Posted on 07/25/2012 11:19:05 AM PDT by Neil E. Wright
I don’t give two shits what the U.N OR the U.S. government says about my owning a gun or guns to protect myself and my family.
I have drawn my line in the sand. They cross it and they won’t leave alive. I’m done with these godamn tyrants.
I agree because the real game is not to keep track of them, it is for the gov to simply keep them.
Got it...thanks, xzins. I don’t think the Senate will come even close to having enough votes to ratify it.
The “game” is afoot, Watson.
The Blind Sheikh... which proves even a blind squirrel can find a nut once in a while.
It would be funny to see that thing get cut off right before the knot.
Communists are internationalists. They are opposed to the very idea of national or state sovereignity though for some reason once in power they want personal sovereignity to strip everyone else of theirs. Note that Nancy Pelosi and other "American" legislators did what they have no business doing and traveled to Europe to participate in the communist internationale meetings with their internationalist brethren. NOte also that they did not provide the minutes of those meetings to their constituency.
That's because they don't serve the people, the people serve them by being useful idiots.
14. Recognizing the legitimate international trade and lawful private ownership and use of conventional arms exclusively for, inter alia, recreational, cultural, historical and sporting activities for States where such ownership and use are permitted or protected by law;
Compare to this(the 2nd Amendment):
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Another excellent piece(as near as I can tell)!!! It must be frustrating to spend the time and effort on such as this only to be met with yawns at best. Just curious if you ever want to just throw up your hands and say to hell with it???
We only have to look to California, NYC, DC to know that registration can, and always does lead to confiscation.
You have no idea how frustrating. FReepers are just as much a bunch of sheep as everybody else, allowing their own variants of the MSM to pick their thinkers for them by ignoring anybody else as a "blog pimp."
I came here to learn how to impart ideas. In some ways, the quality of my writing has suffered for it. I wasn't ready for the possibility that they wouldn't even read enough to judge. It wasn't so bad in the early days of FR. People here were more thoughtful then.
Come and get our guns blue helmets!
I see neither of you learned the root of "explicitly" in latin class.
"inter alia" in a government document means "whatever we deem included or excluded later on, your mileage may vary at that time."
We HAD a carbon market, emphasis on had, and it was by no means full, and also a scam.
The only reason coal is being regulated out of existence is because of the Marxist in the White House. When he’s gone, look for a bunch of those regulations to disappear. If he’s re-elected, then all bets are off.
You should ask the people that wrote it.
inter alia (in-tur eh-lee-ah) prep. Latin for “among other things.” This phrase is often found in legal pleadings and writings to specify one example out of many possibilities. Example: “The judge said, inter alia, that the time to file the action had passed.”
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Inter+alia
This is what I went by. If you disagree, ok.
I truly despise discussions in which a person neglects to mention or deal with information that discounts their thesis (the ICC and the VCLT, sirrah). Keep working on that one or this is over.
Rant? Yes, I know Kyoto expired. I also know that many of the signatories are still living up to its terms. I also know that, despite Clinton signing it, the US never did. The minor carbon markets we had (yes, there were two national ones) never really got off the ground and, as I said, were a scam. I believe CA has a carbon market right now, but that’s a state issue and their business. They want to drive companies out of their state, they can feel free to do so.
And yes, I know that we do live up to some of the terms of unratified treaties as we see fit, or more correctly, as the current executive office sees fit. Push comes to shove, unratified treaties go out the window, as do ratified ones.
Change in the executive branch brings about change in what parts of what unratified treaties are adhered to, to the extent the executive branch has or can usurp the authority to do so.
Why do you bring up the ICC? It makes my point. Clinton signed on to the original document, but never sent it for ratification, and never followed it. Bush withdrew the signature. Bambi said pretend Bush didn’t do that, we’ll work with you, but that’s about as far as he’s gone.
As I said, it’s up to the whimsy of the executive branch, and no where near as cut-and-dried as you make it.
This is the third exchange on this topic and you still have not grasped the point:
Why would Bush withdraw Clinton's signature it had no force of law? Remember: GBII was concerned with that other nations would arrest and hold American soldiers abroad on charges pursuant to international law. It's still a problem.
Remember that whole business about Milosevic's trial? Remember how many times over the last fifteen years you've heard about pulling chief executives of nations onto the ICC carpet? Remember how there was some concern Bubba might be forced to testify, or be charged himself for our illegal war in Kosovo? These were all attempts to establish legal precedent. They have failed, but we did come close.
Change in the executive branch brings about change in what parts of what unratified treaties are adhered to, to the extent the executive branch has or can usurp the authority to do so.
Incorrect. It leads to change in how they are interpreted, as does subsequent rulings from whatever "secretariat" is pursuant to said treaty. Moreover, it is much more to devolve a power once it has been usurped. If this power comes to gun regulation, well, I defy you to determine how reversible that is.
As I said, it’s up to the whimsy of the executive branch, and no where near as cut-and-dried as you make it.
Except for the State Department bureaucracy Bush never fired. It's been continuous for nearly 20 years. So have the bureaucracies of Federal resource agencies, which now include their own police forces including SWAT teams, even the Park Service has them.
As to regulating carbon, note the EPA claiming the authority to regulate it as a pollutant only came about since the SCOTUS ruling to that effect. Although the trading market did fail (Kyoto), this government has been committed to reduction in carbon emissions since Bubba's scrawl on that document and that condition has not changed.
The UN document explicitly allows for recreational and historical collecting activites, such as are carved out in Britain and Australia.
stuartcr and dartuser are comfortable that "inter alia" assumptions for UN bureacrats now and forever and our Founding Fathers make the same assumptions! How ridiculous is that?!
The entire intent of this Arms Treaty is to restrict the flow of small arms to non-government forces. To restrict the flow of arms to the very individuals the Constitution comprehends.
They did not include "the right to bear arms for individual defense against enemies foreign and domestic" because they actively oppose the concept.
Furthermore, why are they doing this anyway, if not for infringing on my right, inter alia, to buy a Romanian AK47 knockoff? Why do you support that in the first place?
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.