Arms Treaties and Second Amendment Problems

Does that say anything about civillians in foriegn countrys owning full auto rifles? What they gonna do about them folks? or is this a US only treaty?

Chuck Norris is old now, he had issues in the ring so he went hollywood with sammo and jackie chan....

Superfoot was a better fighter......

Chuck lost all credibility for me here and he is the only western man to achive the level he has achieved in his art. Too bad he is all "I want ot be in the news" like all them hollywood creeps.

Nuge was the first to go, I turn him off when his songs play...sold out for publicity.
 
to me chuck will always be

"Forced Vengeance" and oh yeah I guess I have to throw "missing in action" in there too.

thanx for explaining that stuff more but I have one issue: many pro gun and anti gun issues are played out this very same way...same as politics w/republicans and democrats, so what makes that any different
 
I notice a lot of discussion about the UN treaty recently. It seems many people are unaware of the already signed CIFTA treaty or the political realities in play. While it is still important that we make our voices heard with our Senators, I thought this thread was worth bringing back up to keep people informed.
 
Do we really trust the Senate

I read that 58 Senators out of 100 stand ready to vote against ratifying any treaty coming out of the U.N. concerning foreign regulation of the rights of U.S. citizen's gun rights. I am concerned that the number is not higher than 58. That tells me we should not take for granted that either CIFTA or UN Treaty will not be ratified. As one poster stated the balance of the Senate is crucial to preservation of our rights.
 
This discussion shows how important it is to vote. I know more than one gunowner who says almost every election: "My one vote doesn't matter at all." That's what I call a 'DULLARD' :mad:
 
I have a question:

Last night I saw former Ambassador Bolton on a news talk show explaining that the U.S. already regulates arms sales to foriegn countries, and that we have some of the best regulations in the world dealing with import and export of weapons. He also stated that many of the U.N. members pushing for this ban are countries that export freely without much regulation. His point being that the Administration just wants to become party to the treaty so they can have another tool to slow the LEGAL American imports, exports and domestic sales of firearms.

Mr. Bolton is no hack, he has been there and seen that, so I tend to agree with him. What do you think?
 
That gives life to the old adage

coined by Niccolò Machiavelli, "The ends justify the means". Whatever it takes to accomplish their goal even if it means subverting our government and Constitution to do it.
 
To me as much as anything it seems like this is in part a covert way to choke american gun manfacturing... Making foreign sales harder or impossible hurts the bottom financial line...
 
Part of the problem with CIFTA and other arms treaties is that once signed, they could sit unratified for many years but then ratified when the right membership of the Senate is in place. The 27th Amendment to the Constitution took 203 years to ratify once proposed but it is now part of our Constitution.
 
I learn something new

every day! Thanks Jim for that info. I did not know that about treaties. Basically there is no expiration date on those things, ouch. They just lay in the weeds till the right time and they get ratified. That scares the crap out of me. Thank goodness for groups like the NRA that can keep reminding us to keep our vigilance up.
 
KyJim said:
Part of the problem with CIFTA and other arms treaties is that once signed, they could sit unratified for many years but then ratified when the right membership of the Senate is in place. The 27th Amendment to the Constitution took 203 years to ratify once proposed but it is now part of our Constitution.
Click to expand...
Bingo, and this is one of the things that worries me.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by KyJim
Part of the problem with CIFTA and other arms treaties is that once signed, they could sit unratified for many years but then ratified when the right membership of the Senate is in place. The 27th Amendment to the Constitution took 203 years to ratify once proposed but it is now part of our Constitution.
Bingo, and this is one of the things that worries me.
Click to expand...

True, but there's a world of difference between a Constitutional amendment and a treaty. No treaty can ever supersede the Constitution. It can, however, cause a lot of controversy and years of legal wrangling.
 
Even though it may not be a Constitutional Amendment a ratified treaty does in affect allow the government to wield power that they perceive is theirs. As an example, the NAFTA Treaty (North American Fair Trade Agreement), has greatly affected the lives of every American whether you are for it or against it. I fear there would be similar repercussions from this U.N. Treaty if it were ever ratified.
 
Wyoredman said:
Last night I saw former Ambassador Bolton on a news talk show explaining that the U.S. already regulates arms sales to foriegn countries, and that we have some of the best regulations in the world dealing with import and export of weapons. He also stated that many of the U.N. members pushing for this ban are countries that export freely without much regulation. His point being that the Administration just wants to become party to the treaty so they can have another tool to slow the LEGAL American imports, exports and domestic sales of firearms.
Click to expand...

Since we already have more stringent controls than would be required by the treaty, there is no reason to participate in the treaty except as a symbolic, feel-good act.
 
So how does this work though, once a treaty comes up for a vote on the Senate floor and does not get ratified. Does it simply get put back in the drawer and pulled out again at a later date when conditions for it's ratification are more favorable?
 
Doesn't a vote like this, tell the rational mind that a treaty loaded with seemingly gun control issues has zero chance of passage. Thus, the attack of Rosy O'Donnells is precluded.
Click to expand...
That treaty has been kicking around for awhile now and it looks like the vote might be somewhat close. Who's to say what might happen in five years. It's been hanging around for a long time and I think you and I are both old enough to understand how attitudes can change over time. That's the reason Heller and McDonald were so important. They at least establish, legally, a baseline.
 
So unlike the legal system where if a person is tried and found innocent they cannot be tried again on the same charges a la O.J. Simpson, treaties can come back over and over again over time to be voted on more than once? That sounds like a disaster waiting to happen. I believe treaties are not open ended in that they have to be re-ratified so the hope is if we ever sign up for something stupid we can nix it the next time we are asked to re-up.
 
misnomerga - can we have a reality check? Of course, an item can come back to be voted on again. It happens with legislation all the time.

That's not a disaster, if you like a bill or a treaty - it might be a good thing.

So you don't like this treaty and thus the normal workings of the legislative branch is a disaster. Hey, sometimes shall issue bills had to be voted on several times. Disaster waiting to happen for the antigun world!!

Vote for people who support your position, that's the way it works.

If someone says they support the AWB, which keeps coming back, don't vote for them. If someone says they support campus carry, which keeps coming back, vote for them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top