UN Gun Grab on Pace for March

[chris46131]

They can't get an AWB through the Senate. Do you really think they can get 2/3 of the Senate to ratify a treaty that bans all private firearms ownership?

The UN isn't coming for your guns. There are enough real problems without spending time worrying about this.

I heard or read somewhere that once a tretaty is signed by the president it basically becomes the law of the land until such time as it comes up for ratification vote in the senate. So, all they would need to do is keep postponing such a vote and we would be stuck with it.

I'm cannot cite a source as a do not recall where I heard it. Also, I am not presenting this as fact as I can't research it at the moment. So, if anyone more educated on the topic can confirm this as true or confirm that it is B.S. that would be much appreciated.

 

[BogWalker]

Even if our senate doesn't ratify it there goes imports of foreign arms and ammo. Imagine that the only firearms and ammo you could get were US made. I don't know about you, but I certainly can't afford that!

 

[Light]

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

Makes me want to get a long range rifle sorted. I don't have long distance means atm except a Mosin Nagant, but with irons it won't do much good....

 

[cook4army]

If I remember history right...either Admiral Yamamoto, or The Emporer of Japan in the late 1930's said that invasion of the continental United States would be a huge undertaking and that if they do decide to do it, that it would be very costly for them, for they wouldnt have to worry so much about the military, it was the common citizen and "every shotgun in every home" that they would have to worry about.

The UN small arms treaty, to with Billary Clinton is so in favor of, is designed to make our personal weapons illegal in the states, as they are in Europe. In order to be able to effectively ruin our country, they have to make sure that they dont have any opposition when they start raining down in green parachutes. (ever see Red Dawn?)

 

[Mango]

Once this fails, by vote or force, I'm ready to bulldoze the UN building in to the water.

 

[jon5212]

I don't believe they can ratify a treaty even with a 2/3 vote that blatantly violates the constitution.

 

[cook4army]

Since when did the likes of Obama, Feinstein, peloisy, Reid and Hillary Clinton ever give two farts in a stiff breeze about the constitution?

 

[jwh20]

Considering that a treaty needs to be ratified by 2/3 of the Senate, I'm not going to lose sleep over this. I'll certainly stay engaged, but this isn't something that has any chance of going anywhere.

And even if this was somehow ratified by 2/3 of the Senate, since it's in conflict with the US Constitution, the only way this can stand is if the Constitution is amended to go along with this. That takes MORE than the Senate, the several states must also go along. Probably not gonna happen anytime soon.

So far, at least, US Constitution trumps UN resolutions and treaties.

 

[jwh20]

Once this fails, by vote or force, I'm ready to bulldoze the UN building in to the water.

That would be a waste of a perfectly good building. A better plan would be to eject all the UN ambassadors and re-purpose the building for some better purpose.

 

[corronade]

If we dont act and bombared our senate and house with emails and phone calls we are just as guilty.
I incourage all to call our United States Senators and Congressman, and let them know that they need to listen to their constituents and protect our right. that is what they are getting paid for.
Remind them that they need to fix our budget, remove any gun control bills, and remove obama care.


here is some helpful information to get the message across

Senate: http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm?State=IN

House: http://www.house.gov/representatives/#state_id

PLEASE TAKE A LITTLE TIME AND WRITE TO THEM

 

[BogWalker]

I don't believe they can ratify a treaty even with a 2/3 vote that blatantly violates the constitution.

And if passed it will stand until the supreme court rules that it violates the constitution. If they rule that it is constitutional after the senate passes it there's not much that can be done at that point.

 

[Flyingbrian]

Since when did the likes of Obama, Feinstein, peloisy, Reid and Hillary Clinton ever give two farts in a stiff breeze about the constitution?

Roger that

 

[Flyingbrian]

And if passed it will stand until the supreme court rules that it violates the constitution. If they rule that it is constitutional after the senate passes it there's not much that can be done at that point.

Treaties override our constitution

 

[indykid]

So if the UN votes to take our weapons, and the president signs on, and everything else happens, someone please tell me where the millions of UN troops are currently hiding that would be required to remove the firearms from US citizens? Heck if they started in New York City and Chicago first, there would be no UN troops left as they would be decimated by the firearm owners of the inner cities.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Treaties override our constitution

Where does it say that in our Constitution?

 

[chris46131]

Where does it say that in our Constitution?

It doesn't if it's interpreted as intended. But then that's frequently a problem.

I came across this explanation as I was looking into it:

Exploring the Constitution, Part 16: Articles VI and VII and the Authority of Treaties

 

[yepthatsme]

Treaties override our constitution

Of course, this is the whole purpose of the 2nd amendment, to defend our rights from foreign and domestic enemies. Should our leaders accept the UN resolutions to disarm the American people, then it is quite clear that we face both foreign and domestic enemies. We will have no choice at that point but to defend our rights.

 

[Cldedhnds]

It doesn't if it's interpreted as intended. But then that's frequently a problem.

I came across this explanation as I was looking into it:

Exploring the Constitution, Part 16: Articles VI and VII and the Authority of Treaties

Interpretation is everything and it can be twisted from its original intent.

 

[Bunnykid68]

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

To my non legal mind, this reads to me that the Constitution comes first. Where is Kirk when you need him?

 

[Light]

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

To my non legal mind, this reads to me that the Constitution comes first. Where is Kirk when you need him?

"shall be the supreme Law of the Land; ...any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding"

notwithstanding = in spite of

To me that says treaties trump the constitution, and any laws of the state.

Also, I vote we make the UN HQ into a gun store in spite, where we have daily raffles of class 3 firearms that we would collect from the UN soldiers.