Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
I think you both did.
Tut
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
I think you both did.
Tut
No sir, I posted it to demonstrate that the second amendment is the law of the land.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuttyd
I think you are in error,Quote:
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.
Since you cannot change the constitution except by a lenghty process, any treaty argreement that doesn't meet the laws of the constitution are null, and void.Quote:
Reid v. Covert (1957) ruled that no branch of the United States Government can have powers conferred upon it by treaty that have not been conferred by the United States Constitution.
Congress must ratify any treaty agreement, and it still open to challenge.
From what I have read of the arms agreement in the UN, it has nothing to do with countries as individuals, but global arms trading between counties, and I fail to see where the fear is unless you are an international arms dealer.
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/3318708-post3.html
Tal, you have identified the important point, the whole of this debate operates out of fear and maintaining the business of arms manufacturers and arms dealers. Whether you can own a gun isn't the issue but what type of weapon you might own and how you might use it, is the issue, it is a big leap from regulating the type of weapon, or how it might be stored, to removing the right to own a weapon. There is nothing in the Constitution that specifically speaks to the sale of weapons or the trafficking of weapons, so the right of ownership can be maintained while the sale can be restrictedQuote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
John Kerry Announces U.S. Support For U.N. Arms Trade Treaty - Investors.comQuote:
As the world body meets this week to hammer out an agreement to restrict international arms trade, our Secretary of State commits us to pushing a treaty that may also restrict our Second Amendment rights.
Last Friday, the day of the week when unpopular or controversial announcements are traditionally made, Secretary of State John Kerry announced U.S. support for the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), a final version of which is being hammered out in New York beginning this week.
Certainly the ATT is controversial. Touted as a means of getting a handle on an international arms trade valued at $60 billion a year, its stated purpose is to keep illicit weapons out of the hands of terrorists, insurgent fighters and organized crime at an international level.
Its vague and suspicious wording led some 150 members of Congress last June to send a letter to President Obama and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warning that the treaty is "likely to pose significant threats to our national security, foreign policy and economic interests as well as our constitutional rights."
We have noted that a paper by the U.N.'s Coordinating Action on Small Arms (CASA) says that arms have been "misused by lawful owners" and that the "arms trade therefore be regulated in ways that would . .. minimize the misuse of legally owned weapons."
Would defending your home against intruders, or U.S. laws permitting concealed carry, be considered a "misuse?"
"We will not support any treaty that would be inconsistent with U.S. law and the rights of American citizens under our Constitution, including the Second Amendment," Secretary of State Kerry tried to reassure us — even as he represents an administration that seeks to ban weapons on their scary appearance rather than their genuine lethality, thinks the Founding Fathers wrote the Second Amendment with deer-hunting rather than British tyranny in mind, and would be happy if the entire U.S. were a "gun-free zone."
As the Heritage Foundation notes, imported firearms, considered part of the "arms trade" to be regulated, constitute about 35% of the new firearms market in the U.S.
"Under the guise of adopting what it deems to be 'appropriate measures,' an Administration could restrict imports by redefining what qualifies as a 'sporting' firearm — the definition of which is left completely to the discretion of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives," Heritage reports.
The ATT, Heritage warns, "could create a national registry (initially) limited to imported firearms. It could impose new requirements on importers of firearms, or parts and components of firearms, for example, by requiring them to provide the identity of the final end user.. ."
Restrictions on imports might be extended to ammunition as well.
Last Thursday, Rep. Mike Kelly, R-Pa. introduced a bipartisan resolution opposing the treaty. The resolution states the U.N. proposal "places free democracies and totalitarian regimes on a basis of equality" and represents a threat to U.S. national security.
Our Constitution is unambiguous in its protection of gun rights. The ATT is not.
Interestingly, just as the world's worst human rights violators have sat on and often chaired the U.N. Human Rights Council, Iran, arms supplier extraordinaire to America's enemies, was elected to a top position at the United Nations Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty held in New York last July.
The U.S. is one of few countries that has anything like a Second Amendment, our Founding Fathers enshrining the right to bear arms in our founding principles in recognition of it being the ultimate bulwark against tyrannical government.
The fact that an organization full of tyrants, dictators, thugs and gross human rights violators wants to control small arms worldwide is hardly a surprise.
Somehow, administration assurances that the treaty won't infringe on our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms doesn't reassure us.
Of course it will limit your rights, it's a treaty
Yeah, another Friday news dump along with Obama having achieved "flexibility" by abandoning plans for long-range missile interceptors in Poland.
Gov Cuomo finally figured out his rushed gun control bill is unworkable so he plans on easing the 7 round magazine limit - because no one makes them.
The solution? Again, you just can't make this stuff up...Quote:
after weeks of criticism from gun owners, Mr. Cuomo said on Wednesday that he would seek to ease the restriction, which he said had proved unworkable even before it was scheduled to take effect on April 15.
The gun-control law, approved in January, banned the sale of magazines that hold more than seven rounds of ammunition. But, Mr. Cuomo said Wednesday, seven-round magazines are not widely manufactured. And, although the new gun law provided an exemption for the use of 10-round magazines at firing ranges and competitions, it did not provide a legal way for gun owners to purchase such magazines.
Absolute genius. Now why didn't Colorado think of that, keep the magazines and the jobs they're about to lose and just forbid you from loading more than 7 bullets.Quote:
As a result, he said, he and legislative leaders were negotiating language that would continue to allow the sale of magazines holding up to 10 rounds, but still forbid New Yorkers from loading more than 7 rounds into those magazines.
