Obama to Sign U.N. Firearms Treaty Rejected by Senate

[Treasure_Hunter]

When you surrender our gun rights to be under UN control then you have endangered all our rights and freedoms..... There is not a sinlge word in the treaty stateing an individuals rights to firearms, only members states rights.

It gives ammo to people to destroy our rights under the guise of the UN treaty and we have people in office, although there illegally who want nothing more than to disarm the American people....



Just one more question, why are you so willing and eager to surrender the rights and freedoms of your kids and grandkids?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Minelab PRO-FIND 35 Waterproof Pinpointer Metal Detector for Experts with Tone ID & Adjustable Sensitivity - Grab it through Amazon!

[Peyton Manning]

Qver 500 treaties were made with Native American.Over 500 treaties were broken by the U.S gooberment.

true the treaties were broken. However as I recall from my distant history classes, they were usually broken when American citizens found land or something valuable on the land they wanted ( black hills, SD) and went after it. Then the Gov gave in to the citizens side and moved the indian's farther. I don't recall instances of the Gov just deciding on it's own to betray the natives. So if you want to blame someone for breaking those blame the people and their greed.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Its actually kind of funny as you answered the question yourself. No treaty trumps the constitution or bill of rights?? Never has, never will. Any more questions?

I see you didn't address the question on the "National control system or National Control List "either...

WE ARE AGAINST ANY NATIONAL GUN CONTROL LIST, NATIONAL GUN SYSTEM OR NATIONAL GUN PROGRAM!

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

true the treaties were broken. However as I recall from my distant history classes, they were usually broken when American citizens found land or something valuable on the land they wanted ( black hills, SD) and went after it. Then the Gov gave in to the citizens side and moved the indian's farther. I don't recall instances of the Gov just deciding on it's own to betray the natives. So if you want to blame someone for breaking those blame the people and their greed.

Are you serious, the government broke the treaties, government made the treaties, government broke the treaties.....

 

[Red James Cash]

Then the Gov gave in to the citizens side and moved the indian's farther. I don't recall instances of the Gov just deciding on it's own to betray the natives.

And by giving into the citizens,that was the betrayal.Pick up a copy of Bury my heart at wounded knee (an Indian history of the American west) by Dee Brown.It will help open your eyes a little wider Jeff.

 

[Peyton Manning]

I understand that, my point is that to uphold the treaties the Gov would have had to remove the American citizens by force (perhaps even lethal) .
Would that have been ok? Or would the Gov be blamed for harming or limiting it's own people?

 

[Peyton Manning]

I agree the Native Americans were betrayed terribly. But not by Washington on it's own.

 

[Red James Cash]

my point is that to uphold the treaties the Gov would have had to remove the American citizens by force (perhaps even lethal) .
Would that have been ok? Or would the Gov be blamed for harming or limiting it's own people?

The citizens were breaking the law,so yes it would of been the right thing to do.What would of been better.We'll use the blackhills for sake of argument.Being escorted off indian land in chains or being chased off minus your hair by sioux warriors.

 

[Peyton Manning]

The citizens were breaking the law,so yes it would of been the right thing to do.What would of been better.We'll use the blackhills for sake of argument.Being escorted off indian land in chains or being chased off minus your hair by sioux warriors.

I agree completely that the land should have stayed in the hands of the Natives. And had I or you been Pres. that would have happened. But you and i both know how greed works. With gold being discovered, in no time at all the Sioux would have been outnumbered and killed unless they left. And I doubt the miners would have allowed the Gov to arrest them without bloodshed.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to argue, just pointing out that the average Americans put the Gov in a tight spot that could only end in a bad way for many people.

 

[0121stockpicker]

I see you didn't address the question on the "National control system or National Control List "either...

WE ARE AGAINST ANY NATIONAL GUN CONTROL LIST, NATIONAL GUN SYSTEM OR NATIONAL GUN PROGRAM!

Is it unconstitutional to do that?

 

[Red James Cash]

Actually there were miners,prospectors, who were welcome there.The ones that asked the sioux for permission and treated them with respect.The miners who failed to do that ,who were caught,were killed.

