 |
I won't go into hysterics that Obama is going to take away our guns.
Just one question. If the US backs a UN Treaty to restrict small arms ,what is the law of the land ? The treaty ,or the Constitution of the land... specifically the 2nd Amendment ?
After Obama win, U.S. backs new U.N. arms treaty talks | Reuters
"We will not accept any treaty that infringes on the constitutional rights of our citizens to bear arms," he said.
One can only hope. What do you bet Obama will continue to be the top gun salesman in the country? All those bitter clingers are probably more bitter today.
This is not a serious question, is it? The law of the land is whatever our elected representatives and executive branch say it is, as interpreted by the courts.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder
And besides, the treaty is about exports of guns, not your right to pack one.
Yeah that's the spin they want you to believe . But the last version of the treaty left open “without prejudice to the right of delegations to put forward additional proposals.”
Now why would they add that ? Because the Non-alligned movement nations and other NGOs want to add language to restrict domestic gun sales too.
If we are signatories to a treaty ,that becomes the law of the land .Quote:
Originally Posted by ebaines
Show me where any treaty trumps US federal law.
Worry only if you are involved in "illicit arms trafficking and proliferation."
Article VI, paragraph 2 of the US constitution:
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.
What does that have to do with private and legal ownership of weapons?
Tal said "show me" and I did. Read tom's answer here and follow the conversation.
No one is going to take away your guns.
I made it a point at the start of this conversation that I did not think it was a threat. But it will be impetus for the Obots to make Federal law that restricts the type of guns that can be purchased .
Bet they won't get that impetus.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
You asked a specific question about law, there are various intrepretations regarding treaty obligations and the constitution of any nation and it sort of works this way, when there is a conflict the treaty obligations prevail and it behoven to the country concerned to amend their laws to fall in line with their treaty obligations after all the treaty has been established under constitutional powers. What this means is no constitutional provision can stand alone for its own sake so the second amandment or any amendment cannot be exorcised from treaty obligations.
The US therefore has various courses of action:
Repudiate the treaty and ultimately its membership of the UN
Amend the Constitution to define classes of weapons under the second amendment
The second amendment says nothing about the traffic in arms, it refers to a personal right to have arms. There has been a liberal interpretation that it means you can have any arms you want and as many as you want. I doubt that was original intent. It exists because in the early days they didn't intend to have a large standing army. The Constitution confers the power to regulate commerce, therefore movement of arms and sale of arms can be legally restricted without contravening the second amendment rights.
The issue really isn't hand guns or long arms but the number of weapons in the hands of criminals. In the interests of the public good this cannot be permitted
The real issue is that dictators don't want an armed populace.
Exactly right, tom. And that's what amazes me about Obots, they're blind to his imperial presidency... willfully or not.
President Obama doesn't want your guns either, He wants you to keep them close by your side.
Hello again, Steve:
It IS true, that when I walk out of my house every morning, I see an entirely different country than you do.Quote:
what amazes me about Obots, they're blind to his imperial presidency
Excon
I'm sorry. I have to laugh out loud at this. He doesn't want us to have them at all.Quote:
President Obama doesn't want your guns either, He wants you to keep them close by your side.
That's not true at all. Do you have a quote to that effect?Quote:
Originally Posted by J_9
Thing is Obama recognises that there is a problem and he has dared to say so. He might be part of the solution but that's a long way off
Yup.
Quote:
As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can't constrain the exercise of that right."
Quote:
Obama agrees to an individual's right to bear arms, in principle, but does not take it as an absolute right and considers it as a negotiable subject.
Obama on Gun ControlQuote:
We can have reasonable, thoughtful gun control measure that I think respect the Second Amendment and people's traditions.”
Thanks to his first election I lost a million dollar gun business just a year into his first term.
None of that says he is against gun ownership. That's paranoia. The state and local references have to do with licensing just like for operating a motor vehicle or getting married or fishing.
Why do Americans own assault rifles, for instance? Those are made to kill other humans, not made for hunting. That could be one type of weapon that needs further examination as to who owns it and why. Too often it has ended up being used illegally for mass murder.
President Obama had not made any moves against gun ownership when he was first in office, so why did you lose that business?
How about a compromise, people without a criminal record get to own one hand gun and one long rifle and there be mandatory instruction on the use.
I'm for reasonable backround checks. I'm opposed to limiting the right to certain classes of guns. The AR-15 (assault rifle ) is a very efficient hunting rifle and is used by hunters frequently.
Don't know why you need such a heavy weapon, what are you hunting, bear?
That link doesn't give much detail. What legislation did he pass when he first came into office that affected the retail firearms business?Quote:
Obama on Gun Control
Thanks to his first election I lost a million dollar gun business just a year into his first term.
It's for hunters comfort... more precise ,less recoil etc. Maybe they are more precise and accurate... less chance of a wound shot . Maybe they are hunting bear .Why is it anyone's business ? They have the right to own them ,and there are no restrictions on using them for recreation hunting.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Because with an assault rifle you can kill many, many more people is a much shorter period.Quote:
Why is it anyone's business ?
Yup and you can kill even more with a truck full of fertilizer. But I don't see anyone calling to ban that.
Hello again,
Couple things.. Ok, THREE things...Quote:
Because with an assault rifle you can kill many, many more people is a much shorter period.
Mechanically speaking, the assault rifle you can buy, is the same as a 30.6 hunting rifle. The ONLY difference is the way it LOOKS.
Obama is NOT going to pass ANY gun control. There's no HINT that he will, and he's never SAID that he will. There's only right wing paranoia.
Speaking of right wing paranoia, his election caused a run on guns. Frankly, THAT was the business to be in. Losing a gun business when there's a RUN on guns was probably due to management and NOT Obama's election.
Excon
PS> J_9, you're my friend. I don't mean to criticize you personally. I've lost at least 10 business's in my lifetime.
I was assuming that using the term "assault rifle" meant a fully automatic weapon.Quote:
Mechanically speaking, an assault rifle is the same as a 30.6 hunting rifle. The ONLY difference is the way it LOOKS.
Hello again, NK:
That's why I made the distinction.. Fully automatic weapons are NOT available to the general public. MOST people, however, believe as you do, that assault rifles ARE fully automatic and MUST be banned. Of course, if they WERE, they SHOULD be banned - but they're not.
If you want to ban SOMETHING, ban clips or magazines that hold many multiple rounds. THOSE aren't necessary for hunting.
excon
yep, I was wrong there, it's a magazine-fed semi-auto.Quote:
If you want to ban SOMETHING, ban clips or magazines that hold many multiple rounds. THOSE aren't necessary for hunting.
It's isn't banned in Canada per se "the AR-15 was granted a sporting exception."
I come from a long line of gun collectors. We are all law abiding citizens. It is my right as a citizen of the US to be able to own any firearm I choose to own.
We have pistols, revolvers, shotguns, and rifles (single shot, semi auto, and full auto) . Yes I am a FFL holder.
We have firearms that date back to the civil war, WWI and WWII up to the most current. They are all working firearms as my husband is a master gunsmith. What am I going to shoot with them? Most of them nothing. Others targets.
We aren't terrorists, just collectors. Yes, I have had to protect myself and my loved ones from grizzly bears in the wilds of Alaska. It takes a very powerful gun to drop a grizzly and a semi-auto is easier than having to load after every shot when you've got a griz charging at you.
As for paranoia... there was a huge fear during the last election and our business boomed. A gun store not only sells firearms, but most of the income comes from selling ammo. Within a year of his election, most ammo was severely limited or completely unavailable. With the lack of income to the store due to lack of ammunition and certain firearms, overhead became a problem. My in-laws who were once multi-millionaires are now living off social security and Medicaid. Now with the advent of Nobamacare they will not even to be able to afford taking care of their health during their golden years. But that's a different thread.
Steve, there was a tremendous run on guns and life was great. The problem came with the limited ammo available after the election.
Nope, not poor management. My FIL is a great business man. That's how he became a multi-millionaire in the first place.
So many issues here.
Which legislation did that?Quote:
Within a year of his election, most ammo was severely limited or completely unavailable.
What? Multimillionaires not doing 401Ks (I think that's what you call your self-directed retirement plans there) or savings? Selling off large assets didn't give them enough funds? How does one go from multimillionaire to being on social security in 3 years?? Something is wrong with that story. Was there an overwhelming amount of debt?Quote:
My in-laws who were once multi-millionaires are now living off social security and Medicaid.
Hello again, NK:
The lack of ammo was a market phenomenon. Apparently, J's store got whipsawed by the market.. If you can't get what your customers want, you're toast.
Look.. I've gone from millionaire to pauper several times in my life. When you're a "job creator" it happens.
excon
Then she should put the blame squarely on people like tom and Steve who willingly whip up the hysteria without any actual facts.
I have no responsibility in 'whipping up hysteria' .
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:20 AM. |