TexasCHLforum.com

With Hilly Clinton now the presumptive nominee for Secretary of State, I feel confident that I can predict next year's top news story.

US SIGNS LANDMARK UN TREATY!!!

July 4, 2009, New York City

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton today inked her signature on a new UN treaty committing the US to withdrawal of all troops from foreign soil, aid for developing countries, . . .

Para:

Para:

[and then buried in the fine print]

Immediate ban on all semi-automatic firearms, all firearms .50 caliber or larger (including shotguns) all handguns capable of holding more than 5 rounds of ammunition, in all signatory countries.

At which point obama can shrug and say that it's an international treaty and we have to comply with it, even though he was against it, as he had promised in his campaign that HE would not take our guns.

And then the new Secure Homeland Internal Taskforce squads will start going door to door passing out questionnaires with felony penalties for perjury.

A hard ride.

Jim, say it ain't so. Maybe the next revolution will start on July 4th, just like the last one did 232 years ago. Let's hope that does not happen.

jimlongley wrote:[and then buried in the fine print]

Immediate ban on all semi-automatic firearms, all firearms .50 caliber or larger (including shotguns) all handguns capable of holding more than 5 rounds of ammunition, in all signatory countries.

At which point obama can shrug and say that it's an international treaty and we have to comply with it, even though he was against it, as he had promised in his campaign that HE would not take our guns.

And then the new Secure Homeland Internal Taskforce squads will start going door to door passing out questionnaires with felony penalties for perjury.

A hard ride.

Interesting, but as I understand it, impossible without the approval of Congress. See what happened to the Kyoto Protocol and U.S. compliance (below):

Kyoto Protocol

The United States (U.S.), although a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol, has neither ratified nor withdrawn from the Protocol. The signature alone is symbolic, as the Kyoto Protocol is non-binding on the United States unless ratified.

{snip}

On 25 July 1997, before the Kyoto Protocol was finalized (although it had been fully negotiated, and a penultimate draft was finished), the U.S. Senate unanimously passed by a 95–0 vote the Byrd-Hagel Resolution (S. Res. 98),[68][69] which stated the sense of the Senate was that the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol that did not include binding targets and timetables for developing as well as industrialized nations or "would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States". On 12 November 1998, Vice President Al Gore symbolically signed the protocol. Both Gore and Senator Joseph Lieberman indicated that the protocol would not be acted upon in the Senate until there was participation by the developing nations.[70] The Clinton Administration never submitted the protocol to the Senate for ratification.

In the U.S., a ratified treaty has the force of law. Section Two of the Constitution says of the President: "He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur."

2/3 of 100 senators is 66 (or 67, depending on interpretation). Democrats are likely to have - when all the votes are counted - 60 to 61 senators in Congress. Some of those are "blue-dog" democrats who will never vote for any legislation that either bans firearms, or hands control over U.S. sovereignty in the matter to the United Nations. Remember that, when actually faced with deciding whether or not to give sovereignty over internal US affairs to the UN the last time, the senate voted 95-0 against. I think it is a given that the Republican minority leadership will enforce an "en-bloc" vote on the Republican side against subjugating ourselves to U.N. sovereignty. My conclusion therefore is that, since Democrats can't put together 66 votes for it, and Republicans will vote en-bloc against it, your prediction will not happen.

I certainly hope I'm right.

http://change.gov/agenda/urbanpolicy_agenda/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Address Gun Violence in Cities: Obama and Biden would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.

The Annoyed Man wrote:Interesting, but as I understand it, impossible without the approval of Congress. See what happened to the Kyoto Protocol and U.S. compliance (below):

Kyoto Protocol

The United States (U.S.), although a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol, has neither ratified nor withdrawn from the Protocol. The signature alone is symbolic, as the Kyoto Protocol is non-binding on the United States unless ratified.

{snip}

On 25 July 1997, before the Kyoto Protocol was finalized (although it had been fully negotiated, and a penultimate draft was finished), the U.S. Senate unanimously passed by a 95–0 vote the Byrd-Hagel Resolution (S. Res. 98),[68][69] which stated the sense of the Senate was that the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol that did not include binding targets and timetables for developing as well as industrialized nations or "would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States". On 12 November 1998, Vice President Al Gore symbolically signed the protocol. Both Gore and Senator Joseph Lieberman indicated that the protocol would not be acted upon in the Senate until there was participation by the developing nations.[70] The Clinton Administration never submitted the protocol to the Senate for ratification.

In the U.S., a ratified treaty has the force of law. Section Two of the Constitution says of the President: "He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur."

2/3 of 100 senators is 66 (or 67, depending on interpretation). Democrats are likely to have - when all the votes are counted - 60 to 61 senators in Congress. Some of those are "blue-dog" democrats who will never vote for any legislation that either bans firearms, or hands control over U.S. sovereignty in the matter to the United Nations. Remember that, when actually faced with deciding whether or not to give sovereignty over internal US affairs to the UN the last time, the senate voted 95-0 against. I think it is a given that the Republican minority leadership will enforce an "en-bloc" vote on the Republican side against subjugating ourselves to U.N. sovereignty. My conclusion therefore is that, since Democrats can't put together 66 votes for it, and Republicans will vote en-bloc against it, your prediction will not happen.

I certainly hope I'm right.

I hope you're right too, but I don't share your confidence, I have no doubt that enough arm twisting by obama's allies could sway enough votes to ratify a "necessary" treaty, particularly with Hilly shrilly pushing it.

Our constitution is supreme law in our country. Treaty or no.

I predict an expanded assault weapon ban that includes handguns.

You guys sure get riled up easily, a lot like some really whiny liberals in 2004.

Remember all the horrible things the Liberals predicted when George Bush got reelected?

Remember how Liberals said George Bush would lock up protesters with no trial and no charges?

Remember how Liberals said George Bush would attack Iran and cancel elections due to an "Emergency"?

Remember how Liberals said we were losing in Iraq, and how it was another Vietnam?

Did any of these things happen?

Did any of this whining from liberals in 2004 make you feel good about them?

I predict an expanded assault weapon ban that includes handguns.

Why? Do you think congress will actually support a handgun ban?

Do you think 2/3 of congress will agree to a treaty banning guns from the UN?

Do you think the democratic party can be united on ANYTHING?

nitrogen wrote:Why? Do you think congress will actually support a handgun ban?

I think it is within the realm of possibility, I sure wouldn't rule it out.

nitrogen wrote:Do you think 2/3 of congress will agree to a treaty banning guns from the UN?

I also think that a broad reaching treaty with a gun ban incorporated could pass a 2/3 vote.

nitrogen wrote:Do you think the democratic party can be united on ANYTHING?

It has happened.

Here's the thing many Republicans forget about the Democrats:

They really arent one party; they are more like 4 parties on a loose coalition.

You have the northeast democrats. The less said about them, the better.
Then you have the pacific coast democrats. Slightly better than the northeast democrats; but still.

Then you have the southern democrats and western democrats that can be right on quite a few issues, guns included.

The republicans have a nearly iron grip on their party. The democrats, less so. They couldn't even stop the Iraq war, which they ran on in 2006. Pelosi told them, "Impeachment is off the table" and a few listened, and a few didn't.