Posted on 06/07/2011 1:53:18 PM PDT by Scythian
Edited on 06/07/2011 6:03:37 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.forbes.com ...
Bring it, commie jackwagons.
Keep reading, my FRiend. US courts have ruled numerous times that treaties don’t trump the US Constitution.
There’s only one response to tyranny, either from the u.n. or the feds.
4x20X50 diplomacy.
That is a thing of beauty.
“If you doubt my tenacity, visit NC and SC”
I am fortunate to be a South Carolina native, National Guard vet, and newly retired from the reserves. Still qualified sharpshooter at age 61 (warrrant officer) with the M-16A2. Used to shoot expert, darn it.
I have driven much of the beautiful state of North Carolina. These states are not muzzie-friendly or UN-friendly territory, to say the least. Where I live, muzzies and other furriners regard us as dangerous heavily armed rednecks. We’re blessed, for now.
I’m newly retired, and bored. Time to grab my M1A and head for the range. Sort of a homecoming, I was in the last class of recruits to qualify with the M-14 rifle during Vietnam. Just that I have to pay for my own ammo, now.
Molon labe!
Not possible, could never happen hear. Thought I would get that in before all the tough guys show up and explain, meanwhile it is drip, drip, drip.
I just dont believe that a nation that has let their borders become a sieve while they become a minority in their own country, will ever do squat, other than complain, and I am one of them.
How many patriots armed themselves and ejected the union thugs when they occupied their capital in Wisconsin? Oh we were waiting for the UN to come in and put down the insurrection right?
This will be resolved by an election, or we will knuckle under to the won. We will not be able to resist, we can die trying, but will not succeed. The Nazi’s carried on after the surrender, and they were fierce fighters, how long did they hold out?
I served more than a lifetime ago, so skip the lecture.
First off, and in my humble opinion, I believe Ron Paul is absolutely correct by saying,, "GET THE UN OUT OF AMERICA AND GET AMERICA OUT OF THE UN". It goes without saying that it is being run by third world scumbag leaders. I'm with you COL. They want my guns,, well now!! step up onto my porch and get you some. And BTW,, put a couple of libs in front of you for shielding.
Time to get the Dillon 550B's oiled up for action.
SWAT is very good now at surprise, knocking down doors and attacking with massive force & firepower.
Not so good when confronted by multiple well armed and able citizens fighting for their rights and their lives.
I predict many dead swat very quickly.
How many patriots armed themselves and ejected the union thugs when they occupied their capital in Wisconsin?
Oh please. - like it or not that was all part of the political process, even though a bit bizarre.
It did not involve union goons knocking down doors and taking our weapons for a very good reason.
There would be a great scarcity of goons very quickly.
Your straw analogy fails.
...and I will be behind one of those blades of grass. Blending right in. Let anyone try to take my legally owned firearms...;)
Now who'daaa thunk that to be fitting for the Carolinas???
excellent post!
As I said above it will be SWAT and other thugs. They will also use the BATF, FBI, DEA, and if things get real tough the Guard. Take a look at what they did to Pastor Koresh and his church members.
In New Orleans one platoon of Guardsmen said they would not obey that illegal order. Their superior passed that information up the chain of command and they were never ordered to confiscate legal guns. Other guardsmen were not as honorable and joined the police in the illegal acts.
The government will not use UN troops. They will use Americans who will willingly violate their oaths.
I have no doubt that good Americans will send many of the thugs to hell. I’m just not sure the decent people can win.
I’m also pretty sure that if they used UN troops they would face many more citizens who would resist with force and more troops who would refuse the illegal orders. It is easier to get people to fight against foreign troops than American cops and troops.
thx... 0-1200yds, they better think twice
And any invader should fully expect that Tarleton's Quarter will be the order of the day.
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. “
Contextually - *this constitution*...AND all treaties made... shall be the supreme law of the land.
This does not say that the treaty is superior in the least.
If there is conflict, we have to ask how an unconstitutional treaty, which does not require anything near the difficulty of an amendment to be passed, was ratified in the first place.
Good luck with the argument, of course.
Federalist 33 and 44 deal with the supremacy clause, mainly as a relation of the federal constitution and laws to those of the states. Treaties would not be allowed by the states as they might contradict the national government’s foreign policy, or that of other states. There is a good discussion of the notion that laws MADE PURSUANT TO the constitution are the supreme law of the land, with examples given of those that are not so. One may infer that the same would apply to treaties.
Federalist 64 deals more with treaties themselves, Publius’ argument here is more along the lines of the necessity of treaties being honored, and a rebuke of those who think that treaties, like legislative acts, can be repealed at will without serious international relations consequences.
None of these hint that a treaty supersedes the constitution in any form.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.