RE: UN passes Small Arms Treaty

RE: UN passes Small Arms Treaty (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

subrob1967 -> RE: UN passes Small Arms Treaty (4/5/2013 11:43:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: subrob1967 Nice try Thompson, I was quoting Ken there, if you have a grammatical beef, it's with HIS source... Ken, look up the definition of in Pursuance thereof, you'll find it means the Constitution trumps treaties. And as I have repeatedly told you there is nothing in the UN Charter that violates the Constitution therefore it is the law. Shall NOT be infringed keeps going right over your head, doesn't it Ken?

mnottertail -> RE: UN passes Small Arms Treaty (4/5/2013 11:48:35 AM)
the constitution doesnt say that though. It says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, it says nothing regarding what can be kept and born in the way of arms.

DesideriScuri -> RE: UN passes Small Arms Treaty (4/5/2013 1:00:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne Ware v. Hylton, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 199 (1796): "the Supreme Court held that the supremacy clause rendered null and void a state constitutional or statutory provision which was *inconsistent with a treaty* executed by the Federal Government" This has nothing to do with it. The claim is that the US Constitution is supreme to treaties. State Constitutions fall under Federal supremacy, too, be it US Constitution, Federal Law or International Treaties.

BamaD -> RE: UN passes Small Arms Treaty (4/5/2013 1:01:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail the constitution doesnt say that though. It says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, it says nothing regarding what can be kept and born in the way of arms. At that time they allowed up to and including cannons.

mnottertail -> RE: UN passes Small Arms Treaty (4/5/2013 1:03:02 PM)
And who would give a fuck about that? They allowed keeping slaves too.

BamaD -> RE: UN passes Small Arms Treaty (4/5/2013 1:03:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne Ware v. Hylton, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 199 (1796): "the Supreme Court held that the supremacy clause rendered null and void a state constitutional or statutory provision which was *inconsistent with a treaty* executed by the Federal Government" This has nothing to do with it. The claim is that the US Constitution is supreme to treaties. State Constitutions fall under Federal supremacy, too, be it US Constitution, Federal Law or International Treaties. Treaties have been nulified by the courts because they required the government to violate the constitution.

DomKen -> RE: UN passes Small Arms Treaty (4/5/2013 1:07:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subrob1967 quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: subrob1967 Nice try Thompson, I was quoting Ken there, if you have a grammatical beef, it's with HIS source... Ken, look up the definition of in Pursuance thereof, you'll find it means the Constitution trumps treaties. And as I have repeatedly told you there is nothing in the UN Charter that violates the Constitution therefore it is the law. Shall NOT be infringed keeps going right over your head, doesn't it Ken? Neither the UN Charter or this new treaty affects that. Why don't you try reading things before you fly off the handle?

BamaD -> RE: UN passes Small Arms Treaty (4/5/2013 1:11:40 PM)
quote: Neither the UN Charter or this new treaty affects that. Why don't you try reading things before you fly off the handle? The treaty would virtually repeal the 2nd

BamaD -> RE: UN passes Small Arms Treaty (4/5/2013 1:14:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail And who would give a fuck about that? They allowed keeping slaves too. The question was what arms would they allow. The fact that they had no problem with private individuals owning cannon is relevant to that question, slavery is ,obviously , a red herring.

mnottertail -> RE: UN passes Small Arms Treaty (4/5/2013 1:14:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: Neither the UN Charter or this new treaty affects that. Why don't you try reading things before you fly off the handle? The treaty would virtually repeal the 2nd No, it would not. You do not know what is in the treaty obviously, what does the treaty say in a paragraph or less?

DomKen -> RE: UN passes Small Arms Treaty (4/5/2013 1:15:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: Neither the UN Charter or this new treaty affects that. Why don't you try reading things before you fly off the handle? The treaty would virtually repeal the 2nd No. It would not. http://www.un.org/disarmament/ATT/docs/Draft_ATT_text_27_Mar_2013-E.pdf You guys need to stop listening to Rush and FNC and actually investigate things for yourself.

