Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
When you tell a lie long enough it becomes the truth. Russian tactics and gun rights nuts all the same stuff. It quacks like a duck as well.
This is true which is why I won't believe anybody usually right off the bat without putting some thought into it. But profiling does have some truth to it at the same time.
Signing a treaty trumps our US Constitution, all without any of the hoops needed to actually amend the Constitution.
Well the Constitution says in Article VI, Section 2 that the Constitution and treaties make up the Supreme Law of the land but the Court involved has always ruled that the Constitution is the supremest but who knows what Roberts might do if that question comes up and we know what the 3 girls and Breyer would say about it
(PS - The '80s flick "Valley Girl" [1983] was on yesterday, and I noticed a persistent contrail in the sky during one shot. Thought you might like to know, as it directly contradicts the whole notion that "chemtrails" were started in the '90s.)
Darned good article but I wonder just how much some of the more recent people who took the oath really meant it when they repeated the words. Obama considers the Constitution to be only a speed bump in his way and several Congressmen and women think the same way. Words have meaning, Obama once said, but they mean what he wants them to mean when they get in his way.
No I don't endorse lies and I have seen pro 2nd amendment people sensationalize before and I will not comment on this treaty itself as I don't know the details but my comments and beliefs are there because of a known and shown past history of Clinton, Obama and various democrats (with a couple republicans to boot) who did lie and were caught and who did put out pure BS. It is also widely known that many in the U.N do not support civilians owning weapons so I can only say that if it looks like a duck, quaks like a duck, it must be a duck.
And it's not like we can depend on this milquetoast congress to watch our backs, and this president does not give a rat's ass for the US Constitution, or the will of the people. Obama sure as hell would not have a problem enacting laws and regulations that send back to the stone-age, as long as he can implement his green energy agenda, and I don't think he'd lose sleep in he signed a treaty that essentially repealed the 2nd amendment either.
First of all, there isn't even a Arms Trade Treaty. Their is a PROPOSAL to draft a treaty, and the conference in July is about going through the information that various countries have submitted, and studying how regulation of the international arms trade could be fostered so that, for instance, the Syrian government purchasing arms to use against their own people could be inhibited.
Secondly, the treaty is about International Arms Trade. Not about the rights of Americans to own weapons.
Third, Congress would have to ratify such an agreement and would then have to pass laws so that we were in compliance with such an agreement. The United States Congress has been known to refuse to ratify international treaties, and the United States Congress has been known to ratify a treaty and then fail to honor the treaty by passing laws to bring us into compliance.
Fourth, the WND lives to scare conservatives about the federal government, generally needlessly.
I never read the WND because I know progressives don't like us to read it. Really that is the reason. However, I do read a number of right leaning blogs and have been seeing the ads about this treaty for more than a year. Oh yes, Hillary was pushing this thing months ago.
The Treaty is not completed but has been there in a fashion for a long time and obviously the UN wants us to ratify it when it gets past them, which it will very soon.
Yeah, it is written and just waiting and only fools don't think that the majority of members of the UN want it to go through in hopes they can take the guns from citizens of the US, Australia, Canada and other democratic governments. Your third point is purely stupidity that I bet you took it from some left leaning blog. Which one was it?
And it's not like we can depend on this milquetoast congress to watch our backs, and this president does not give a rat's ass for the US Constitution, or the will of the people. Obama sure as hell would not have a problem enacting laws and regulations that send back to the stone-age, as long as he can implement his green energy agenda, and I don't think he'd lose sleep in he signed a treaty that essentially repealed the 2nd amendment either.
Irrational fear! You can't depend on Congress??? Why not?
President Obama doesn't give a rat's ass for the US Constitution??? Who says? Right-wing pundits selling books?
President Obama wants to take the United States to the Stone Age? Why? Why would anyone want to do that?
Stone age helps implement green energy agenda?
Treaties don't overwrite the Constitution. Ever.
So basically, you're living in irrational fear land.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
