Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Legal & Political Archive' started by Sun195, Jul 19, 2012.
Fixed it for you.
Gads, that pesky old Constitution... Don't you hate it when people don't know what it says and get all kinds of confused.
I stand corrected regarding the way in which a treaty becomes law. Mea Culpa.
(note that these folks claim a disinformation campaign by the one-worlders to convince everyone that "treaties supercede the constitution". I think that I fell for it too.)
And then, about the Senate and Ratification: http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/...g/Treaties.htm
"The Senate does not ratify treaties—the Senate approves or rejects a resolution of ratification. If the resolution passes, then ratification takes place when the instruments of ratification are formally exchanged between the United States and the foreign power(s).
Most treaties submitted to the Senate have received its advice and consent to ratification. During its first 200 years, the Senate approved more than 1,500 treaties and rejected only 21. A number of these, including the Treaty of Versailles, were rejected twice. Most often, the Senate has simply not voted on treaties that its leadership deemed not to have sufficient support within the Senate for approval, and in general these treaties have eventually been withdrawn. At least 85 treaties were eventually withdrawn because the Senate never took final action on them. Treaties may also remain in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for extended periods, since treaties are not required to be resubmitted at the beginning of each new Congress. There have been instances in which treaties have lain dormant within the committee for years, even decades, without action being taken."
I also feel more confident that We the People might survive this attempt at "back-door gun control" by the O-Admin.
Actually it's any two long guns in a five or six day time, so yes, it can be circumvented.
And all it takes is the stroke of a pen to change it to every long gun sold. If the Supremes uphold that then what's next? Put it in effect over the whole US, then another stroke of the pen and pistols are added.
White House press secretary Jay Carney on Sunday said President Obama was committed to preventing gun crimes by relying on "existing law," two days after a mass shooting in Colorado sparked renewed debate about gun control.
White House: Obama focused on fighting gun crime with
This ought get interesting with all the conspiracy theories and "ya but's" despite the words right from the horses mouth.
Yes, but somebody who has many names such as "Obongo", "Obummer", "guy from Kenya", "Nobama" can't be trusted for sure
For the laughs, here is the list :
The Pretty Darn Exhaustive Obama Nickname List | Brain Shavings
If you are gullable enough to believe the lier in chief
The Humble Libertarian: The First 100 Days: 100 of Obama's Lies, Blunders, Gaffes, and Abuses of Liberty
Kev, I think you mean the OTHER END of the horse, right?
Words from the horse's mouth don't mean much when that horse has already been caught lying before.
LOL @ taking a politician's word as is. Take your 8th grade civics indoctrination elsewhere.
That certainly didn't take long.
The paranoia over Obama and guns is just hilarious. If he win in November, I will be selling every AR I own at a VERY hefty profit.
The notion that Obama, no matter WHAT he wanted to do, could "take everyone's guns" is ludicrous. It's the most fevered, paranoid nonsense I've ever heard. Similar to the nonsense over the UN Small Arms treaty, which specifically exempts legal citizen-owned guns AT THE BEHEST OF HILLARY CLINTON.
But that's ok, you guys keep being scared. And please buy my ARs for 70% over what I paid for them. I will buy more in a few months when the panic dies down. At this point I'm buying ARs and AKs in volume at discout prices only to sell them a few months later to paranoid, delusional right-wingers.
Here, read this if you can: The Price of Gun Control?By Dan Baum (Harper's Magazine)
Lefties have already acknowledged that gun control cost them a lot of votes in the 90's. Them not openly going after the issue at this time (ignoring Gunrunner for now) has no bearing on the fact that the leftist movement revolves around the state, and the state cannot tolerate 2A as it was originally written.
By definition a leftist cannot support the original intent of 2A, they can only support the watered-down version which essentially says "hunting and self-defense against muggers is legal in the US". Might as well flush that down the toilet along with due process.
So all you leftist gun-owners can piss off, we don't want your help and we don't need it.
Leftist gun owners are for the second amendment dummy.
Oh really? So contemporary leftist gun owners support the use of armed force to overthrow a tyrannical regime, even as they support the use of state violence by the very same regime to impose economic collectivism.
I'm amazed their heads haven't exploded from massive cognitive dissonance.
Just because somebody calls themselves a Lefty or a Democrat doesn't mean everything that the party stands for, applies to their own views. Look at Mitt Romney, he supports gun control and basically wrote Obamacare for him.
And yet somehow those same people are defending a president who has shown nothing but contempt for the private economy.
Since 2A was written specifically to guarantee means for the individual to defend his constitutional rights (most importantly, his economic rights), a statist president who has shown blatant hostility towards individual economic rights is by definition hostile towards 2A (original meaning, not the BS modern reading).
2A has never been about hunting or self-defense against petty crooks, leftist gun owners do the 2A community no favors by pushing that garbage interpretation.
The only people that benefit from no Referee are the ones who play dirty.