Obama Green Lights UN Gun Grab Hours after Election

[BucEyedPea]

Reuters

Just hours after he was reelected U.N. arms treaty is backed. Looks like he really is going to govern like Allende still.

"U.N. delegates and gun control activists have complained that talks collapsed in July largely because Obama feared attacks from Republican rival Mitt Romney if his administration was seen as supporting the pact, a charge Washington denies."

"But the U.N. General Assembly's disarmament committee moved quickly after Obama's win to approve a resolution calling for a new round of talks March 18-28. It passed with 157 votes in favor, none against and 18 abstentions."

"Britain, France and Germany joined China and the United States in support of the resolution."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...21107?irpc=932

[La literatura]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

It's nice to see how the left prefers UN global governence over the US sovereignty and her Constitution. Too many treaties have the effect of over riding our Founding document. Welcome to globalism.

Can you name one single treaty that overrides the Constitution?

[La literatura]

Originally Posted by J Diddy

You are an idiot. Even if Obama signed a treaty that took away gun rights, it would still have to be ratified to be enforced.

And then it would be struck down as unconstitutional using Reid v. Covert (1957) principles. BucEyedPea is gullible, naive, and almost completely ignorant of Constitutional law principles.

[banyon]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

It's gun grab. Meanwhile, gun sales and ammo rose after the election. Others think so as well. Keep your heads in the sand lickspittles.

We'll just have to take your word for it, huh?

Only on the internet can someone who has probably never fired a gun know better than gun owners who try to base things on facts.

"remember the alamo" !

[Bowser]

Originally Posted by Literature

And then it would be struck down as unconstitutional using Reid v. Covert (1957) principles. BucEyedPea is gullible, naive, and almost completely ignorant of Constitutional law principles.

[Bowser]

And they can't take away our fully automatic weapons. We're going to need every gun that goes full rock n' roll when Texas seceeds to fight out the influx of illegal Texans crossing the border!

[banyon]

Originally Posted by Bowser

So will they go door to door collecting guns, or where there be a neighborhood dropoff point? Will we be expected to give up our firearms on an honor system, or will there be a questionaire sent in the mail?

Hopefully it's a questionaire and not phone calls at all hours. Those are annoying.

She will want to keep it vague, to minimize the accountability when she's wrong later on.

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by Literature

Can you name one single treaty that overrides the Constitution?

wonder how the people using these scare tactics get around that slight little problem called the consitution?

[J Diddy]

Originally Posted by Bowser

And they can't take away our fully automatic weapons. We're going to need every gun that goes full rock n' roll when Texas seceeds to fight out the influx of illegal Texans crossing the border!

****ing Illegal Texicans, coming to take away our jobs.

[J Diddy]

Originally Posted by Literature

And then it would be struck down as unconstitutional using Reid v. Covert (1957) principles. BucEyedPea is gullible, naive, and almost completely ignorant of Constitutional law principles.

Yeah, I didn't even touch on the SC because the likelihood of a treaty like that passing the senate is remote at best.

[aturnis]

Originally Posted by Literature

And then it would be struck down as unconstitutional using Reid v. Covert (1957) principles. BucEyedPea is gullible, naive, and almost completely ignorant of Constitutional law principles.

So FoxNewsing? Limbaaauughnomnomnom?

Idiot Republicans.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

wonder how the people using these scare tactics get around that slight little problem called the consitution?

Treaties become the law of the land here.

"Treaties can be compared to contracts. If a party fails to obligations can be held liable under international law. "( wiki)

“In the United States, a different principle is established. Our constitution declares a treaty to be the law of the land. It is, consequently, to be regarded in courts of justice as equivalent to an act of the legislature, whenever it operates of itself, without the aid of any legislative provision. "~ Chief Justice Marshall in 1829

Thus, too many treaties with the UN override U.S. Sovereignty. The UN is establishing more and more global governance via rules through treaties. It is through the treaty power this can happen. ( I say if a treaty contradicts the Constitution it should not be enforced....but there are people and groups in power or connected to power that don't agree with that. So there is no guarantee.)

[J Diddy]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

Treaties become the law of the land here.

"Treaties can be compared to contracts. If a party fails to obligations can be held liable under international law. "( wiki)

“In the United States, a different principle is established. Our constitution declares a treaty to be the law of the land. It is, consequently, to be regarded in courts of justice as equivalent to an act of the legislature, whenever it operates of itself, without the aid of any legislative provision. "~ Chief Justice Marshall in 1829

Thus, too many treaties with the UN override U.S. Sovereignty. The UN is establishing more and more global governance via rules through treaties. It is through the treaty power this can happen. ( I say if a treaty contradicts the Constitution it should not be enforced....but there are people and groups in power or connected to power that don't agree with that. So there is no guarantee.)

I totally agree, a treaty is just like an act of legislature, however treaties or acts of legislature take precedence over the constitution.
The constitution can strike down an act of legislature if it doesn't agree with the constitution.

That being said, nobody has seen the specific "gun grab" as you mentioned so more than likely it's not.

[J Diddy]

By the way BEP here is the line I put myself on in this thread: 1)Your UN gun grab statement is undocumented speculation. The language doesn't exist in the treaty. 2) Even if it did then the (a) senate would have to ratify it and (b) it would not stand up under supreme court review because (i) the constitution is the supreme law of the land and neither (1) a treaty or (2) an act of legislature can override it.

[HolyHandgernade]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

It's nice to see how the left prefers UN global governence over the US sovereignty and her Constitution. Too many treaties have the effect of over riding our Founding document. Welcome to globalism.

Yes, it is nice isn't it?

It also must be nice to transfer all irrational fears onto "something" an ambiguous *they* want. It always makes the point sound so thought out and well founded. It often makes me pause in the middle of the day and ponder, "Wait, maybe that was something I wanted? How dastardly of me!"

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by HolyHandgernade

Yes, it is nice isn't it?

It also must be nice to transfer all irrational fears onto "something" an ambiguous *they* want. It always makes the point sound so thought out and well founded. It often makes me pause in the middle of the day and ponder, "Wait, maybe that was something I wanted? How dastardly of me!"

Nope