NRA call: China wants to take my guns?

Status
Not open for further replies.
the very fact that such treaties must pass through muster through both the executive and legislative branch of our government ...
Click to expand...

All our laws, including the unConstitutional ones go through nearly the same process, excepting only one house of Congress is needed (Senate) for a treaty.

I am far from a law scholar, but I think that because there is a specific process for treaties in the Constitution, that some might argue that a properly ratified treaty can contain and enforce items that would be un-Constitutional as domestic law. And that is what worries us, a lot.

It is splitting hairs (but that's what lawyers love to do) but a Treaty is not a law. It is an agreement that carries the force of law, but not a law, because it does not go through the same process in our govt.

We all know that we have a legal recourse to overturn un-Constitutional laws, but do we have that ability for an un-Constituional treaty?

I just don't know. Your thoughts?

And, yes, the over the top, sky is falling approach of the NRA does get wearying, but if it gets even one more person off their butt and actively supporting the cause, isn't it worth it?
 
I am in no way a legal scholar, but I would find it difficult to believe that there exists some archaic hidden method by which a ratified foreign treaty could trump aspects of the constitution. I would believe that even assuming such a loop-hole exists ignores the purpose of the legislative branch of government, namely to interpret the laws of the nation. Unless all the supreme court justices were unknowingly replaced by aliens (the outer-space kind), I would find it impossible for this any such case to not be struck down in a heart beat.

Doing a quick google search terms up....well what do you know...another TFL on the same topic! (though not the NRA fear-mongering part)

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=405217&page=2

Its a good read.

BRENT
 
United States Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;
Click to expand...

Some people are troubled that the clause says laws must be made pursuant to the Constitution, but the phrase about treaties does not. Justice Black explained that language in Reid v. Covert and really laid to rest the question:

There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution. Nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification of the Constitution which even suggests such a result. These debates as well as the history that surrounds the adoption of the treaty provision in Article VI make it clear that the reason treaties were not limited to those made in "pursuance" of the Constitution was so that agreements made by the United States under the Articles of Confederation, including the important peace treaties which concluded the Revolutionary War, would remain in effect. It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights — let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition — to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power under an international agreement without observing constitutional prohibitions. In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and the Senate combined.
Click to expand...
 
Thanks for clarifying that, gc70. That was my understanding.

DogoDon wrote:
Every American should be alarmed that the U.S. would subject itself to review of our human rights policies by other countries.
Click to expand...

It's amazing what people - and nations - can accomplish when they cooperate. A treaty is simply an agreement to cooperate on something where cooperation is perceived to be of mutual benefit. It does not imply an abdication of sovereignty. It is a practice of sovereignty. Human rights and the international arms trade are both areas in which cooperation can be effective.

Acting as if one's nation were not only sovereign unto itself but the sovereign ruler of the world does not seem, on balance, to contribute much to that nation's security or the ultimate preservation of its sovereignty.

Speaking of which: Vince302, I have no intention of ever getting on my knees for an NRA member.
 
Freedom of speech....

...or fraud?

As far as I'm concerned any network or news organization trying to send a public message has a responsibility to impart accurately contexed information.

Fear mongering through out of context and inaccurate to even entirely misrepresented information by political oriented groups is not protected under freedom of speech, it's fraud and it's meant to deceive gullible people into acting based on emotional reactions. Lying is fraud and it is in no way okay to protect it under freedom of speech. Catch a person in a lie or fraud and they should be prosecuted or fined at the very least.
 
Actually, I believe it is protected....

Freedom of speech....

As far as I'm concerned any network or news organization trying to send a public message has a responsibility to impart accurately contexed information.

Fear mongering through out of context and inaccurate to even entirely misrepresented information by political oriented groups is not protected under freedom of speech, it's fraud and it's meant to deceive gullible people into acting based on emotional reactions.
Click to expand...

Our legal protection of free speech applies only to the government taking action against us. Inaccurate, and/or deliberately false speech comes under the heading of slander or libel, and that is only applicable to parties "harmed" by such speech or writings.

You and I can be deliberately mislead, or even lied to, and unless that causes us definable, personal harm, we have no legal recourse.

Yes, anyone putting out a public message has a moral responsibility to tell the truth, but there is no legal responsibility to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, outside of sworn statements in court.

Remember Mark Twain's quote (attributed to him, anyway)
"If you do not read the newspaper, you are uninformed.
If you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed."
 
It's amazing what people - and nations - can accomplish when they cooperate. A treaty is simply an agreement to cooperate on something where cooperation is perceived to be of mutual benefit. It does not imply an abdication of sovereignty. It is a practice of sovereignty. Human rights and the international arms trade are both areas in which cooperation can be effective.

Acting as if one's nation were not only sovereign unto itself but the sovereign ruler of the world does not seem, on balance, to contribute much to that nation's security or the ultimate preservation of its sovereignty
Click to expand...
With all due respect, that's analogous to describing a Jew walking into a death chamber at Auschwitz as exercising an act of self-defense. Nation-states with deep and abiding respect for their own national sovereignty do not permit other nations to meddle in their internal affairs. Period.
 
