TexasCHLforum.com

Listened to Tom Gresham's Guntalk tonight. The more I listened the more depressed I got about the future of gun ownership. He went over Obama's agenda and the various ways it could be carried out - some without going through Congress - such as the UN's Small Arms Treaty. Which if signed by our UN representative passed would ban ownership of handguns. Or the Secretary of State (Hillary) could simply ban the import of foreign made firearms (goodbye XD). Sounds like there is not much that could be done by anyone to stop this freight train that is bearing down on us.

I'm not familar with Guntalk. Where do I find this, I would like to listen to this also. Thanks

http://www.guntalk.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If I'm not mistaken, doesn't Congress have to ratify any such treaty before it becomes the law of the land? As I recall, our UN Ambassador is a Dept of State employee, and as such, is under the direction of the executive branch. But since treaties have the force of law in the U.S., no treaty can be entered into by executive order without congressional ratification. At least that is what I remember. Somebody please correct me if I am wrong about that.

Male Bovine Excrement, at least my high school civics teacher (a former federal prosecutor and legal scholar) said so.
AnnoyedMan, you are correct.

Obama cannot enter into a treaty without 2/3 of the senate approving. (Article 2, Section 2)

There is no way 2/3 of the senate would approve of the small arms treaty.

I don't think Hillary would ban firearm imports either. Too many very wealthy folks like their Benelli shotguns for duck hunting, etc.

Remember, these folks also want to be re-elected. Something like a blanket ban would make that difficult. Bill Clinton's congress learned that the hard way.

Good to see those of you that are up on the laws of our land...I'm reading and learning from it, and of course, verifying it too.

Google UN's Small Arms Treaty. If you can believe 'em, the UN says it ain't so.

Oldgringo wrote:Google UN's Small Arms Treaty. If you can believe 'em, the UN says it ain't so.

I am betting you can figure out the problem with your statement right away, can't you?

Thanks KC5AV, I'll make a point to start tuning in.

nitrogen wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:Google UN's Small Arms Treaty. If you can believe 'em, the UN says it ain't so.

I am betting you can figure out the problem with your statement right away, can't you?

Yepper, I know. What I don't know is why we meet with these these people, in a place provided by the USA, and plot our downfall. Somebody help me, please.

The sort of chatter that bothers me, sort of like that funny feeling you get sometimes, are statements like PE Obama made in Germany, during his triumphant tour of the adoring throngs, was about his being a "Citizen of the World"...

That kind of talk gives me doubt, even though its one statement and not linked specifically to any other staement or policy. We all know and have discussed somewhat in this thread the internationalist and UN position on privately owned weapons.

You know what, its the same funny feeling I get when the PE talks about Second Amendment rights and hunters... and we all know the Second Amendment isn't about hunting or even sport shooting. What exaclty are "common sense" limits and restrictions?

MAybe it's nothing. Maybe I'm just seeing a bogeyman in every shadow. I hope so.

Jeff B.

The Annoyed Man wrote:If I'm not mistaken, doesn't Congress have to ratify any such treaty before it becomes the law of the land?

Isn't congress supposed to declare war and declare an income tax too?

atxgun wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:If I'm not mistaken, doesn't Congress have to ratify any such treaty before it becomes the law of the land?

Isn't congress supposed to declare war and declare an income tax too?

Well, there's a bit of a loophole as far as war is concerned.

The president is commander and chief of the military, so he can get the military to practically go to war. The official declaration must come from congress. If it doesn't, we have many other pretty names for it.

Russell wrote:There's simply no way the U.S. will go the way of Britain and start banning private firearm ownership.

The British public are a bunch of wimps, we already know that (Looking into banning knives with tips on them is one example).

Here in the Southern States, we enjoy our firearms, smoking, drinking, and BBQ way too much. Ban our guns and you're gonna have a real big problem.

It blows me away the uncontrolled (and so far unfounded) paranoia that is running rampant on the net.