Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Morris: Civilian gun ban to be signed July 27
Fox News Channel (no link) | 7/5/12

Posted on 07/05/2012 5:46:45 AM PDT by pabianice

Dick Morris now on Fox. Morris says the UN Gun Ban Treaty is scheduled to be signed by Obama's U.S. ambassador to the UN on July 27. According to Morris, treaty will be rammed through by the lame duck Senate after the November election if the Democrats are still in charge. A treaty, of course, supercedes the U.S. Constitution. Interesting months ahead.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: banglist; gunban; treaties; ungunbantreaty; vanity
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-224 next last

1 posted on 07/05/2012 5:46:51 AM PDT by pabianice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: pabianice

Correction: the Dems will still run the Senate during the lame duck session regardless of who wins the 2012 election.


2 posted on 07/05/2012 5:48:49 AM PDT by pabianice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

“A treaty, of course, supercedes the U.S. Constitution.”

Says who?


3 posted on 07/05/2012 5:50:20 AM PDT by Conscience of a Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

Molon Labe


4 posted on 07/05/2012 5:50:20 AM PDT by 109ACS (If this be Treason, then make the most of it. Patrick Henry, May 1765)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

—Interesting months ahead.—

Hey! That’s MY line!


5 posted on 07/05/2012 5:50:20 AM PDT by cuban leaf (Were doomed! Details at eleven.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bang_list

get ready


6 posted on 07/05/2012 5:50:31 AM PDT by herewego ( Got .45?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

A Gun ban?

No, more like a penalty. You will be taxed ..... so that it is not possible for private citizens to own them.

Just ask the Coal Industry.


7 posted on 07/05/2012 5:50:57 AM PDT by Sir Napsalot (Pravda + Useful Idiots = CCCP; JournOList + Useful Idiots = DopeyChangey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
A treaty, of course, supercedes the U.S. Constitution.

Not in my house it doesn't.
8 posted on 07/05/2012 5:51:04 AM PDT by cripplecreek (What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

The definition of “unalienable” still stands.
The reality of “unalienable rights” still stands.

This will be like trying to outlaw gravity.
Those trying to enforce it will face the reality of it.


9 posted on 07/05/2012 5:51:45 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

No treaty which violates the Bill of Rights has any validity in America and anyone complicit in attempting to enforce such a treaty should be taught first hand about the purpose of the Second Amendment.


10 posted on 07/05/2012 5:51:45 AM PDT by ZULU (See: http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=D9vQt6IXXaM&hd)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

The Democrats have ceased to be anything other than Communists. This will be just another example. The real question is how many “Americans” are there like this?


11 posted on 07/05/2012 5:52:41 AM PDT by HarleyD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

Than the American people will try them for treason themselves.


12 posted on 07/05/2012 5:54:04 AM PDT by freekitty (Give me back my conservative vote; then find me a real conservative to vote for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ZULU

>>anyone complicit in attempting to enforce such a treaty should be taught first hand about the purpose of the Second Amendment.<<

Right!


13 posted on 07/05/2012 5:54:04 AM PDT by servantboy777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
A treaty, of course, supercedes the U.S. Constitution. Interesting months ahead.

No it doesn't, not if its provisions clash with any of its provisions or amendments.

14 posted on 07/05/2012 5:54:39 AM PDT by Timber Rattler (Just say NO! to RINOS and the GOP-E)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

1) A treaty does not trump the US Constitution. If so, the entire Constitution could be scrapped by a treaty.

2) There are not enough votes in the Senate to pass this. It requires 2/3 and and that means roughly 67 senators have to vote for it and that is highly unlikely.


15 posted on 07/05/2012 5:55:33 AM PDT by Comstock1 (You can't have Falstaff and have him thin.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

We may have to surround the U.N. first and take care of business, then on to the Capitol and WH.


16 posted on 07/05/2012 5:55:50 AM PDT by crosshairs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

If they do this, they might as well give Romney the keys to the White House.


17 posted on 07/05/2012 5:56:03 AM PDT by trackman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

I’m all for the Obamites to charge full speed ahead with this in July.

Go for it and Godspeed to you!
Its a big winner!!


18 posted on 07/05/2012 5:57:10 AM PDT by bill1952 (Choice is an illusion created between those with power - and those without)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

An end run around the Constitution? Who’da thunk it? Oh wait...

How are our Marxist leaders going to enforce it? Blue helmaets make excellent targets, after all...


19 posted on 07/05/2012 5:59:15 AM PDT by JimRed (Excising a cancer before it kills us waters the Tree of LibertyI'm st! TERM LIMITS, NOW AND FOREVER!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

Collecting all those guns will be an interesting challenge for the blue helmeted brownshirts.

I’ll be handing mine over “bullet first”. Except the shotgun, which I’ll hand over “buckshot first”.

There are fates worse than death.


20 posted on 07/05/2012 5:59:21 AM PDT by Nervous Tick (Trust in God, but row away from the rocks!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bill1952

These guys look like they are operating as if they will not be in power after this year.

