U.N. Agreement Should Have All Gun Owners Up In Arms

#26
#26
volprof said:
Is this a state-regulated militia or a federal-regulated militia? Or is it regulated by neither, perhaps by municipalities or concerned citizens? Which one is more "well-regulated"? I think we're quibbling over spilled milk, because I think we probably agree on the issue of gun ownership, but let's also just be honest and admit that the amendment is ambivalent. That's just the nature of language and interpretation. Hermeneutics is a *****.
Click to expand...

You are reaching for no reason. The founders did not care for Great Britain, who knew, and created laws thusly. The militia is a state entity. All oaths were taken to the state as primary.
 
#28
#28
OrangeEmpire said:
What?

National Guard is the state regulated militia.
Click to expand...

True, however in practical terms the local militia of old looks more like the volunteer companies used today. Simply from the perspective that the local militia would equip themselves, train on using their equipment to defend their town, or assist the local police, would be called out with a local alarm, directed by a local official, perform their duties until the crisis ended and then go home.

With the National Guard participating more and more in expeditionary wars, they've consolidated a lot of their armories and units to larger bases and we've lost a lot of the local response. Sure, they still do a huge amount of disaster support, but it is not the same as it once was. Plus, they are under the direction of the Governor, not any local officials(which is good since they have tanks and helicopters) so it takes a lot of effort and coordination to get a response.

So, just from a historical perspective, I think the vol fire companies are closer to what was in place way back when.
 
#29
#29
yorkvol said:
true, however in practical terms the local militia of old looks more like the volunteer companies used today. Simply from the perspective that the local militia would equip themselves, train on using their equipment to defend their town, or assist the local police, would be called out with a local alarm, directed by a local official, perform their duties until the crisis ended and then go home.

With the national guard participating more and more in expeditionary wars, they've consolidated a lot of their armories and units to larger bases and we've lost a lot of the local response. Sure, they still do a huge amount of disaster support, but it is not the same as it once was. Plus, they are under the direction of the governor, not any local officials(which is good since they have tanks and helicopters) so it takes a lot of effort and coordination to get a response.

So, just from a historical perspective, i think the vol fire companies are closer to what was in place way back when.
Click to expand...

10-4
 
#30
#30
I don't think gun owners have anything to worry about. Even if the treaty is designed to limit the second amendment:

1. There's no way 2/3 of the senate would approve a treaty that severely limits the second amendment.
2. The US Constitution remains Supreme over treaties.
 
#31
#31
Weezer said:
Wouldn't a change in the Second Amendment have to be voted on by the populace?
Click to expand...

utvolpj said:
2/3 of the states I think (don't laugh if I'm wrong)? Doesn't look like this outright bans guns but puts sever limits on what can be owned. Likely it would never pass the Senate but even if it does the USSC would hopefully strike it down
Click to expand...

To amend the constitution, you need 2/3 of both the House and Senate to propose an amendment, and 3/4 of the states to ratify it.
 
#32
#32
I'd say the Supreme Court is more of a threat to gun control than anyone else. One more liberal justice could change a lot.
 
#33
#33
tvolsfan said:
I don't think gun owners have anything to worry about. Even if the treaty is designed to limit the second amendment:

1. There's no way 2/3 of the senate would approve a treaty that severely limits the second amendment.
2. The US Constitution remains Supreme over treaties.
Click to expand...

I could be wrong but I think I read somewhere in school, a fully ratiifed international treaty trumps the constitution.

LG might be able to help us out here?????
 
#34
#34
tvolsfan said:
I'd say the Supreme Court is more of a threat to gun control than anyone else. One more liberal justice could change a lot.
Click to expand...

Just one of the many reasons Obama must go, there is a good chance 1 or 2 seats may open up in the next 4 years.
 
#35
#35
OrangeEmpire said:
You are reaching for no reason. The founders did not care for Great Britain, who knew, and created laws thusly. The militia is a state entity. All oaths were taken to the state as primary.
Click to expand...

So we should be concerned about the continued threat from Great Britain and think of the definition of "militia" in the same context? Man, I'm just giving you a hard time. :)
 
#36
#36
hog88 said:
I could be wrong but I think I read somewhere in school, a fully ratiifed international treaty trumps the constitution.

LG might be able to help us out here?????
Click to expand...

I'm not 100% sure, but I think the wording is that the treaty serves as law, but it still doesn't overrule the Constitution.
 
#38
#38
hog88 said:
I could be wrong but I think I read somewhere in school, a fully ratiifed international treaty trumps the constitution.

LG might be able to help us out here?????
Click to expand...