 

[0121stockpicker]

I see you didn't address the question on the "National control system or National Control List "either...

WE ARE AGAINST ANY NATIONAL GUN CONTROL LIST, NATIONAL GUN SYSTEM OR NATIONAL GUN PROGRAM!

So what you are saying is that there is nothing in the treaty that could deny someone their constitutional rights - as that is impossible. But that the concern is that domestic constitutional laws might be enacted that could place additional regulations on gun owners?

Again you can be "AGAINST" anything you want. That is your right as an American. But just because you are against it does NOT make it unconstitutional, illegal, etc, etc. plenty of laws on the books that I am AGAINST also.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

So what you are saying is that there is nothing in the treaty that could deny someone their constitutional rights - as that is impossible. But that the concern is that domestic constitutional laws might be enacted that could place additional regulations on gun owners?

Again you can be "AGAINST" anything you want. That is your right as an American. But just because you are against it does NOT make it unconstitutional, illegal, etc, etc. plenty of laws on the books that I am AGAINST also.

I guess I am not the only one opposed to the Treaty, and for the very same reasons I stated....

"In the pre-dawn hours Saturday, the Senate approved a measure “to uphold Second Amendment rights and prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.”
By a vote of 53-46, the Senate passed the amendment to the budget bill sponsored by Senator Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.)"

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Is it unconstitutional to do that?

You asked why we are opposed to the treaty and i am telling you why I am opposed, others may be opposed for different reasons......

I am opposed to ANY NATIONAL GUN REGISTRY period, a national gun registry is a major step towards gun confisication....

 

[0121stockpicker]

I guess I am not the only one opposed to the Treaty, and for the very same reasons I stated....

"In the pre-dawn hours Saturday, the Senate approved a measure “to uphold Second Amendment rights and prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.”
By a vote of 53-46, the Senate passed the amendment to the budget bill sponsored by Senator Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.)"

No one ever said you were the only one opposed to the treaty right? Merely pointing out the propaganda behind the "it will strip our constitutional right" etc. treaties can not take away constitutional rights. To say so is an out an outright LIE. The only people who have something to gain from the treaty not being signed is the arms industry. The as industry waged a misinformation campaign to scare individual voters. This helped to sway the voting of the bill.

No big deal - this is politics. Both sides do it all the time.

But lets just tell the truth about it as we are intelligent thinking people. No big deal.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

I agree the Native Americans were betrayed terribly. But not by Washington on it's own.

Jeff, Washington made the treaty, it was the US governments job and obligation to enforce it..........

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

No one ever said you were the only one opposed to the treaty right? Merely pointing out the propaganda behind the "it will strip our constitutional right" etc. treaties can not take away constitutional rights. To say so is an out an outright LIE. The only people who have something to gain from the treaty not being signed is the arms industry. The as industry waged a misinformation campaign to scare individual voters. This helped to sway the voting of the bill.

No big deal - this is politics. Both sides do it all the time.

But lets just tell the truth about it as we are intelligent thinking people. No big deal.

That is truth as you see it, not as I and others see it.....

The Supreme Court has not always came down on the side of US supremacy issue reguarding treaties....

The Supreme Court has held that “No doubt the great body of private relations usually fall within the control of the State, but a treaty may override its power” (Missouri v. Holland)


I am not willing to gamble with the rights and freedoms of my grand kids, you may be.....

 

[0121stockpicker]

That is truth as you see it, not as I and others see it.....

The Supreme Court has not always came down on the side of US supremacy issue reguarding treaties....

The Supreme Court has held that “No doubt the great body of private relations usually fall within the control of the State, but a treaty may override its power” (Missouri v. Holland)

I am not willing to gamble with the rights and freedoms of my grand kids, you may be.....

So you don't think it was deceptive at all when people claimed the treaty was going to take away constitutional rights?? Seems less opinion and much more a black and white fact?

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

NO, I think it is a direct threat to our Constitutional rights as did the majority of the US Senate.

 

[0121stockpicker]

NO, I think it is a direct threat to our Constitutional rights as did the majority of the US Senate.

How is that possible when no treaty can trump the constitution? It is impossible. Period. This is a fact not opinion.