Skip to comments.Skinning Cats: Legal Means to Disarm the Second Amendment
Posted on 05/06/2007 8:21:20 PM PDT by Carry_Okie
click here to read article
There are lots of ways for to skin a cat, this is but one of them.
Private property as a concept is under enarly conatant assualt, the Government carves out exceptions to the idea all the time, and the justify under there idea that anyhting but building a building on the taken property is not a “taking”.
Teh moderates are planning on running on Environmental Protections this coming election, no surprise really as to people in large cities it is easy to support stealing property under color of law out in “Flyover Country”.
Yeah, we might be up for that revolution thing sooner than even I thought. . .
Absolutely terrifying. When you add to this the trend in the world nowdays for corporate mergers and also governmental mergers(the EU, nafta, etc), ever larger and more powerfull entities...I’m scared spitless what the world will look like in 50 years.
Lest we forget, the Battle of Lexington-Concord was over Gun Control.
Well done. I never thought about the 2/3 present. The other thing to remember is Senators weren’t originally popularly elected. They were chosen by their state legislatures.
All this is from an evil obsession with control that seeks to systematically empower despots to outlaw and seize all firearms so that they can impose a totalitarian regime upon a defenseless America.
Some prefer not granting final authority to the Citizens, but rather to the judges who ultimately serve at our pleasure and on our payroll.
It’s at OUR pleasure. It’s OUR payroll.
And our judicial recall/impeachment process, when necessary.
Two-thirds of the senate present not two-thirds of the senate got my attention straight off.Pack of sneaky runts.
Correct. Effectively, treaties were to be ratified by the states.
I think we’re in a mess. I’m close to being fed up. I can’t believe all the nonsense that is happening. We’re supposed to have the world’s greatest deliberative body, the U.S. Senate! How does anyone debate with those who said we lost? Who lost to whom? I am fuming.
"I smell a rat." Immortal words uttered by Christian Statesman Patrick Henry when he refused his invitation to attend the US Constitutional Convention in 1787.
It's up to us. It always has been.
Congress appears to represent everything that the people are for. But when it comes to a vote, rarely do they vote as they tell the people how they would vote.
Tell us what we want to hear. Stab us in the back.
congress is a bunch of overpaid, underworked wimps.
But blue helmets make such wonderful aim points.
Here's my new flag.
Yeah, we might be up for that revolution thing sooner than even I thought.”
Nice thought, but too late.
You couldn’t get three people together to plan a revolution without one of them being a snitch.
And Goliad, the first battle for Texas independence from Mexico.
“Lest we forget, the Battle of Lexington-Concord was over Gun Control.”
I’d like to ask permission to use that some day for a tagline? Actually its so good, and I don’t see a copyright on it - I just might steal it anyway!
A covenant not to defend myself from force, by force, is always void. (Thomas Hobbes)
There is another get-around, they could more easily shut off the sale of ammo, than come for our guns.
Buy more ammo, LOTS more!
The desire to rule over other men, to live off the labor of others, to be a elite, a royalty, never ceases. The serpents were at the beginning and always with us. The serpents names change, but the form is always the same.
And more on subject, don't forget controlling the ammo.
American Model United Nations International
We also believe in the importance of controlling ammunition for small arms and would like to this area approached as a possible solution to the problem. As the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lloyd Axworthy, has said, "Small arms are ubiquitous, but they are useless without ammunition. We should consider how we might track, control or mark ammunition as one way of controlling the lethal effect of these weaponsÉ sometimes it is too late to stop the supply of the weapons themselves; but if you stop the supply of bullets, you stop the killing." We also wish to stress the utmost importance of increased transparency in the trafficking of small arms.
International Small Arms and Light Weapons Transfers: U.S. Policy
The United Nations definition of small arms are those weapons manufactured to military specifications and designed for use by one person. Light weapons, according to the UN definition, are those utilized by several individuals working together as a crew. Ammunition and explosives required for either small arms or light weapons are covered by the definition.
a package of 34 treaties, all of which were ratified by a show of hands -- no recorded vote.
It's linked in the article. :-)
No kidding. It's just not common knowledge that the means were embedded in the Constitution from the beginning.
Great article; thank you.
The American Revolution was a civil war between the Royalists and small group from the Colonists, less than half at the start. As it seems from then, 1945, 1989, and other clashes between Freedom and Oppression -- Freedom won the battles, but Oppression never stopped the war. The Royalists may get knocked back a step, but they regroup and forge ahead anew, spewing disaffection and poverty all around them.
The Royalists always were and are Socialists, be they politicians, corporate leaders, Islamists, the MSM, ad nauseum. I fear for my Country.
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;
Senators present not two-thirds of the full Senate. Its the Constitutions original Trojan Horse.
Methinks that it is time for the People to start pressuring Congress and the state legislatures to enact a Constitutional Amendment that would: 1) Make the approval of 2/3 of all Senators required to pass a treaty; and 2) make it a requirement that each and every treaty that comes before the full Senate be subjected to a recorded vote - separate from all other treaties.
This needs to be done on a 2-track system - first via Congress (i.e. the conventional way that Amendments are proposed) and second via the mechanism of calling for a Constitutional Convention. Congress generally won't move on Amendments unless they are highly popular ideas (like voting rights at age 18), or unless they are pressured to do so. This one isn't going to be highly popular, so we need to turn up the heat on our employees.
While we're at it, we need to clarify the "takings" clause of the 5th Amendment, such that ONLY property being taken for direct public use (not destruction) like schools, bridges, tunnels, roads, military bases, etc. can be taken, even with compensation. To allow Kelo-type takings to benefit private businesses or to enhance property tax revenues at the expense of the present owner's property rights is utterly hideous, and we need to make the SOBs in Congress and in many of the states aware of who they are working for.
We have a 2nd Amendment that makes everything nice-nice, yet we can't have a wide variety of weapons and the ones we can have are priced through the roof.
And God forbid your wife should beat you to the phone after a rough night on the town, because then you'd never be able to defend yourself again.
In Third world hell holes that we call repressed everybody and his favorite goat has a fully automatic AK and the thing only costs about $300!
Something is off.
Exactly what I've been advocating for years.
Although I agree with you in principle, I have a different take on that problem.
Amendments to the Constitution superseed any treaties.
In theory, but not in practice. Read the article.
If that’s the case, can the US Constitution (and the US) be destroyed by a single treaty?
The United States exists, in part, because other governments acknowledge that it exists. That was accomplihsed by treaty. Those treaties pre-exist the Constitution. Nations surrender and are dissovled by treaty.
So in answer to your question, as far as I know, legally yes. The reality is up to the people.
And require premium compensation, like say 125% of the highest reasonable appraisal, as compensation for people having to leave a place they might not have chosen to leave, and a disincentive for governments to use condemnation unless the land is direly needed.
Maybe someone can correct me if I’m wrong, but I seem to remember a case back in the 1950’s where the supreme court ruled that a signed and ratified treaty can NOT supercede the constitution and is null and void if it attempts to.
I’m no lawyer, but, I think that Article VI is clearly stating a hierarchy of laws and authority. The Constitution trumps Federal laws, which trump treaties, which trump State constitutions and laws. I think that proof of treaties’ inferiority to Federal law can be shown by the fact that no Indian tribe, AFAIK, has ever been able to recover damages when Congress abrogates a treaty. (They’ve had to make any recoveries the good, ol’ fashioned way: By bribing Congress!) If your theory were true, the Senate and the President could conspire to amend the Constitution by entering into convenient treaties with any banana republic wanting a little cash.
And you accomplished that--very well.
Alarmed and sickened at the same time.
No treaty has ever been trumped by the Constitution in the Supreme Court. If the example provided in the Convention on Nature Protection isn't enough, I don't know what is.
In seven years discussing this on FR, I've never seen anyone cite such a case, and believe me, there has been occasion.
Wake up America!
Great concept - but how about 150%? Give government a real disincentive to take private property.
However, those rights enumerated were in fact guarantees.
Otherwise a treaty could invalidate the right to free speech along with all the others.
Of course such matters would not prevent them from trying.