Just an observation....


21 posted on 07/05/2012 5:59:30 AM PDT by ilgipper ( November cannot come soon enough)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
A treaty, of course, supercedes the U.S. Constitution.

Where in the Constitution does it say that??

I know it authorizes that Congress can approve treaties, but where does it say that sovereignty, or the Bill of Rights is given up to one??

I thought in Bush vs Texas, SCOTUS confirmed that the Constitution had supremacy over treaties.

22 posted on 07/05/2012 5:59:46 AM PDT by skully (06/28/2012 : The banner no longer yet waves....Gadsden DTOM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Conscience of a Conservative

Well a little research confirms that treaties are not binding on us if they conflict with the Constitution. In other words, treaties DO NOT superceded U S Constitution. See e.g.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110610055819AA2GfUk

Our problem is only a 5-4 majority of court rules that 2nd Amendment is a personal right of liberty. More Obama appointments and even maybe the turned-Roberts may upset the apple cart.


23 posted on 07/05/2012 5:59:46 AM PDT by shalom aleichem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
A treaty, of course, supersedes the U.S. Constitution.

I'll bet most Native Americans will disagree with that statement.

24 posted on 07/05/2012 5:59:46 AM PDT by Harley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

A portion of leftists have even seen the danger of government disarming the citizens.


25 posted on 07/05/2012 6:00:14 AM PDT by listenhillary (Courts, law enforcement, roads and national defense should be the extent of government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

They come to my door to take away my guns, they had better be ready. Lock and load!


26 posted on 07/05/2012 6:01:45 AM PDT by DonkeyBonker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

It only takes a couple of Senators beholding to the NRA to defeat this. Indeed, passing such a treaty would destroy more than a dozen Senate careers in ‘14 and ‘16.

Members of the World’s Most Exclusive Club like their membership more than any given vote or ideology. Far more.

It’s good to be a king.

I think this is mindless Morris speculation. No way there are enough Senate votes for this.


27 posted on 07/05/2012 6:04:06 AM PDT by ziravan (Are you better off now than you were $9.4 Trillion dollars ago?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

Why not? They already learned that Conservatives will not take to the streets and fight when obamacare was rammed down their throats. Why not a gun ban “treaty”? Sooner or later, probably when it is too late, Conservatives will realize that they have two choices. They are:1. Take a stand and fight- die like men. 2. Be slaughtered as slaves.

It will be a personal decision but it will be the only one left. As those who fought the Japs in World War II learned, surrender is not an option.


28 posted on 07/05/2012 6:04:14 AM PDT by sport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

What are you guys worried about? Harry Reid’s on our side - right?


29 posted on 07/05/2012 6:04:38 AM PDT by OKSooner (Never take a "known safety risk" shooting with you even if he is an ordained minister.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nervous Tick

Where is that pic of the bullet-riddled blue helmet?


30 posted on 07/05/2012 6:05:27 AM PDT by elcid1970 (Nuke Mecca now. Death to Islam means freedom for all mankind. Deus vult!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
treaty will be rammed through by the lame duck Senate after the November election if the Democrats are still in charge.

Last time I checked it required 2/3 of the Senate to vote to ratify a treaty. I know that sometimes they try some BS where the president makes an "agreement" rather than a "treaty" like NAFTA, but this is an actual treaty. Will the Republicans vote for it or not? I hope so but I never bet against their spinelessness.

31 posted on 07/05/2012 6:05:35 AM PDT by KarlInOhio (You only have three billion heartbeats in a lifetime.How many does the government claim as its own?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

Text thereof? Link?

The hysteria seems wanton & baseless.
The text of the bill is rarely referenced by those hyperventilating over it; methinks they haven’t read it.
The Congress needs enough votes to pass it that passage is improbable.
No treaty “supersedes” the Constitution.
Outright prohibition on ownership would, of course, prove...problematic.

At worst, such a treaty would reduce international trade therein. American manufacturers would pick up the slack.

(I’m not defending the UN. Just saying those screaming “Congress is gonna ban guns by shredding the Constitution!” know little of what they speak.)


32 posted on 07/05/2012 6:06:39 AM PDT by ctdonath2 ($1 meals: http://abuckaplate.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DonkeyBonker

I think it was Benjamin Franklin who said. “We must all stick together or surely we will all hang together”.

Don’t try to do it alone.

The ones coming after your guns will not be alone.


33 posted on 07/05/2012 6:07:25 AM PDT by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: MrB

“Those trying to enforce it will face the reality of it”.

So will the above be before or after the impeachment of the President for attempting to destroy that which he is by sacred oath, bound to protect?


34 posted on 07/05/2012 6:08:18 AM PDT by wita
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

>>A treaty, of course, supercedes the U.S. Constitution.<<

No it doesn’t.