DesideriScuri -> RE: UN passes Small Arms Treaty (4/5/2013 1:15:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne Ware v. Hylton, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 199 (1796): "the Supreme Court held that the supremacy clause rendered null and void a state constitutional or statutory provision which was *inconsistent with a treaty* executed by the Federal Government" This has nothing to do with it. The claim is that the US Constitution is supreme to treaties. State Constitutions fall under Federal supremacy, too, be it US Constitution, Federal Law or International Treaties. Treaties have been nulified by the courts because they required the government to violate the constitution. Exactly. The US Constitution is Supreme Law of the Land. Treaties are subordinate to the US Constitution, but still supreme to State Constitutions.

BamaD -> RE: UN passes Small Arms Treaty (4/5/2013 1:18:31 PM)
The relevant part is that non government entities would have to be controled (to the satisfaction of the UN). It would put major restrictions on NON GOVERNMENT ENTITIES. That would be private ownership.

mnottertail -> RE: UN passes Small Arms Treaty (4/5/2013 1:20:18 PM)
And our bill of rights does not extend to the countries of the world, nor does our constitution. So, we are all set. Besides which, the US isn't at all shy about breaking UN treaties or resolutions when they want to, there are no consequences for the US in doing so.

DomKen -> RE: UN passes Small Arms Treaty (4/5/2013 1:20:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne Ware v. Hylton, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 199 (1796): "the Supreme Court held that the supremacy clause rendered null and void a state constitutional or statutory provision which was *inconsistent with a treaty* executed by the Federal Government" This has nothing to do with it. The claim is that the US Constitution is supreme to treaties. State Constitutions fall under Federal supremacy, too, be it US Constitution, Federal Law or International Treaties. Treaties have been nulified by the courts because they required the government to violate the constitution. Exactly. The US Constitution is Supreme Law of the Land. Treaties are subordinate to the US Constitution, but still supreme to State Constitutions. No treaty ratified by the senate has ever been overturned in the courts.

Focus50 -> RE: UN passes Small Arms Treaty (4/5/2013 1:29:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne and if anyone thinks there is anything more than simple "coincidence" you are a batshit crazy fucking conspiracy theorist [image]http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/USDollarTitanicdollarwarcopy-1.jpg[/image] Many an economist will tell you that nothing gets a country back to work like gearing up for war. Seem to recall Hitler was Time magazine's man of the year for ultimately dragging Germany out of the great depression. Which was probably a fair call at the time (pre WWII), despite Scientologists making yardage (at "Time") via 20-20 hindsight. So the guy was building more than highly visible autobahn mega structures - who really knew the consequences until it was too late? Focus.

FunCouple5280 -> RE: UN passes Small Arms Treaty (4/5/2013 1:33:47 PM)
Hogwash. The US should be rich after our current excursion in the sandbox

BamaD -> RE: UN passes Small Arms Treaty (4/5/2013 1:49:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Focus50 quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne and if anyone thinks there is anything more than simple "coincidence" you are a batshit crazy fucking conspiracy theorist [image]http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/USDollarTitanicdollarwarcopy-1.jpg[/image] Many an economist will tell you that nothing gets a country back to work like gearing up for war. Seem to recall Hitler was Time magazine's man of the year for ultimately dragging Germany out of the great depression. Which was probably a fair call at the time (pre WWII), despite Scientologists making yardage (at "Time") via 20-20 hindsight. So the guy was building more than highly visible autobahn mega structures - who really knew the consequences until it was too late? Focus. War footing creates jobs but is highly inflationary and can destroy an economy, see Viet Nam.

BamaD -> RE: UN passes Small Arms Treaty (4/5/2013 1:51:47 PM)
quote: who really knew the consequences until it was too late? Anyone who had read Mien Kampf.

mnottertail -> RE: UN passes Small Arms Treaty (4/5/2013 1:57:07 PM)
Oh, is the text of the treaty a reprisal of Mein Kampf?

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875