TexasCHLforum.com

RoyGBiv wrote:At what point does Obamas actions (no more work for welfare, failure to deport illegals, just looking at this weeks' news) become "treason"? Or at minimum, failure to uphold his oath...??

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Heartland Patriot wrote:

Dave2 wrote:They've got an update that says the latest draft (which isn't loading on my phone) removed the language about ammo and grenades.

Personally, I don't care what they say is or isn't in the treaty; I oppose it on principle. Any sovereign nation should be able to enter into trade deals with any other sovereign nation. Then, IF other nations take umbrage to that, they can voice their opinion on the world stage and state why they take umbrage to it...for instance, North Korea is run by an EXTREMELY oppressive regime that has done quite a bit to cause starvation conditions for its citizens, among other things...therefore the USA takes umbrage with nations trading with NK and will NOT trade with NK and will do things to discourage others from trading with NK. We shouldn't need some dirty, underhanded treaty to give us reason to have a problem with weapons being sold to terrorist groups or rogue nations such as Iran. Just another excuse to limit individual freedoms, bind the hands of sovereign nations and increase the UN bureaucracy...talk about "fat cats", well the UN bureaucrats are the very definition. I despise them, 100%.

KurteL10 wrote:http://www.infowars.com/colorado-batman ... ng-staged/
Just going to leave this link right here. Not saying I am a believer, but it is an interesting read.

C-dub wrote:Anyone see this today?

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/07/10 ... s-to-iran/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A little more than a week after accusing Iran of supplying arms for Syria's bloody crackdown on democracy-minded rebels, the UN has given Tehran a key seat at negotiations for a global arms treaty.

C-dub wrote:It actually makes feel a bit more secure that this is never going to happen here in the USA.

74novaman wrote:

Iran has been chosen as a member of the “bureau” overseeing a month-long United Nations conference in New York aimed at finalizing a controversial global “arms trade treaty.”

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/iran-na ... off-police


Yes, a police state that we know have been providing arms to terrorist groups and the insurgency against US troops in Iraq seems like a solid choice to talk about arms control.

OldCannon wrote:I think the only purpose this small arms treaty serves is to scare up NRA memberships.

It will _never_ ratify in the Senate, and this is one that Obama can't just executive-order into law.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Dave2 wrote:Dick Morris was just on Fox News claiming that the UN will vote on the gun control treaty this month. Is this something we need to worry about, or am I correct in thinking that the constitution overrides treaties?

The treaty has to be approved by a 2/3 vote of the Senate before the president can ratify it, giving it the force of law in the U.S. If the treaty requires any expenditure of U.S. funds to enforce it as law in the U.S., the House of Representatives can block the funding of it, rendering it de facto irrelevant. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratification#United_States

Furthermore, even if ratified, a later Congress can repeal ratification. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_Clause#Repeal

It is a concern that the UN is voting on this, further confirming their immorality and irrelevance to U.S. law, but I don't think it is quite the cause for panic that some feel.