TexasCHLforum.com

http://blogs.forbes.com/larrybell/2011/ ... p-in-arms/

On what the liberals want for us:

"Just how effectively have gun bans worked to make citizens safer in other countries? Take the number of home break-ins while residents are present as an indication. In Canada and Britain, both with tough gun-control laws, nearly half of all burglaries occur when residents are present. But in the U.S. where many households are armed, only about 13% happen when someone is home."

On Obama and guns:

"As an Illinois state senator, Barack Obama was an aggressive advocate for expanding gun control laws, and even voted against legislation giving gun owners an affirmative defense when they use firearms to defend themselves and their families against home invaders and burglars. He also served on a 10-member board of directors of the radically activist anti-gun Joyce Foundation in Chicago during a period between 1998-2001when it contributed $18,326,183 in grants to anti-Second Amendment organizations."

I don't think it can be repeated too often: liberals want foremost to eliminate the right of self-defense, eliminating guns is merely step one in the process.

perhaps this is what he meant by "working under the radar" a left hook from across the ocean. Perhaps we found out just in time.

I'd love for them to present this to the senate. It would pretty much effectively seal the Republicans taking over the senate next year, I think.

As for the rest of it, well, just try it.

mamabearCali wrote:perhaps this is what he meant by "working under the radar" a left hook from across the ocean. Perhaps we found out just in time.

No. Not even close. This would be unenforceable first because it would need to be ratified by 2/3 of the Senate and that ain't gonna happen. Second a treaty cant override then Constitution. Saying this is Obama "working under the radar" makes about as much sense as saying Bush brought down the towers. And this is not new this has been discussed for a while now and though in extreme unforeseen events this could prove a real threat it serves much better as a fundraising tool for the NRA.

loadedliberal wrote:

mamabearCali wrote:perhaps this is what he meant by "working under the radar" a left hook from across the ocean. Perhaps we found out just in time.

No. Not even close. This would be unenforceable first because it would need to be ratified by 2/3 of the Senate and that ain't gonna happen. Second a treaty cant override then Constitution. Saying this is Obama "working under the radar" makes about as much sense as saying Bush brought down the towers. And this is not new this has been discussed for a while now and though in extreme unforeseen events this could prove a real threat it serves much better as a fundraising tool for the NRA.

So I'll give the whole situation the benefit of the doubt but:
1. I don't buy the treaty cannot override the Constitution. Heck, over half of the Federal government today overrides the Constitution. There is no Constitutional basis for over half of what goes on in Washington. I cannot imagine how gun issues would be an different. Don't believe it? Let's talk about the status of handguns in D.C or IL.
2. Do you deny that the UN is trying to get a universal ban on guns and that their biggest target is the US?
3. If this whole thing is just a fundraiser for the NRA, why does it keep cropping up, outside of the NRA? For that matter, why did Oakbrook and IL, immediately following the Heller decision go ahead and continue the gun ban attempts?

This is not a paper tiger.

In parallel, a new poll stays that 30% of the employers will drop healthcare coverage in 2014 - exactly what those behind Obamacare wanted in the first place - a single payer option. Please, this is not Conservative reaction to the "truthers." There is no honesty about the direction things are headed and, in my mind, this whole UN gun thing is the most dishonest operation going. They will not give up until the US looks like the UK. I, for one, am not going to allow that to happen.

If ratified and enforcement begins everyone will be quickly stripped of all rights, thats the way I see it.

In my oppinion the right to keep and bear arms is the most important. Because it grants the people the right to protect ALL other rights.

If that right is infringed all rights of the people will cease to exist. Only the law abiding people will comply and crime would drastically increase.

"I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, both foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

I took that oath 24 years ago and, as far as I'm concerned, am still under the obligation to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic.

loadedliberal wrote:

mamabearCali wrote:perhaps this is what he meant by "working under the radar" a left hook from across the ocean. Perhaps we found out just in time.

No. Not even close. This would be unenforceable first because it would need to be ratified by 2/3 of the Senate and that ain't gonna happen. Second a treaty cant override then Constitution. Saying this is Obama "working under the radar" makes about as much sense as saying Bush brought down the towers. And this is not new this has been discussed for a while now and though in extreme unforeseen events this could prove a real threat it serves much better as a fundraising tool for the NRA.

