Proposed U.N. Treaty to Regulate Global Firearms Trade Raising Concerns for U.S. Gun - Page 2
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 15 of 15

Thread: Proposed U.N. Treaty to Regulate Global Firearms Trade Raising Concerns for U.S. Gun

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    2,004
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare45 View Post
    Actually under the constitution no other country can regulate crap, buzz off UN, come and take it. Based on your past history you losers will get your butt kicked.
    Here is what Article VI, paragraph 2 actually stipulates on the issue: "...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 [of any State] or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

    Treaties are potentially so threatening to the sovereignty of the individual States and the Union of These States that two thirds of the Senators are required to be convinced that the treaty under consideration does not contravene the U.S. Constitution and/or adversely impact on the retained functions and interests of the States before they consent/ratify.

    The above was selected from: The Constitution --- Plain and Simple: Treaties

    There is a lot to read on the subject after and during the above statements. The article starts off reassuring us that treaties are not the law of the land and then goes on to confirm that issue. But if I'm reading it correctly it is all up to the Senate to make the final decision to the legality and constitutionality of the treaty.

    All that having been said, If somehow 2/3 of the Senate agree and ratify a treaty, it does in fact become 'Law of the Land'.

  2.   
  3. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    2,004
    Quote Originally Posted by CapGun View Post
    Last month a U.N. committee met in New York and signed off on several provisions, including the creation of a new U.N. agency to regulate international weapon sales, and require countries that host firearms manufacturers to set up a compensation fund for victims of gun violence worldwide.
    Isn't it interesting that it always seems to be about MONEY? So as long as mass murdering dictators rule a country that does not manufacture guns bear no liability for their atrocities. I guess the quote "The sword does not commit the murder and the sword maker bears no sin" has just been rendered meaningless.


    Read more: Proposed U.N. Treaty To Regulate Global Firearms Trade Raising Concerns For U.S. Gun Makers | FoxNews.com


    R
    I'd say it was all about the money. If you read the treaty, the key point is to affect those countries producing arms for export. Not too many of the member nations of the UN have any kind of indusrty let alone an industry capable of producing fire arms. I would say this is aimed at producing nations like The US, Russia and the European nations.

    One of the key element is to have the producing nations set up a "fund" to pay reparations to the nations that 'suffer' from the sale of arms that get from the offending nation into the offended nation. Sounds like extortion on a global scale.

    Now would be a good time to pull out of the UN like Bolton wanted to do years ago. But that's not gonna happen until the WH, Senate and Congress are controlled by representatives that actually have a set of stones and will stand up for the best interest of the US and tell the UN and all the tin horn dictators to pund sand!

    Why yes Martha! Your vote does count!
    Last edited by walt629; 08-21-2011 at 03:55 PM. Reason: my spell check is busted!

  4. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Houston Metro Area, Texas
    Posts
    3,004
    Solve this in a heartbeat, stop US funding of the UN.

  5. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    An Alternate Reality, I Assure You...
    Posts
    5,115
    All of this makes feel better about buying my guns & ammo as fast as I can.... If I got the $$, I'm getting the gun. I believe that sometime, in the near future(my lifetime) we as a country will be fighting for our freedoms again from our government.
    Quote Originally Posted by Deanimator View Post
    [*]Don't be afraid to use sarcasm, mockery and humiliation. They don't respect you. There's no need to pretend you respect them.
    Operation Veterans Relief: http://www.opvr.org/home.html

  6. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    699
    Quote Originally Posted by walt629 View Post
    Here is what Article VI, paragraph 2 actually stipulates on the issue: "...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 [of any State] or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

    Treaties are potentially so threatening to the sovereignty of the individual States and the Union of These States that two thirds of the Senators are required to be convinced that the treaty under consideration does not contravene the U.S. Constitution and/or adversely impact on the retained functions and interests of the States before they consent/ratify.

    The above was selected from: The Constitution --- Plain and Simple: Treaties

    There is a lot to read on the subject after and during the above statements. The article starts off reassuring us that treaties are not the law of the land and then goes on to confirm that issue. But if I'm reading it correctly it is all up to the Senate to make the final decision to the legality and constitutionality of the treaty.

    All that having been said, If somehow 2/3 of the Senate agree and ratify a treaty, it does in fact become 'Law of the Land'.
    No THEY do not have have the final decision on anything, WE THE PEOPLE do.
    Now as far as the legal side of things, Congress only has the powers vested in it by the US Constitution. Yes they have stretched those boundries, mostly by use of the commerce clause, but by no measure of the written word can they ever think they have the legal standing to eliminate anything in the Bill of Rights. The first part of the paragraph in both that article and your post have omitted, "The Constitution and the laws of the United States, WHICH SHALL BE MADE IN PURSUANCE THEREOF..." If the treaty doesnt pursue or goes against the US Constitution, it is invalid.
    One must be wary of the mentality creating the problem or the law creating the crime.

    I love America and the Constitution, if you don't then get out!

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

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