NATO To Control US Arms?

[krimsonviper]

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/is-the- ... nt-rights/

June 7th, 2011

In recent times, our president and the administration has passed an international bill called the “Small Arms Treaty.” This is to help combat terrorism, but is it really a way for our president, who obviously doesn’t like guns, to over-write our second amendment?

This puts another hamper on the actual citizens who are legally obtaining weapons, but it also shows the government yet ANOTHER way to control the public. I’m really surprised I haven’t seen this anywhere on the FORMUS. Is the public really getting blinded by the popular news to see what the government is doing to us? This is a really scary occurrence to happen to us, and I, for one, am about 3/4’s the way to purchasing my handgun and I will not be handing it over freely. In fact, it’ll be “misplaced” if this does start to happen.

The Treaty is yet another reason for other countries to call us hypocrites. The leaders are agreeing with this treaty, yet the public isn't going to abide by it? This is a huge mistake on "our" part.

[nissangirl74]

Many people over there at the Blaze are a bunch of dramatists. You might want to check out all of this information before you panic.

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&sa=X&ei=Ie ... 80&bih=949

Plus, this is old news. (Check out the dates on the most popular stuff in the SE results).

[hannibal]

Don't we still have politics forum? Shouldn't this be posted in there?

[snwbrdr435]

Go buy some tinfoil

[nissangirl74]

Don't we still have politics forum? Shouldn't this be posted in there?

Yep, and I moved it there.

[krimsonviper]

Many people over there at the Blaze are a bunch of dramatists. You might want to check out all of this information before you panic.

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&sa=X&ei=Ie ... 80&bih=949

Plus, this is old news. (Check out the dates on the most popular stuff in the SE results).

I followed another link leading to ISACS, which apparently is the bigger threat, and using this Small Arms Treaty as the point of the sword.
http://thetruthaboutguns.com/2011/06/ro ... your-guns/

Then another writer states that the Treaty details is pretty much a secret until it's fully written and ready to be signed. In this one, it states that Hillary Clinton, who is also against guns, states "did not, in fact, sign any treaty regarding small arms, nor was such a treaty negotiated or ratified by the Senate," and then later states that Obama administration is working on a new treaty, that Bell from Forbes had already addressed from a link in my first post.

http://scpatriotsclub.com/blog/?p=82

And a more enlightening article:
http://themorningsidepost.com/2011/04/u ... in-future/

Being a noob to such matters, who do I trust? Where do I find out the actual information that I need to make a conscious decision without writer's influence? I've tried google, and they're all blogs, many of them using terms and actions that I don't understand and I can't seem to find a "Politics for Dummies" anywhere, unless it's by a blog.

[krimsonviper]

Go buy some tinfoil

[stebo0728]

Would the ratification of such a treaty trump SCOTUS ability to rule the measures unconstitutional? Usually when I see absurd legislation on gun control, I rest easy knowing the SCOTUS should cut through the bull, but being under the guise of a NATO Treaty, does that remove the SCOTUS umbrella of protection?

[krimsonviper]

Don't we still have politics forum? Shouldn't this be posted in there?

Yep, and I moved it there.

I don't see why my thread should be moved if TMS and PMQ's thread's get a place in Gen. Chat. Can I have their threads moved to Politics forum as well so this confusion ends?

[szh]

Moved those two as well. I forgot to leave a shadow link in place for TMS's thread, so don't get confused by PMQ's thread "still there in Gen Chat".

[themadscientist]

People comin after my guns, movin my threads. Somebody feels lucky.

[krimsonviper]

People comin after my guns, movin my threads. Somebody feels lucky.

[Cold_Zero]

44 Magnum, the bore looks so tinny tiny.

While I am a big advocate for the 2nd Amendment and always leery of the United States abdicating their Sovereignty to foreign governments or entities, I must say that this is nothing new. I think that rumors of our rights, specifically our rights to possess firearms (protected by the 2nd Amendment) being taken away from foreign entities have been around since the John Birch Society’s founding. These things are particularly worrisome to Conservatives, when we have a President or people in the Federal Government that can be construed as being ‘Internationalist’ or open to allowing these types of Foreign Treaties to hold precedence inside our country.

[Mr1der]

probably because it's a .41 Magnum Bud.

[Cold_Zero]

"Yeah. 220... 221, whatever it takes. "

I thought it was a Model 29. 44 mag?

[Encryptshun]

Our strategy with NATO should be like my preferred method of birth control -- pull out before we need to shoot. If the Eurozone takes it on the chin, let them clean up the mess for once.

[themadscientist]

Want my gun Europe? Come get it. I'll give you the bullets first.



I would pit any decently populated rural town's lossely-organized gun owners against a company of regular European soldiers any day.

We're the only reason you f*** ers aren't all speaking German, don't make us flip the script.

[Cold_Zero]

Need I point out that the reason why we don’t speak 'British' sic[/u] is because of the Europeans? Namely, the French. While I do not doubt that it was the Arsenal of Democracy that kept the UK and Russians in the fight during WWII. Said non Fascist Europeans and the Rus had still fight to resist Central/South European fascism.

[themadscientist]

The Revolution was definately tipped because of European backing, but the war was wildly unpopular in England, fought with Europen mercenaries to a great degree and while it would have gone on longer we still would have worn the British will down eventually. Europe during WWII was on the brink. They would not have won without us. England would have succombed and Russia would have pushed the Germans back to a contested border.

Regardless, I'll award the title of "even." Since we are even, we owe them nothing further and as I previously suggested, they can get bent.

[IBCoupe]

Would the ratification of such a treaty trump SCOTUS ability to rule the measures unconstitutional? Usually when I see absurd legislation on gun control, I rest easy knowing the SCOTUS should cut through the bull, but being under the guise of a NATO Treaty, does that remove the SCOTUS umbrella of protection?

Treaties can't violate the Constitution, except as they exceed Congress' structural authority. Court held a while back that the Tenth Amendment doesn't stop treaties, but Congress can't enact a treaty that abridges the free exercise of religion, for example.

[stebo0728]

Would the ratification of such a treaty trump SCOTUS ability to rule the measures unconstitutional? Usually when I see absurd legislation on gun control, I rest easy knowing the SCOTUS should cut through the bull, but being under the guise of a NATO Treaty, does that remove the SCOTUS umbrella of protection?

Treaties can't violate the Constitution, except as they exceed Congress' structural authority. Court held a while back that the Tenth Amendment doesn't stop treaties, but Congress can't enact a treaty that abridges the free exercise of religion, for example.

But a treaty isn't filtered through SCOTUS to determine its relative constitutionality before being ratified. And as it seems most of Washington is far from constitutional scholars, what if the treaty is found to abridge the constitution after the fact. Does it get ruled null and void upon such decision?

p.s. - glad ur back to answer the tough ones

[IBCoupe]

But a treaty isn't filtered through SCOTUS to determine its relative constitutionality before being ratified.

neither are any other laws or Constitutional amendments. Our Court differs from others in the world in that it refuses to hear abstract cases. Jefferson once filed with the Supreme Court to get its opinion on whether it would be legal for him to signal upcoming bill. The Court threw up their hands and said, "Not our job." If I recall, the non-opinion opinion goes by the title "In re The Jefferson Letters."

Whether it's Constitutional or not, the Court's not going to say a peep until Congress ratifies it, passes enacting legislation, "injures" someone, and gets sued. At that point, a law banning the ownership of firearms or whatever it is this hypothetical treaty purports to do would be judged, and the enacting legislation would probably be struck down.

And I missed you, too.