Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

Ever see what drug dealers are armed with?

---

Many times. And you still don't need 1.2 billion rounds for it.

Hello again,

Look.. Everybody knows the bullets are for FEMA so they can round us up and put us in concentration camps.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again,

Look.. Everybody knows the bullets are for FEMA so they can round us up and put us in concentration camps.

excon

---

Your ex-military. And happy early veterans day. What do you imagine that 1.2 billion rounds of ammo could do?

Hello dad:

Quote:

---

What do you imagine that 1.2 billion rounds of ammo could do?

---

Well, they're doing a lot of warring.. They got the DEA. They're involved in hot wars in Mexico, Honduras - well ALL OVER Latin America..

They got the CIA who's waring all over the Middle East and who knows where else? Then there's the FBI, the Secret Service, the Border cops, Customs, and probably lots more cop types than we know about...

It DOES sound like a lotta bullets - but they got a lotta cops! What do YOU think they're for?

Excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello dad:

Well, they're doing a lot of warring.. They got the DEA. They're involved in hot wars in Mexico, Honduras - well ALL OVER Latin America..

They got the CIA who's waring all over the Middle East and who knows where else? Then there's the FBI, the Secret Service, the Border cops, Customs, and probably lots more cop types than we know about...

It DOES sound like a lot of bullets... What do YOU think they're for?

excon

---

Truthfully the only thing they can be for is population control. The agencies you mentioned have a separate budget. Homeland security appears to be beefing up for some reason. I know they are getting a lot of toys but that still doesn't account for it. It's a hard one to call. The only other reason is that they want to dry up the supply of ammo so they can bring in the new traceable ammo they have been wanting for so long. Right now its all a shell game. ;)

So homeland security is about fighting the drug war?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

so homeland security is about fighting the drug war?

---

No that's is the DEA. Different agency.

No that wasn't the inference

I am thinking that this "Arms Treaty" has to do with the proliferation of Military arms and weaponry that isa traded ;like so many bags of wheat are. I am also thinking that the U.N. would have a controlling say in what types of weapons and how many, let's say, the U.S. could sell to Egypt and Iran.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Article VI, paragraph 2 of the US constitution:

---

I don't think you have any thing to worry about.

Paragraph 2 is full of independent clauses. Consider this:

This Constitution and the laws of the United States shall be made in pursuance thereof;... "

The use of two independent clauses joined by a semicolon suggest that each clause has its own subject and predicate. Two ideas can be closely connected but are not the same idea.

It seems clear that the pursuit must be in favour of the Constitution.

Surely you can give the Founding fathers more credit than that.

Tut

Yes, they were terribly smart people. Where are they now when we need them??

When you are signed on to the UN then it is expected that you ratify the treaties the UN signs, if this needs an amendment to your Constitution then that is the path

Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, includes the Treaty Clause, which empowers the President of the United States to propose and chiefly negotiate agreements between the United States and other countries, which become treaties between the United States and other countries after the advice and consent of a supermajority of the United States Senate.

Article Six of the United States Constitution establishes the Constitution and the laws and treaties of the United States made in accordance with it as the supreme law of the land,

So it is often forgotten that these clauses can override another clause

It is not a presumption that if you are a UN member that you sign on to their ridiculous treaties. Heck ;if they don't like it then do us a favor and kick us out.

Yes great idea but you keep your membership so you have the power of veto otherwise those other powers might do something you don't like, like start a war, Oh, I remember it is you, not the UN, that has the doctrine of preemptive strikes. Can we expect one on NK any time soon?

Quote:

---

Can we expect one on NK any time soon?

---

Possibly... if they have a multi-stage rocket fueling up then why should we wait ? They have shown themselves very belligerent since the un-Kim took power.

The South Koreans should've laid waist to the NORK navy after the NORKS sunk the Cheonan and shelled Yeonpyeong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

when you are signed on to the UN then it is expected that you ratify the treaties the UN signs, if this needs an amendment to your Constitution then that is the path

Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, includes the Treaty Clause, which empowers the President of the United States to propose and chiefly negotiate agreements between the United States and other countries, which become treaties between the United States and other countries after the advice and consent of a supermajority of the United States Senate.

Article Six of the United States Constitution establishes the Constitution and the laws and treaties of the United States made in accordance with it as the supreme law of the land,

so it is often forgotten that these clauses can override another clause

---

Thanks for my first laugh of the day. Just amend our constitution to fit the UN agenda. Bwa ha ha!

Actually a treaty cannot over ride a federal law and needs the approval of the congress to be ratified.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Thanks for my first laugh of the day. Just amend our constitution to fit the UN agenda. Bwa ha ha!

---

But, weren't you the one that posted Article V1 paragraph 2 to demonstrate Tom's point that a treaty could override a constitutional right?


Tut

Not quite.. it's true that a treaty can override a law.. it cannot override a right. That was what I was trying to get at in the OP.
Took 8 pages but finally the discussion is at the heart of the matter ;a treaty that violates the Constitutional protections is null and void and would be struck down by a SCOTUS that understands the Constitution.

No Tut that was me