It's all about authority. I would guess in an international court, the treaty would overrule, but domestically, we would defer to the constitution.

I'm no lawamatician, so I'm just guessing.
 
#39
#39
Constitution is the supreme law of the land. I'm fairly sure no treaty overrules it.

OE, a few weeks ago I would have agreed with your perspectives on the Second Amendment whole-heartedly. After finding out Obamacare is a tax, I'm no longer certain on just how reliable the SCOTUS is in dealing justice. Apparently they can make things work how they see fit. I think they wiped their asses with the Constitution on that one.
 
#41
#41
UN arms treaty could put U.S. gun owners in foreign sights, say critics | Fox News

While the treaty’s details are still under discussion, the document could straitjacket U.S. foreign policy to the point where Washington could be restricted from helping arm friends such as Taiwan and Israel, said Greg Suchan, Deputy Assistant Secretary in the State Department’s Bureau of Political-Military Affairs from 2000 to 2007.
Click to expand...
A clause permitting arms transfers solely between UN member states would allow UN member China to object to U.S. arms sales to Taiwan, a non-UN member that China considers to be a renegade province.
This would be highly problematic for the U.S. at a time when Beijing is engaged in an unprecedented arms buildup.
Click to expand...

Another fear is that Arab or other states critical of Israel may use any treaty language on human rights standards to argue against U.S. arms transfers to the Israeli government – much in the same way they currently use the UN Human Rights Council to repeatedly condemn Israel.
Click to expand...
some other parts that I found interesting

The world body has already been criticized for appointing Iran to a key role in the talks, even as Tehran stands accused by the UN of arming Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's bloody crackdown on rebels.
Click to expand...
“But that government could then ask whether the sale is prohibited under the Arms Trade Treaty – and if it is not, they would argue they are meeting the international standard.”
Click to expand...
so under the treaty this is ok but supplying arms to Taiwan wouldn't be? Sounds like this is an accurate assessment

“They’re trying to impose a UN policy that gives guns to the governments – but the UN doesn’t in turn make moral judgments as to whether these governments are good or bad,” he said.
“If you’re the government, you get the guns, if you’re a civilian, you don’t. But this will just end up helping evil governments and tyrants.”
Click to expand...
 
#42
#42
utvolpj said:
UN arms treaty could put U.S. gun owners in foreign sights, say critics | Fox News



some other parts that I found interesting


so under the treaty this is ok but supplying arms to Taiwan wouldn't be? Sounds like this is an accurate assessment
Click to expand...

If this is all true, then this should raise more than just the eyebrows of American gun owners. This some very troubling stuff. I'm especially troubled by the part about Taiwan (who simply wishes not to be China's lackey) and the part about "only governments should have guns" with no concern about the character of that government. Hell, even "good" governments are usually full of men (and sometime women) who have the moral fiber of child molesters. I don't even want to think about the bad ones. Also, while not completely exculpable, Israel faces potentially serious threats if this legislation were to go through.
 
#43
#43
And Iran had a "key role" in the talks? Like I said before, if that is indeed true, that's just inexcusable. I think the UN is capable of doing some good things, but every now and then they really drop the ball, to say the least.
 
#44
#44
myrobbins7 said:
It may not come as surprising news to many of you that the United Nations doesn’t approve of our Second Amendment. Not one bit. And they very much hope to do something about it with help from some powerful American friends. Under the guise of a proposed global “Small Arms Treaty” premised to fight “terrorism”, “insurgency” and “international crime syndicates” you can be quite certain that an even more insidious threat is being targeted – our Constitutional right for law-abiding citizens to own and bear arms.


U.N. Agreement Should Have All Gun Owners Up In Arms - Forbes
Click to expand...

PKT_VOL said:
There will be one world government and one world Constitution which will supersede our current Constitution. One of criteria of that Constitution will be limiting arms (a fairly popular notion around the world). That I think is unavailable. However, such a day is far, far in the distance. I am 24 and I don't think it will be in my lifetime. Possibly in my kid's lifetime, but most definitely by my grandchildren's lifetime.
Click to expand...


Also, soilent green is people.
 
#45
#45
Funny thread is funny.

With the possible exception of senior citizens, no group is pandered to more by American politicians than gun nuts are.
 
#46
#46
Velo Vol said:
Funny thread is funny.

With the possible exception of senior citizens, no group is pandered to more by American politicians than gun nuts are.
Click to expand...

and for good reason. Our founders were brilliant men
 
#50
#50
This is the way it starts. First it's freedom of speech and choice, then on to disarming the citizens. These people have big plans for all of us, none which are good. Hitler did the same thing to his people. Obama is going to sign this treaty by the way.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top