Proclaiming an intention or making public promises to sign/ratify a treaty, to knowingly(or not) find yourself in violation of same, doesn't seem like a productive way to govern unless you want UN sanctions placed against your country. Yeah we got the Constitution.

Why even collaborate on such a thing?
 
A touch too much thread drift. If we want to get back to the specifics and NOT wander off into a vague rant on the UN, ok.

Otherwise, it will be closed.
 
i've been an NRA member for over 50 years. i do not like it one bit when the NRA exaggerates these issues: It degrades the credibility of that organization. The NRA-ILA did the same thing when the BATF came out with their proposed new regulation on manufacture, transport and storage of ammo and explosives: A regulatrion that SAAMI and the Insititute of Explosive Manufacturers asked for.

The fact is that a UN treaty does not trump the US Constitution.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/international-gun-ban-treaty/
 
Last edited:
44

You miss my point, at this time the freedom to say any lie or misrepresented and out of context rhetorric is protected under the "freedom of speech". A lie or misrepresentation is fraud plain and simple. Should lies and rhetoric designed to deceive the public be protected under the freedom of speech? NO. If the public is that dense it needs to be effectively presented with accurately vetted information so that intelligent decisions can be made.

My point exactly is that the media has a responsibility to make sure that lies and misrepresentation is not excercised as freedom of speech. Let's say gross misrepresentations cause whole factions of people into thinking armed insurrection is the way to go, that is harming our very society and it is happening by a political group. That is not freedom of speech, it's fraud and deception and it's designed to do so.

It is of huge concern to me that there is a whole faction of people that absolutely cannot differentiate lies with the truth because they "believe" anything that is publicly aired as "must be the truth or it wouldn't be on TV or written".

We hear out alarming out of context gun issues that are way off base and it is geared to get people up in arms.

The same inaccurate, unfounded, and proven wrong numbers and quotes get used constantly and a whole group is duped into thinking that is the reality.

There is no topic as important as gun related topics that needs to be more accurately represented. Fearmongering by extrapolating incorrect and out of context hypotheticals that deviate from reality is not freedom of speech when it is meant to deceive to support an agenda. Good information has a need on both sides of the fence in terms of anti gun protagonists just as it does for pro gun supporters.

More often than not I hear an issue that alarms me and dig in to find out what's up and it has been grossly blown out of proportion. What scares me is a faction of people who don't stop to get a clear perspective, they instead jump into an issue fight based on a full faith and belief that they have the straight scoop, which they aren't even close to having.

That is not to say that there aren't issues that in fact do need to be slapped down. Misrepresentation creates a deaf audience.

The NRA hurts itself by sending out alarms that are not well grounded in fact. It has made me ignore them when in fact there are occassionally things we should be alarmed at. Pro gun people and organizations would be much stronger as a group if they didn't go overboard on non issues.

Back to thread topic, there is too much representation of what this UN treaty means, no president is coming after this country's privately held guns. It's deceptive to represent it as such.
 
Last edited:
So I watched this thread, and it wanders off topic. The UN, put people in jail for utterances. It's not on topic or useful anymore.

Fight political untruths with your truth, express your opinion. We don't need the courts and law for that.

Closed.
 
The problem is seldom what they will do, ..today

But what they will do tomorrow, or the day after, using the groundwork already laid.

For better, and worse, a large segment of humanity is always swayed by what they see in print, or get on a screen, nowdays. Yellow Journalism is not something that was limited to the Spanish American war, it thrives today.

In all its many forms, call it propaganda, advertisement, or some other name swaying people to their viewpoint is what the media, buisnesses, political groups, social/religious groups and governments all do.

Everybody slants things, sometimes beyond all reason, to get their point across and win converts for the cause. "protected" political speech is some of the most blatent.

One of the big reasons pro gun people have such a difficult time "winning the masses" is because our arguments are logical, rational, and true. I think as a group, we embellish things the least.

I've been getting NRA warnings about things all my adult life. And, yes, lately they have been sounding more and more extreme, considering what is actually currently coming at us. However, I consider the dire warnings to be true enough, as to what could happen, if we do nothing.

Everything today seems to be more extreme than it used to be. Calm, rational discussion seems to have little weight. Unless you are raving over the top about something, you mostly get ignored.

So, I'll accept some license from the NRA, knowing they, at least are trying the best they know how.

My point exactly is that the media has a responsibility to make sure that lies and misrepresentation is not excercised as freedom of speech.
Click to expand...

Agreed. That is what the media should do. Unfortunately, our media is a for profit group, and no matter what political cause they publically espouse, when it comes to their personal profits they are very ...dedicated. Cloaking themselves in the mantle of "the public has a right to know", everything, true and untrue seems to be grist for their mills.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top