Obama Supports UN Small Arms Treaty
And that treaty advocates banning and confiscating personal firearms.
26 Responses to “Obama Supports UN Small Arms Treaty”
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
May 28th, 2010 at 12:01 pm
Thats OK, not is he a LAME DUCK ineffective jerk, hes about to IMPEACHED:) He has dug himself a hole on both sides of the isle and this Sustek job thing has him in a bad way. If he makes it to the 2010 election(if WE make it) the change will be enough of a margin that he will likely be impeached on a NUMBER of charges.
May 28th, 2010 at 12:19 pm
Because I believe in seeing both sides to a story:
http://www.undispatch.com/node/9553
This still sounds like a bad treaty because it focuses on guns, and not bad actors. Like Snarky said, not every rebel group or insurgency is a bad thing.
May 28th, 2010 at 12:31 pm
Of course he’d support the corrupt and idiotic UN. Look at his administration. Don’t actually look at the problem and attack the source, demonize something that you think you can actually take away to try and make themselves look good without actually doing anything except gain more power over the people you keep saying you’re just trying to help.
Sorry, horrible run-on sentence.
But regardless, from my cold dead hands.
May 28th, 2010 at 12:47 pm
Come and take it
May 28th, 2010 at 1:06 pm
About to be impeached over Sestak thats frigging hilarious. Any other nutty concepts you would like to expound on? Lame duck? Hardly. Just because you want to believe that doesn’t make it so.
Try getting your news from somewhere other than the corporate bootlickers at Fox. Or in this case the Washington Times which is the moony newspaper. Owned by a guy who says he is jesus christ who shovels billions of dollars a year into a “newspaper’ that is a propaganda rag that operates at a huge loss every year. Yup, thats the source you are quoting so uncritically.
Try thinking for yourself. I know thats hard for conservatives since you operate from fear, yours and others, but really. Man up for once.
May 28th, 2010 at 1:37 pm
darwin,
I thought this was about the UN treaty?
In any case I care not about O as I am sure the man is guilty of many crimes, possbly felonies, but he will not be charge nor convicted in the current climate as he is a democerat.
As to the UN treaty, unless the big O declares himself ruler in fact, the treaty will need to be ratified by the senate before it can be law in this land.
Then it will depend on who comes to get the guns. The UN or the local police.
As for me, can you spell insurgent? The first wave will roll over and then I will have my justice.
May 28th, 2010 at 1:40 pm
That’s your opinion Darwin, the other is his.
My opinion is that in 2 years and just under 6 months there will be another presidential election and that the current (P)resident will not be on the ballot due to his ineptness and lack of leadership skills.
Obama will still have to demonstrate that he can get the Senate to agree to the treaty and the odds of that happening? I’d give better odds on Snarlin’ Arlin winning an independent bid to return to the Senate.
Having to face the public after voting for a treaty that would order the confiscation of the country’s privately owned small arms would be political suicide.
May 28th, 2010 at 1:53 pm
Gmac,
And for the agents sent forth to enforce such treason, you could possibly leave out the word “political” in your final sentence.
The last four Administrations (including the current one) have been globalist and the only “change” we’re getting with this one is more.
May 28th, 2010 at 2:14 pm
Darwin suckles at the MSNBC teat no doubt.
May 28th, 2010 at 3:12 pm
Senate won’t ratify, Harry Reid might not even let it come up for a vote. *yawn*
May 28th, 2010 at 3:38 pm
How much longer will Harry Reid be running the Senate?
Last I heard things were looking pretty grim for his reelection bid.
May 28th, 2010 at 5:40 pm
I agree with Mark.
The European man with the blue helmet ain’t taking my guns.
May 28th, 2010 at 5:52 pm
Does anyone else find Darwin’s appellation ironic? I mean he singlehandedly offers proof that Darwin’s theory of evolution is most probably wrong. Hell, he hasn’t even evolved into a sentient human being.
Paul, I’m not sure I see your point. No matter who they send, I will target. The UN or the local police.
May 28th, 2010 at 5:56 pm
Agree with Paul and JJR, I don’t think it could pass the senate. As I commented at Snarkybytes, I have a feeling that at least enough, maybe even many, of the democratic senators outside of Cali/Illinois/Northeast would vote with republicans against it.
May 28th, 2010 at 6:21 pm
No Darwin just sucks it.
And not very well, either. Apparently his mom didn’t teach him how.
May 28th, 2010 at 6:25 pm
Whats up with this Darwin guy, Unk? Hired entertainment?!
May 28th, 2010 at 6:50 pm
Just because this website hasn’t had a silly troll in, well, forever, don’t think it shouldn’t have one. Ace of Spades HQ and Proteinwisdom can’t have all the crazies in the world commenting just on those two sites.
May 28th, 2010 at 9:27 pm
I have never understood the blue hat thing. Are they trying to make themselves easy targets or something? Can you imagine all the head shots in a un war.
May 28th, 2010 at 10:35 pm
What was that old joke about the bar scene from S/W?
May 29th, 2010 at 7:47 am
Not likely to be considered a reputable source, but here goes:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp
No UN treaty can override the Constitution of the US, no matter how hard the politicians would like it to.
(Posted this over at Alan’s site as well.)
May 29th, 2010 at 1:17 pm
Snopes is unreliable on political stuff, yes. But they did get this right.
The Bill of Rights supersedes the Articles of the constitution. The treaty provision is an article.
I would prefer to not have to fight this one in the courts, however. Best course is to apply a firm bitchslapping in congress if that lame duck signs the odious thing.
May 30th, 2010 at 10:23 am
The Preamble to the Bill of Rights says that they are “further declarative and restrictive clauses were added…” AFTER the Constitution was ordained. The Bill fo Rights supercede anything in the Constitution which would certainly include any treaty with a foreign power or powers that would infringe or violate any of the declared rights such as the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear (carry) arms.
AND, according to Article I, Section 8.15,16, the Federal Government only can govern “such part of the militia that it calls forth in its service and employs”. IF one is NOT an employee by the Fedral Gov’t, it has NO “delegated powers” (10th Amendment) over any person’s RIGHT to keep and carry arms.
But as we can see…they would allow the UN to trample the words of the Constitution and Bill of Rights too!
May 30th, 2010 at 10:02 pm
#20 the constitution has received more “open interpretation” in the last decade than our Grandparents could have ever imagined.
“The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it away”
May 30th, 2010 at 10:03 pm
20=> the constitution has received more “open interpretation” in the last decade than our Grandparents could have ever imagined.
“The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it away”
May 31st, 2010 at 11:43 am
The Constitution should be read, just as any other legal document, and interpreted objectively according to English grammar and the dictionary meaning of words:
“Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted,
bastardized form of illegitimate government.”
-James Madison
The true key for the construction (interpretation) of everything doubtful in a law is the intention of the lawgivers. This is most safely gathered from the words, but may be sought in extraneous circumstances, provided they do not contradict THE EXPRESS WORDS OF THE LAW.” –Thomas Jefferson
The U. S. Supreme Court was right when it said,
“The Constitution is a written instrument and as such its meaning does not alter, that which it meant when it was adopted, it means now!” U.S. vs. South Carolina (1905) –U.S. Supreme Court decision
But….
“How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!”
–Samuel Adams
June 1st, 2010 at 11:51 pm
To the boys in baby blue helmets:
Mow-lawn luh-vay.