That was last years news so try to keep up.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
hahahahahahhahahahaha!!Quote:
That was last years news so try to keep up.
No, it was last Friday's news, hence the mention of the Friday news dump that Obama has perfected.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Obama, Hagel Kill Missile Defense in Europe
Hence Obama has achieved his promised "flexibility." Try and keep up.
Another of your brilliant (read ignorant) contributions.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
The Poles can't afford a missile defense system. And why do they need one since we are broke? So are they.
You're an angry man. Meds or therapy would help.Quote:
Another of your brilliant (read ignorant) contributions.
Meanwhile ,the 1st thing Zero did when he got off the plane in Tel Aviv is to walk across the tarmac and inspect an Iron Dome system. D@mn that star wars Reagan introduced!!
I'm not the one with premature jocularity.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
No, you were a year late LOL!Quote:
I'm not the one with premature jocularity.
Are you that dense or just enjoy me drawing attention to your foolishness?Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
The subject of the post was last Friday's news dumps by the Obama administration with the object of my reference being "abandoning plans for long-range missile interceptors in Poland."Quote:
Yeah, another Friday news dump along with Obama having achieved "flexibility" by abandoning plans for long-range missile interceptors in Poland.
That sir, was Friday's news. I can't help it if you don't understand the concept of historical references relevant to current events.
In light of current fiscal woes, spending money so Poland can defend itself from a mystery enemy is a dumb idea.
I believe part of the point of these long-range missile interceptors was to give the US two shots at an Iranian ICBM. Iran is not a "mystery enemy."Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
You mean third shot since we have a fleet around Iran and the Israeli's have an Iron Dome.
Not sure how Israel's iron dome is supposed to protect Europe and the US from an Iranian ICBM.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Should we charge them by the hour or by the missile for their safety, and security needs. I know you aren't talking about free stuff, are you?
Logistics. I could be wrong but the shortest distance to most of Europe and the US from Iran is not via Israel.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
So we charge them by the mile then?
I guess pictures aren't simple enough.
OK, so how is iron dome supposed to protect us and Europe from an Iranian ICBM?Quote:
Iron Dome (Hebrew: כִּפַּת בַּרְזֶל, kipat barzel) also known as "Iron Cap"[7] is a mobile all-weather air defense system[6] developed by Rafael Advanced Defense Systems.[5] It is a missile system designed to intercept and destroy short-range rockets and artillery shells fired from distances of 4 to 70 kilometers away and whose trajectory would take them to a populated area.[8][9] Israel hopes to increase the range of Iron Dome's interceptions, from the current maximum of 70 km (45 miles) to 250 km and make it more versatile so that it could intercept rockets coming from two directions simultaneously.[10]
I don't expect it is this is why you wanted the bases in Poland, but the US has nothing to fear from Iranian ICBMQuote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
The issue is much more about Israel undoubtedly you have antagonised the Iranians by objecting to their nuclear program but they are a middle run power far from anywhere
Back to the OP, Biden insists Dems will continue pushing the assault weapons ban even even though they Reid shelved it after they couldn't muster but 40 votes in the Senate. Ol' Joe played the Gabby Giffords card again today...
Someone get Joe a dictionary.Quote:
Think about what happened out in — where Gabby Gifford, my good friend, was shot and mortally wounded.
Fear... you must live in constant fear. It's the only way to get an agenda across.Quote:
Yet.
Paranoia has many forms
Relaying the reported facts and the news that Obama dumped when no one is paying attention is not fear mongering. There's a reason he has perfected the art of the Friday news dump and that's to feign transparency while burying it over the weekend.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
WaPo's editorial board is my source and they're no friend to conservatives:
They called the decision "imprudent."Quote:
The SM3 IIb missile was significant for two reasons: It was the only interceptor planned for the Europe-based system that could have defended the United States against an attack from Iran; and it was the component of the system most decried by Russia, which claimed that it could be used against its intercontinental missiles.
Everything I've said on this subject has been rational, factual and for your benefit again, current. Now do you have anything besides snark and foolishness to add to the discussion?Quote:
Still, the fact remains that the United States has removed from its plans the missile that Russian officials previously cited as their foremost concern, just a few months after President Obama promised the Kremlin “greater flexibility” on missile defense after his reelection. In doing so, the administraton has eliminated the possibility of a defensive system that would give the United States two shots at an Iranian ICBM — what in Pentagon jargon is called a shoot-look-shoot capacity. It also has decoupled the European missile system from the defense of the continental United States. These compromises could have made sense as part of a broader agreement with Russia on missile defenses. To undertake them unilaterally, for what are portrayed as purely budgetary reasons, is imprudent.
You don't know that keeping a population in fear is a well-worn tactic? That isn't snark and foolishness it's fact: Culture of fear - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaQuote:
Now do you have anything besides snark and foolishness to add to the discussion?
I see it day in day out on the Current Events board - spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt to get an agenda across. You use it constantly in conjunction with the tactic of presenting a false dichotomy. None of that is rational discussion.
Except for the fact that I offered no fear mongering and no false dichotomies you might have a point. Are you just a glutton for punishment?Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
We'll see. ;-)
If Europe pays for it then they can get it. Don't you agree? That's all I have made a point of PAY FOR IT!! Why do you keep ducking the money part?Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
How mercenary !
I say give them the technology and let them built it under licence, isn't that the way business is done and developments and innovations cost moreQuote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
You want a missile you pay full price. There is no fear discount.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:24 PM. |