I hope you are right--I really REALLY do. I just have little confidence in our political system today, half the laws on the books are outside the constitution, we can't even get our representatives to stand against people putting their fingers in children's pants at the airport. If they can't even be for protecting our children from this unlawful intrusion (quite honestly it is assault) then how can I ever think that they would not lie down and let the UN run all over us. However, I think we have one thing in our favor, the UN does not seem to grasp just how many guns there are here in the US and how much we would fight to keep them. Lest any of those state worshiping UN people forget, our rights come from our creator and cannot be removed by a fiat from overseas. Likely all this edict would accomplish is chaos and anger here in the USA. Let us hope and pray anyway.

Kythas wrote:"I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, both foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

I took that oath 24 years ago and, as far as I'm concerned, am still under the obligation to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic.

1...thank you for your service
2...thanks to all that have served and are currently serving.

I personally have not served but I am under the impression that all US citizens should defend the constitution against domestic enemies, by using the rights guaranteed by the bill of rights.

loadedliberal wrote:

mamabearCali wrote:perhaps this is what he meant by "working under the radar" a left hook from across the ocean. Perhaps we found out just in time.

No. Not even close. This would be unenforceable first because it would need to be ratified by 2/3 of the Senate and that ain't gonna happen. Second a treaty cant override then Constitution. Saying this is Obama "working under the radar" makes about as much sense as saying Bush brought down the towers. And this is not new this has been discussed for a while now and though in extreme unforeseen events this could prove a real threat it serves much better as a fundraising tool for the NRA.

Academically you're right about Constitutional law, but I think practically speaking, you may be wrong. If it gets passed it will be used as pretext to change US law. The question is, can it be passed, and while I'd like to believe the answer is no, I don't have much confidence in Senate Republicans. Also, Heller was a 5 to 4 decision and subject to change. The Left already takes the position that guns are only "legitimately" possessed for hunting and target shooting --those, anyway, who pretend they're not seeking an outright ban of all guns. They don't mention self-defense as a legitimate purpose. They'll simply claim that guns aren't banned, just "military" type weapons that have no legitimate sporting purpose. The Heller decision doesn't prevent all gun regulation and I don't think it is by any means settled in the context of such a treaty that guns specified by the treaty can't be banned. Another potential hurdle is that unless another key part of the Constitution is ignored the government will have to pay for a lot of guns, but I suspect that such a process might start at a state level, with the Feds threatening funding sources of one kind or another for states that don't comply.

mamabearCali wrote:

loadedliberal wrote:

mamabearCali wrote:perhaps this is what he meant by "working under the radar" a left hook from across the ocean. Perhaps we found out just in time.

No. Not even close. This would be unenforceable first because it would need to be ratified by 2/3 of the Senate and that ain't gonna happen. Second a treaty cant override then Constitution. Saying this is Obama "working under the radar" makes about as much sense as saying Bush brought down the towers. And this is not new this has been discussed for a while now and though in extreme unforeseen events this could prove a real threat it serves much better as a fundraising tool for the NRA.

I hope you are right--I really REALLY do. I just have little confidence in our political system today, half the laws on the books are outside the constitution, we can't even get our representatives to stand against people putting their fingers in children's pants at the airport. If they can't even be for protecting our children from this unlawful intrusion (quite honestly it is assault) then how can I ever think that they would not lie down and let the UN run all over us. However, I think we have one thing in our favor, the UN does not seem to grasp just how many guns there are here in the US and how much we would fight to keep them. Lest any of those state worshiping UN people forget, our rights come from our creator and cannot be removed by a fiat from overseas. Likely all this edict would accomplish is chaos and anger here in the USA. Let us hope and pray anyway.

I share your fears --on a somewhat positive note I think I read somewhere a few years back that something like an estimated 70% of the "assault" weapons banned in Canada never got turned in. When I was young I used to think those right-wingers calling for "US out of the UN, UN out of the US" were extreme, but it's looking like they were right.

Kythas wrote:"I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, both foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

I took that oath 24 years ago and, as far as I'm concerned, am still under the obligation to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic.

While not military, I took a similar oath as a LEO 30+ years ago. I didn't take it lightly then and still do not.

AndyC wrote:

packa45 wrote:...I am under the impression that all US citizens should defend the constitution against domestic enemies, by using the rights guaranteed by the bill of rights.

Despite the fact that I'm a mere GC holder and not yet a citizen, I figure that because I also reap the benefits of the Constitution, someone can save me a space in the lines

Andy, my friend, when that day comes, I want to be on your flank.