35 posted on 07/05/2012 6:08:37 AM PDT by freedumb2003 (Guns Walked -- People Died -- Holder Lied -- Obama Golfed (thanks, Secret Agent Man))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: skully

>>> I thought in Bush vs Texas, SCOTUS confirmed that the Constitution had supremacy over treaties.

NOT ANYMORE.

Don’t forget that we learned just last week that conservatives no longer have a majority on the bench.

If Roberts will cave on healthcare, he will cave on anything.


36 posted on 07/05/2012 6:09:30 AM PDT by Safrguns
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Harley

Indeed, I could heat my home with piles of useless treaties... “until the stone melts” pfftttt


37 posted on 07/05/2012 6:09:38 AM PDT by NativeSon ( Grease the floor with Crisco when I dance the Disco)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Comstock1
It requires 2/3 and and that means roughly 67 senators have to vote for it and that is highly unlikely.

Better not take anything for granted in this day & age of up is down, down is up, right is wrong & wrong is right. Start calling, emailing, visiting Senators NOW. A vote for this is a vote to go home. Period.

38 posted on 07/05/2012 6:10:19 AM PDT by MissMagnolia (Being powerful is like being a lady. If you have to tell people you are, you aren't. (M.Thatcher))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: ilgipper

Good observation. One problem. If they are acting like this knowing they wont be in power after..why are they doing it? The new congress will simply reverse course.

They think they WILL be in power after the new election. They intend on a complete take over.


39 posted on 07/05/2012 6:10:56 AM PDT by crz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
A treaty, of course, supercedes the U.S. Constitution.

More details:

Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, known as the Supremacy Clause:

"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, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

40 posted on 07/05/2012 6:12:05 AM PDT by freedumb2003 (Guns Walked -- People Died -- Holder Lied -- Obama Golfed (thanks, Secret Agent Man))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Conscience of a Conservative
“A treaty, of course, supercedes the U.S. Constitution.”

Says who?

Some argue that Article VI says it. I haven't checked the Federalist Papers or other contemporary writings to see the founders' actual interpretation of this confusingly worded article.

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.

I would argue that any treaty in violation of the Constitution fails to meet the "under the Authority of the United States" requirement and is therefore invalid. But then on the other hand I thought that Chief Justice Roberts would follow the Constitution with Obamacare, so what do I know about Constitutional law.

41 posted on 07/05/2012 6:13:12 AM PDT by KarlInOhio (You only have three billion heartbeats in a lifetime.How many does the government claim as its own?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

Republican votes would be needed to pass he treaty.


42 posted on 07/05/2012 6:14:22 AM PDT by Mike Darancette (Obamaid has to go.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Venturer
“We must all stick together or surely we will all hang together”.

"We must hang together, gentlemen...else, we shall most assuredly hang separately."

43 posted on 07/05/2012 6:14:36 AM PDT by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2

Put nothing past any gathering of self-serving insulated liberal B’tards.
Morris may be a blowhard but he does understand the bizarre mechanizations of Washington.


44 posted on 07/05/2012 6:14:35 AM PDT by bossmechanic (If all else fails, hit it with a hammer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: crosshairs
"We may have to surround the U.N. first and take care of business, then on to the Capitol and WH."

I have a dream: A fugitive Obama cowering in a hut in Kenya picking lice out of his filth caked hair waiting for the new US Administration authorities to come and arrest him for crimes against the American people.

45 posted on 07/05/2012 6:15:15 AM PDT by Truth29
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
A treaty, of course, supercedes the U.S. Constitution.

Wow! So the 2014 Population Reduction Treaty, in which all countries promise to 'liquidate' eighty-percent of their population, would be okay? It wouldn't violate the Constitutional protection to life?

46 posted on 07/05/2012 6:15:31 AM PDT by Lazamataz (People who resort to Godwin's Law are just like Hitler.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: elcid1970
Always a crowd-pleaser:


47 posted on 07/05/2012 6:16:13 AM PDT by freedumb2003 (Guns Walked -- People Died -- Holder Lied -- Obama Golfed (thanks, Secret Agent Man))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2

“The hysteria seems wanton & baseless.”

Of course, it’s Dick Morris.


48 posted on 07/05/2012 6:17:20 AM PDT by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: DonkeyBonker
They come to my door to take away my guns, they had better be ready.

If they come to your door that means they know where you live. You are surrounded, outnumbered, likely outgunned and your family is in the line of fire. So you give them that old .22 target rifle with the broken spring. Then carefully note what organization they are from and where it is located.

Offices and vehicles of organizations like that have a tendency to catch fire. Apparently they tend to be very careless with matches. With all those confiscated weapons and all that seized ammo stored there these tragic accidents are far too common. Weird how that works.
49 posted on 07/05/2012 6:17:33 AM PDT by GonzoGOP (There are millions of paranoid people in the world and they are all out to get me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

That’s idiotic. It takes a two-thirds vote to ratify a treaty and even in the current Senate, they could not come close to even a bare majority to ratify something like that, much less 67 votes.


50 posted on 07/05/2012 6:18:27 AM PDT by PhatHead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-224 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson