topic has been discussed ad nauseum on NWFA, and I'm not going to get into it again.

It is not an ad hominem attack to "believe that a person with one irrational and insane belief (being the messiah) is likely to have other irrational and insane beliefs." I'd say that is just common sense.

It is an ad hominem attack to attack a newspaper report based on your beliefs. You are not arguing the truth or falsity of the issues reported in the paper; you are attacking the reporter. That is a fallacy.

I think we are in essential agreement about the treaty: the President can agree to any little international treaty he wants. It doesn't mean a thing until 2/3rds of the Senate ratifies his agreement. I don't think I need to research the consensus of what the folks on the Northwest Firearms community have decided when I am able to read what the actual Constitution says.

A simple majority, as I understand it, would be 51 out of 100 Senators. Not a difficult task, given the present makeup of the Senate. A 2/3s majority would mean 67 Senators would be needed to get the treaty ratified. I should think that this would be enough to kill the treaty dead. It did before, when Wilson tried to shove the League of Nations down our throats. The Democrats could barely get 60 votes for the Healthcare bill. They wouldn't have a prayer getting 67 votes for the UN treaty, especially after November.

 

[ZachS]

It is not
It is an ad hominem attack to attack a newspaper report based on your beliefs. You are not arguing the truth or falsity of the issues reported in the paper; you are attacking the reporter. That is a fallacy.

As stated before, this is an unsigned editorial, or in other words an official statement of the publisher of the newspaper. It is purely an opinion piece and does not purport to be anything else.

It is not a "report," and there is no "reporter."


I'm surprised that a person like you, well-spoken and obviously educated, does not know the difference between a newspaper article and an editorial.

 

[Trlsmn]

Why any American would pay attention to a newspaper published by a Korean cult leader who thinks he's the messiah is beyond me...

When you say the Korean cult leader you mean the father of the owner of Kahr Arms Kook Jin Moon?

 

[ZachS]

When you say the Korean cult leader you mean the father of the owner of Kahr Arms Kook Jin Moon?

Of course!

 

[quaintance]

As stated before, this is an unsigned editorial, or in other words an official statement of the publisher of the newspaper. It is purely an opinion piece and does not purport to be anything else.

It is not a "report," and there is no "reporter."


I'm surprised that a person like you, well-spoken and obviously educated, does not know the difference between a newspaper article and an editorial.

I'll give you that one. It is an opinion piece. The opinion is based on some asserted facts, which I would argue are being "reported" on, otherwise there would be nothing on which to base the opinion.

I don't see anything there to not believe, based on other articles I have seen about this long-standing UN effort to grab guns. I don't have any difficulty believing Obama would used whatever means necessary to achieve similar objectives, based on a host of recent legislation, appointments and policy statements coming out of this administration.

I would just like to read some argument why I should not believed the facts asserted in that opinion piece based on something slightly more persuasive than, "Sun Myung Moon's ugly and his momma dresses him funny."

 

[Trlsmn]

 

[quaintance]

When you say the Korean cult leader you mean the father of the owner of Kahr Arms Kook Jin Moon?

Now that's just creepy. But I like my CW9, anyway.

 

[Trlsmn]

Now that's just creepy. But I like my CW9, anyway.

It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World. I agree though, Kahr's are top notch, I will eventually replace my LCP pocket gun with one.

 

[ZachS]

I would just like to read some argument why I should not believed the facts asserted in that opinion piece based on something slightly more persuasive than, "Sun Myung Moon's ugly and his momma dresses him funny."

Happy to oblige:

Argument 1
Argument 2
Argument 3
Argument 4
Argument 5
<broken link removed>
Argument 7


If you have anything new to say about the subject, I might be interested in discussing it with you (and this thread might not get closed), but there's not much new to say.

We all already know that Obama would gladly institute strict gun control policies if he thought he could get away with it. Alarmist rhetoric claiming that there is some means by which he (or anyone else) could circumvent normal constitutional procedures is disingenuous and designed simply to rile up pro-gun sheeple who don't understand how our government works and can't think for themselves.


Anyway, I would like to clarify my earlier remarks: that editorial is a bunch of recycled garbage and it was published by a lunatic who thinks he's the messiah.