Obama just signed the UN Gun Ban treaty!

[VMI77]

Obama has demonstrated time and again, going back to the beginnings of his first presidential campaign when he dismissively asserted that people like us "cling to our guns and our religion," that he cannot be trusted with protecting and defending the Constitution. ALL of it. He's a liar. A Cheat. A snake in the grass.........and according to Peggy Noonan, he is largely considered irrelevant in foreign affairs, even by our allies: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... _uber_feed

So, you make me wonder....why has the Great One not told Muslims that they should stop clinging to their guns and religion?

[The Annoyed Man]

Obama has demonstrated time and again, going back to the beginnings of his first presidential campaign when he dismissively asserted that people like us "cling to our guns and our religion," that he cannot be trusted with protecting and defending the Constitution. ALL of it. He's a liar. A Cheat. A snake in the grass.........and according to Peggy Noonan, he is largely considered irrelevant in foreign affairs, even by our allies: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... _uber_feed

So, you make me wonder....why has the Great One not told Muslims that they should stop clinging to their guns and religion?

They wouldn't listen anyway, even if he did. But I think I know the real answer, and I suspect that you do too and we'd agree.

[The Annoyed Man]

"They" did burn down a religious community in Waco. I saw the other day, on a program about the British SAS, that the SAS actually consulted on that operation. That said, and this is according to surviving witnesses who were inside that building that day, it wasn't "JUST" a religious community. David Koresh was a bad man. He was a raper of little girls. And at least some of the adults, including the parents of some of those little girls, were complicit in his crimes. They were a vile cult, not just a religion. That doesn't justify the mass killing of all of the people who died there; and certainly Janet Reno will stand before the throne of Justice some day for her part in it, but the overall picture is a lot more complex that the simplistic description you gave it.

So, they killed the children in order to save them?

Pretty much. Hey, I'm not saying that what they did was justified at all. I just don't like simplistic answers which ignore the background complexities.

[bayouhazard]

"They" did burn down a religious community in Waco. I saw the other day, on a program about the British SAS, that the SAS actually consulted on that operation. That said, and this is according to surviving witnesses who were inside that building that day, it wasn't "JUST" a religious community. David Koresh was a bad man.

Maybe he was. He also went into town and could have been arrested and tried in a court of law if that's what the goverment wanted. Instead, we got "We had to destroy the children in order to save them."

Knowing what you do about the Obama administration's character, does anyone here really think the would lose a wink of sleep if they killed you and your family over a 22 rifle you refused to register?

[VMI77]

"They" did burn down a religious community in Waco. I saw the other day, on a program about the British SAS, that the SAS actually consulted on that operation. That said, and this is according to surviving witnesses who were inside that building that day, it wasn't "JUST" a religious community. David Koresh was a bad man.

Maybe he was. He also went into town and could have been arrested and tried in a court of law if that's what the goverment wanted. Instead, we got "We had to destroy the children in order to save them."

Knowing what you do about the Obama administration's character, does anyone here really think the would lose a wink of sleep if they killed you and your family over a 22 rifle you refused to register?

Maybe, it they got a hangover from all the rejoicing.

[mewalke]

Obama has demonstrated time and again, going back to the beginnings of his first presidential campaign when he dismissively asserted that people like us "cling to our guns and our religion," that he cannot be trusted with protecting and defending the Constitution. ALL of it. He's a liar. A Cheat. A snake in the grass.........and according to Peggy Noonan, he is largely considered irrelevant in foreign affairs, even by our allies: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... _uber_feed

So, you make me wonder....why has the Great One not told Muslims that they should stop clinging to their guns and religion?

That whole double-standard thing again.

[mojo84]

Obama has demonstrated time and again, going back to the beginnings of his first presidential campaign when he dismissively asserted that people like us "cling to our guns and our religion," that he cannot be trusted with protecting and defending the Constitution. ALL of it. He's a liar. A Cheat. A snake in the grass.........and according to Peggy Noonan, he is largely considered irrelevant in foreign affairs, even by our allies: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... _uber_feed

So, you make me wonder....why has the Great One not told Muslims that they should stop clinging to their guns and religion?

Great point! C

[VoiceofReason]

I am not worried about it. They can sign, ratify and pledge all they want and it won’t matter to me. As a matter of fact I would like to see them pass a national gun registry

They did that in 1934 for certain guns. Adding semi-autos to the registry wouldn't change the fundamental nature of the law. It's just details at that point.

If you don't comply with registration, they just might kill you. They burned down a religious facility in Texas with children inside and shoot a woman in Idaho holding her baby in her arms, and millions of gun owners did nothing, so what support do you think you're going to get for violating federal gun laws?

Well, here I am. I am not going anywhere. I will make it a point to announce I have guns and I refuse to register or give them up.

I can only hope there are enough people that would do the same so it would mean something.

[b322da]

The President can't do squat.

Just like Woodrow Wilson, let's see him get it ratified in the Senate. Most of those birds aren't as dumb as they look, or sometimes act. Most of them would rather be marinated in sheep poop than vote for something like that.

As quite correctly stated by Jaguar in the other thread dealing with this topic, John Kerry, our Secretary of State, signed the treaty for our nation, as the President's designee. The United States of America is a signatory.

International law has two primary sources, obligations assumed formally and obligations which are a part of customary international law. It is no secret, and it should be understood, that the United States of America has taken the position that widely accepted international conventions, or portions thereof, even though not ratified by our Senate, have become customary international law through the passage of time and broad acceptance, and that the obligations of such a convention or portions thereof will be respected and honored by the United States.

If the NRA, we and others, are going to get all hot and bothered by specific terms of the U. N. Arms Trade Treaty I would think that we would be well-advised to understand this, and dispute the obligations of that agreement on the proper level. Respectfully, Mr. Allen, IMHO to suggest that a failure of ratification is all that is required is just not always correct, and such a suggestion could cause opponents of the treaty to see comfort where comfort may not be found.

Jim

[hillfighter]

Until the Senate ratifies a treaty, it has no standing under the United States Constitution. For the legitimate government of the United States, bound by the US Constitution, an unratified treaty has as little legal meaning as an unratified amendment. Maybe that doesn't matter to "enemies, foreign and domestic" but then it will be moral to follow the example of the Maquis.

[b322da]

Until the Senate ratifies a treaty, it has no standing under the United States Constitution. For the legitimate government of the United States, bound by the US Constitution, an unratified treaty has as little legal meaning as an unratified amendment. Maybe that doesn't matter to "enemies, foreign and domestic" but then it will be moral to follow the example of the Maquis.

With respect, you deny what is a fact, Sir. The denial of facts undercuts one's case to the extreme and makes one's argument irrelevant. There is so much more to the U. S. law of treaties than one can ascertain from simply reading Article II, Section 2 of our Constitution and calling an end to one's inquiry. One might even say that the law is what it is, and is perhaps not always what one might want it to be. I assure you that I speak from personal experience with a treaty unratified by the Senate.

In neither this thread nor the other running on this general topic have I ever taken a position on the merits of the U. N. Arms Trade Treaty, and I see no value either way in my doing so. I am simply attempting to shed some light between the lines of unhelpful, often incorrect, comments here. It cannot be healthy to just sit back and see incorrect dogma spread around cyberspace taking upon itself, often depending upon its audience, the color of truth.

Jim

[hillfighter]

I was talking about what is Constitutional and moral. I'm not denying that enemies of the US Constitution have used force and the threat of force to do Evil.

On the other hand, the moral response to Evil is well known.