Are we losing?
Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Are we losing?

  1. #1
    mojo Guest

    Are we losing?

    Louisiana Gun

    Pretty poignant considering this was done in the 80's.

  2.   
  3. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    699
    Well considering the polls, the nationwide availability of CCW licenses, the SCOTUS ruling that D.C.'s gun ban was unconstitutional and so on, I'd say that we are not.

    This video may have very well had the exact effect that was intended back in 80's.

  4. #3
    I sometimes think you have to watch the "other hand". While all this wonderful liberation of gun laws at the state level - and even a favorable court ruling - has been going on the radicals in the white house have been pushing this UN small arms treaty, which if ratified by the Senate would become the law of the land, if I read my pocket copy of the constitution correctly. It says
    "The Constitution, and the Laws of the U.S, which shall be made in Pursuance thereof, and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and Judges of every State shall be bound thereby; any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any Sate to the Contrary notwithstanding."
    So does that mean a ratified treaty trumps the Bill of Rights?
    Avidshooter (Texas)
    "The real destroyer of the liberties of the people is he who spreads among them bounties, donations and benefits." -- Plutarch

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by AvidshooterTX View Post
    I sometimes think you have to watch the "other hand". While all this wonderful liberation of gun laws at the state level - and even a favorable court ruling - has been going on the radicals in the white house have been pushing this UN small arms treaty, which if ratified by the Senate would become the law of the land, if I read my pocket copy of the constitution correctly. It says
    "The Constitution, and the Laws of the U.S, which shall be made in Pursuance thereof, and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and Judges of every State shall be bound thereby; any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any Sate to the Contrary notwithstanding."
    So does that mean a ratified treaty trumps the Bill of Rights?
    While we are guarding the front door the thief is coming in the back door.
    By faith Noah,being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear,prepared an ark to the saving of his house;by the which he condemned the world,and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith Heb.11:7

  6. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Иєш Лєяжşєşŧăŋ
    Posts
    1,084
    "The Constitution, and the Laws of the U.S, which shall be made in Pursuance thereof, and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and Judges of every State shall be bound thereby; any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any Sate to the Contrary notwithstanding."
    Well, now, you Legal types . . . if the conditions of a Treaty contradict the Constitution of the United States, which has priority? Does the Treaty trump the Constitution, or - as has been said elsewhere - must the Treaty be considered "abhorrent to the Constitution", and therefore unenforceable?

    Reality, please...not outhouse speculation.
    NRA Life; GOA Life; CCRKBA Life; Trustee, NJCSD; F&AM: 32 & KT
    The Only Answer to a Bad Guy with a Gun - Is a Good Guy with a Gun!
    When Seconds Count...The Police are only MINUTES Away!

  7. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    699
    Quote Originally Posted by AvidshooterTX View Post
    "The Constitution, and the Laws of the U.S, which shall be made in Pursuance thereof, and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and Judges of every State shall be bound thereby; any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any Sate to the Contrary notwithstanding."
    So does that mean a ratified treaty trumps the Bill of Rights?
    No it does not, the United States, our government, does not have the authority to override the Constitution. They are only to have the powers delegated by the Constitution to them, which overriding the Constitution is not one of those powers, not even for a treaty.

  8. #7
    mojo Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by HK4U View Post
    While we are guarding the front door the thief is coming in the back door.
    Exactly......though we have made strides recently I certainly do not believe it is time that we relax. there is now even another thread where the MSNBS hack is attacking a 2nd ammendment march!!
    Knowing what the public schools are teaching and this administrations agenda we have a long road to travel before we can rest on this issue; not to mention all the others, like freedom of speach, freedom of religion both of which are under attack.

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Ektarr View Post
    Well, now, you Legal types . . . if the conditions of a Treaty contradict the Constitution of the United States, which has priority? Does the Treaty trump the Constitution, or - as has been said elsewhere - must the Treaty be considered "abhorrent to the Constitution", and therefore unenforceable?

    Reality, please...not outhouse speculation.
    Obama and his administration are NOT Constitution friendly. In his own words:

    "If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be OK

    But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can't do to you. Says what the federal government can't do to you, but doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.

    And that hasn't shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court-focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that."

    There is NO doubt in my mind that BO, his czars and the progressives in Congress would gladly adopt any U.N. proposal over our beloved Constitution. Those individuals, who don't admit that this is a clear and present danger, are part of the problem!
    Conservative Wife & Mom -- I'm a Conservative Christian-American with dual citizenship...the Kingdom of God is my 1st home and the U.S.A. is my 2nd.

  10. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    ARIZONA-a short distance from the sun
    Posts
    8,908
    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative Wife & Mom View Post
    Obama and his administration are NOT Constitution friendly.

    There is NO doubt in my mind that BO, his czars and the progressives in Congress would gladly adopt any U.N. proposal over our beloved Constitution. Those individuals, who don't admit that this is a clear and present danger, are part of the problem!
    No doubt about it at all Mom. It's just like HK said, "While we are guarding the front door the thief is coming in the back door".
    ~ God Hates Religion ~
    "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be condemned to HELL"

Similar Threads

  1. Obama May Be Losing Support Of Police
    By ronwill in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 07-25-2009, 08:00 AM
  2. Obama losing some support among nervous Dems
    By festus in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 07-23-2009, 05:28 AM
  3. CNN poll. We're losing this one so everyone go and vote.
    By alelks in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 03-12-2009, 08:47 AM
  4. NRA Losing Political Clout?
    By ronwill in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 06-25-2008, 11:07 PM
  5. Firefighters losing jobs
    By Cooter in forum Oregon Discussion and Firearm News
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-14-2008, 03:18 AM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast