Kerry: US Will Sign UN Arms Treaty

[g5000]

Here ya go..

Read it for yourself and learn something.

I suggest you take your own advice: Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957)

Considering how the Left treats the 2nd Amendment already, do you honestly think they won't use this to further erode the right?

So, all you have is, "I wouldn't put it past 'em!"





Read. The. Treaty.

Then quote those parts you believe support your claims.

 

[g5000]

Here ya go..

Read it for yourself and learn something.

Your post has nothing to do with the facts stated about not explicitly controlling the domestic use of weapons in any country.

Read the actual treaty and learn something.

It is amazing the lengths you rubes will go to to avoid learning the facts for yourselves. This is not a gun-grabbing treaty.

I don't think I've ever read a post of yours that was worth the effort.

/ignore.

You see? Willful blindness. Avoiding reading the treaty and supporting one's claims.

Sorry to make your ass hurt.

 

[OriginalShroom]

I suggest you take your own advice: Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957)

Considering how the Left treats the 2nd Amendment already, do you honestly think they won't use this to further erode the right?

So, all you have is, "I wouldn't put it past 'em!"





Read. The. Treaty.

Then quote those parts you believe support your claims.

I find it very telling that you neglected to include the linked material I posted . I wouldn't be surprised if you didn't even read them to get another opinion on the subject.

 

[g5000]

Perhaps you ought to read this The U.N. Arms Trade Treaty: Are Our 2nd Amendment Rights Part Of The Deal? - Forbes

Perhaps YOU should have read it!

While the terms have yet to be made public, if passed by the U.N. and ratified by our Senate, it will almost certainly force the U.S. to:

You see? EXACTLY as I said. Making shit up before they even read it!

Thank you for proving me right!

The treaty is now public.

Read. The. Treaty.

Support. Your. Claims.

 

[g5000]

Or this..

Confirmed: Obama's small arms treaty would take away 2nd amendment - Charleston Charleston Conservative | Examiner.com

You see? All they do is parrot what they heard elsewhere! They did not read the treaty. They just parroted the Forbes article:

In June of 2011, Forbes magazine wrote about the proposed treaty. The magazine said it targets the rights of US citizens and would effectively nullify the 2nd amendment.

Thank you AGAIN for proving me right!

And now YOU are parroting the parrots!

Read. The. Treaty.

 

[High_Gravity]

"We look forward to signing it as soon as the process of conforming the official translations is completed satisfactorily," he said. Kerry called the treaty "an important contribution to efforts to stem the illicit trade in conventional weapons, which fuels conflict, empowers violent extremists, and contributes to violations of human rights."

Which makes this ironic, considering that the current administration sold AK-47s to the Mexican drug cartels.

And Fighter jets to the new Egyptian government.

 

[g5000]

I can't wait for someone to bring up the "national control system" and make a complete ass of themselves.

I bet you have a lot of friends.... what with that rosy demeanor and all.

I am familiar with the tactics being used by the opponents. I have seen others makes asses of themselves over the "national control system" section, demonstrating a total ignorance of what a national control system is, and how they are used.

 

[g5000]

Considering how the Left treats the 2nd Amendment already, do you honestly think they won't use this to further erode the right?

So, all you have is, "I wouldn't put it past 'em!"





Read. The. Treaty.

Then quote those parts you believe support your claims.

I find it very telling that you neglected to include the linked material I posted . I wouldn't be surprised if you didn't even read them to get another opinion on the subject.

Wow. This is the most ironic post in some time.


I have posted the actual treaty. I have read the actual treaty. I find it EXTREMELY telling you have neglected to read and comment on it, and instead fire a bunch of third hand propaganda about it what is in the ACTUAL TREATY I POSTED.

Like I said, you rubes go to great lengths to avoid reading it for yourselves. You swallow someone else's piss instead.

 

[g5000]

So your heads and gullets have been flooded with a bunch of piss about the treaty. The propagandists had the great advantage of writing on your little blank slate minds first.

Now read the treaty and find the confirmation for your pre-loaded biases.

Show me the gun grab!

 

[Mustang]

One has to wonder if there will ever again be a time when conservatives argue for or against any proposed legislation, regulation, or even an international treaty based on a dispassionate analysis of the actual facts and legitimate criticisms surrounding the proposal as opposed to engaging in emotional overreactions to fear-mongering propaganda.

All I can say at this point is that Chicken Little MUST have been a conservative.

 

[OKTexas]

A. (from your own link, btw): The treaty would require countries that ratify it to establish national regulations to control the transfer of conventional arms and components and to regulate arms brokers, but it will not explicitly control the domestic use of weapons in any country.

B. Treaties with foreign nations cannot override the constitution. It's in the constitution.

Here ya go..

Read it for yourself and learn something.

Article VI, Clause 2

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, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

Your post has nothing to do with the facts stated about not explicitly controlling the domestic use of weapons in any country.

Read the actual treaty and learn something.

It is amazing the lengths you rubes will go to to avoid learning the facts for yourselves. This is not a gun-grabbing treaty.

Are you saying there is no way that this treaty could be used in a way that would dramatically drive up the cost of firearms and ammunition for the average American through regulations? Rewriting the regulatory structure has been a priority for this administration from day one, do you really think they won't use this to their greatest advantage?

 

[OriginalShroom]

So, all you have is, "I wouldn't put it past 'em!"





Read. The. Treaty.

Then quote those parts you believe support your claims.

I find it very telling that you neglected to include the linked material I posted . I wouldn't be surprised if you didn't even read them to get another opinion on the subject.

Wow. This is the most ironic post in some time.


I have posted the actual treaty. I have read the actual treaty. I find it EXTREMELY telling you have neglected to read and comment on it, and instead fire a bunch of third hand propaganda about it what is in the ACTUAL TREATY I POSTED.

Like I said, you rubes go to great lengths to avoid reading it for yourselves. You swallow someone else's piss instead.

As I said..

I have read the treaty and I have read the articles and opinions written by experts in the field.

Remember, only a Lawyer and a Liberal can say and mean "Shall not be infringed" doesn't actually mean that.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Lets remember now, our Government has shown the capability to act outside the will of our representatives and their constituents. If this doesn't convince you, nothing will.

 

[TemplarKormac]

A. (from your own link, btw): The treaty would require countries that ratify it to establish national regulations to control the transfer of conventional arms and components and to regulate arms brokers, but it will not explicitly control the domestic use of weapons in any country.

B. Treaties with foreign nations cannot override the constitution. It's in the constitution.

It is making treaties with other foreign nations, which they may only do "by and with advice and consent from the Senate," and "provided two thirds of the Senators present concur." So says Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution. So that is also irrelevant.

How do you liberals sit there and say "we aren't advocating infringement of a constitutional right" but then later on sit there and passively support such things? This kind of double standard is admittedly beyond any comprehension of mine.

 

[hortysir]

The piss drinking idiots have swallowed what has been poured for them by the big defense contractors who stand to lose a lot of money over this treaty. Few, if any, have actually read the treaty. We know this because they have been making claims about it long before it was available. And during that time they convinced themselves what they "know" is true!

This is actual self-delusion. Willful delusion. Amazing to watch in action.

And the idiot lawmakers who drafted bills to block the treaty...guess who their biggest donors are to their campaigns?

That's right. Defense contractors in the line of fire.

What? I can't sell fighter jets or helicopters to terrorists or terror regimes? Tell the rubes it's the end of the Second Amendment! Waaaaaah!


Rubes who believe themselves to be right wingers are for the War on Terra, before they are against it.

G, you know I was right beside you in another thread de-bunking the supposed over-reach of the UN treaty.

Believe me when I say, I still am.
1) the language isn't there
2) the UN doesn't have the authority to override the COTUS

But, besides all that, the thing that really rubs my chaps is this
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

130 members of Congress signed a letter to Obama and Kerry urging them to reject the measure

Regardless of whether the treaty has any teeth, it's just pure narcissist ego to ignore the wishes of our representative government

 

[g5000]

The piss drinking idiots have swallowed what has been poured for them by the big defense contractors who stand to lose a lot of money over this treaty. Few, if any, have actually read the treaty. We know this because they have been making claims about it long before it was available. And during that time they convinced themselves what they "know" is true!

This is actual self-delusion. Willful delusion. Amazing to watch in action.

And the idiot lawmakers who drafted bills to block the treaty...guess who their biggest donors are to their campaigns?

That's right. Defense contractors in the line of fire.

What? I can't sell fighter jets or helicopters to terrorists or terror regimes? Tell the rubes it's the end of the Second Amendment! Waaaaaah!


Rubes who believe themselves to be right wingers are for the War on Terra, before they are against it.

G, you know I was right beside you in another thread de-bunking the supposed over-reach of the UN treaty.

Believe me when I say, I still am.
1) the language isn't there
2) the UN doesn't have the authority to override the COTUS

But, besides all that, the thing that really rubs my chaps is this
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

130 members of Congress signed a letter to Obama and Kerry urging them to reject the measure

Regardless of whether the treaty has any teeth, it's just pure narcissist ego to ignore the wishes of our representative government

The last I checked, 130 is a small minority of Congress.

 

[g5000]

I find it very telling that you neglected to include the linked material I posted . I wouldn't be surprised if you didn't even read them to get another opinion on the subject.

Wow. This is the most ironic post in some time.


I have posted the actual treaty. I have read the actual treaty. I find it EXTREMELY telling you have neglected to read and comment on it, and instead fire a bunch of third hand propaganda about it what is in the ACTUAL TREATY I POSTED.

Like I said, you rubes go to great lengths to avoid reading it for yourselves. You swallow someone else's piss instead.

As I said..

I have read the treaty and I have read the articles and opinions written by experts in the field.

Remember, only a Lawyer and a Liberal can say and mean "Shall not be infringed" doesn't actually mean that.

First you have to prove the treaty WILL infringe.

The rubes have utterly failed to do so.

 

[Erand7899]

A. (from your own link, btw): The treaty would require countries that ratify it to establish national regulations to control the transfer of conventional arms and components and to regulate arms brokers, but it will not explicitly control the domestic use of weapons in any country.

B. Treaties with foreign nations cannot override the constitution. It's in the constitution.

You better reread that section of the Constitution. Once ratified by the Senate, treaties are the law of the land.

Article VI: 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.

 

[idb]

Lets remember now, our Government has shown the capability to act outside the will of our representatives and their constituents. If this doesn't convince you, nothing will.

You're right.
For example when the recent gun control bill was voted down against the will of the majority of citizens and the Senate.

 

[OriginalShroom]

Lets remember now, our Government has shown the capability to act outside the will of our representatives and their constituents. If this doesn't convince you, nothing will.

You're right.
For example when the recent gun control bill was voted down against the will of the majority of citizens and the Senate.

It is impossible to say that.

There were enough Citizens who told their Congress Critters, who were elected to represent them not people in other States, not to vote for the bill or they would not be getting their vote next election cycle to kill the bill.

Remember, each and every one of those people in the House and the Senate are there to represent the people in their district / State. No one else.