SIG Sauer 556 Arms Forum banner
1 - 9 of 9 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,727 Posts
They're not going to give up until they reach their goal or they are finally put out of power.

Don't know how much good writing/calling reps and senators is anymore, but we should prob still do it.

They're always looking for an end run, or a long slow erosion - anything to remove RKBA.

When's the last time you had to think about this- http://www.sigarms556.com/viewtopic.php?t=1261

There are even 'experts' advertising on the radio about how to hide your guns. Of course they say they are teaching you how to hide your guns from 'criminals' not the government. But one of them goes out of his way to make sure you infer that he is referring to the government.

It's amazing that they just ignore the truth, ignore the will of the people, and ignore good sense to pursue their agenda.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
188 Posts
So would this give authority to the UN to possibly in the future send troops to our shores? Doubtful yes, but if they do come I hope they bring their pretty blue helmets :lol:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
256 Posts
First, before anyone gets their panties in a twist-I'm not saying this to support this treaty. With that out of the way, here it goes:

The Constitution (including the Second Amendment which is a fundamental and individual right) trumps international treaties. If you don't believe me, here is a quoted excerpt from the Supreme Court of the United States:

"At the time of Mrs. Covert's alleged offense, an executive agreement was in effect between the United States and Great Britain which permitted United States' military courts to exercise exclusive jurisdiction over offenses committed in Great Britain by American servicemen or their dependents. 29 For its part, the United States agreed that these military courts would be willing and able to try and to punish all offenses against the laws of Great Britain by such persons. In all material respects, the same situation existed in Japan when Mrs. Smith [354 U.S. 1, 16] killed her husband. 30 Even though a court-martial does not give an accused trial by jury and other Bill of Rights protections, the Government contends that Art. 2 (11) of the UCMJ, insofar as it provides for the military trial of dependents accompanying the armed forces in Great Britain and Japan, can be sustained as legislation which is necessary and proper to carry out the United States' obligations under the international agreements made with those countries. The obvious and decisive answer to this, of course, is that no agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or on any other branch of Government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution.

Article VI, the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, declares:


"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; . . . ."

There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution. Nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification of the Constitution which even suggests such a result. These debates as well as the history that surrounds the adoption of the treaty provision in Article VI make it clear that the reason treaties were not limited to those made in "pursuance" of the Constitution was so that agreements made by the United States under the Articles of Confederation, including the important peace treaties which concluded the Revolutionary [354 U.S. 1, 17] War, would remain in effect. 31 It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights - let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition - to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power under an international agreement without observing constitutional prohibitions. 32 In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and the Senate combined.
There is nothing new or unique about what we say here. This Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty. 33 For example, in Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258, 267 , it declared:
"The treaty power, as expressed in the Constitution, is in terms unlimited except by those restraints which are found in that instrument against the action of the government or of its departments, and those arising from the nature of the government itself and of that of the States. It would not be contended that it extends so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids, or a change in the character of the [354 U.S. 1, 18] government or in that of one of the States, or a cession of any portion of the territory of the latter, without its consent."

This Court has also repeatedly taken the position that an Act of Congress, which must comply with the Constitution, is on a full parity with a treaty, and that when a statute which is subsequent in time is inconsistent with a treaty, the statute to the extent of conflict renders the treaty null. 34 It would be completely anomalous to say that a treaty need not comply with the Constitution when such an agreement can be overridden by a statute that must conform to that instrument.
There is nothing in Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416 , which is contrary to the position taken here. There the Court carefully noted that the treaty involved was not inconsistent with any specific provision of the Constitution. The Court was concerned with the Tenth Amendment which reserves to the States or the people all power not delegated to the National Government. To the extent that the United States can validly make treaties, the people and the States have delegated their power to the National Government and the Tenth Amendment is no barrier.
" REID v. COVERT, 354 U.S. 1 (1957).

That case is still good law in this country. The US Constitution trumps any international treaty.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
365 Posts
Mac2411 said:
First, before anyone gets their panties in a twist-I'm not saying this to support this treaty....... The US Constitution trumps any international treaty.
Although I yield to no one my belief in the dastardly ability of government to twist/ignore/displace the law, the Constitution, and principle, I agree with Mac2411.
This doesn't have to do with our rights internal to America. This is international law.
That having been said, no, the "fight" isn't over.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
803 Posts
cheney said:
So would this give authority to the UN to possibly in the future send troops to our shores? Doubtful yes, but if they do come I hope they bring their pretty blue helmets :lol:
Over the past few years numerous foreign military units have come and trained alongside Northcom units in preparation specifically for martial law type scenarios. As a matter of fact, Polish troops were in the Chicago area training in house to house weapons seizures, among other scenarios, just this month . While this doesn't necessarily mean anything like this is going to happen any time soon, they certainly don't train these troops just for fun. When they do eventually decide the time is right to attempt to disarm Americans, they will most likely use foreign troops under US command, because they don't have any incentive to refuse to obey orders, like many red blooded Americans certainly will.

Even though they may still be a long way off, there are two impending certainties.................

1. There will be a push towards establishing a global government under the UN / IMF / World Bank crowd.

2. To attempt this, Americans will eventually have to be disarmed.

It's not a question of "if", but "when". There will be some type of emergency, disaster, or terror related scenario, whether real or manufactured, and they will let things sink to the level where unprepared "sheeple" panic and beg for the military to intervene to restore water, the food supply, order, or whatnot.


"Today, America would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order. Tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told that there were an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being granted to them by the World Government."
Dr. Henry Kissinger, Bilderberg Conference, Evians, France, 1991
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
682 Posts
Foreign troops in this country TRYING to disarm Americans in my opinion will be an invader and will be dealt with accordingly as will the traitorous American military/civilian personnel that command them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
803 Posts
Well then keep on an eye on FEMA during hurricane season with the whole BP disaster. There is alot of looney fringe rumors, but there is also some factual evidence of a Federal mandatory evacuation plan. Imagine a scenario where part of the gulf coast of Mexico migrates into North America. Voila, there is the North American Union plan becoming a reality.

Remember what Rahm Emanuel said "Never let a crisis go to waste." A keen student of Kissinger indeed.

You must understand that the people who control the World Bank / IMF / UN and many individuals deep within our own government want the US to permanently collapse so badly they can hardly contain themselves. Read their books, and see it clearly stated in their own words. World Government is the plan, and the armed US population is THE biggest obstacle. They have already had the other most important bases (like China) covered for half a century. They already control the money supplies, the media, most nations governments and militaries, there isn't much left but to topple the armed citizenry.....................and Americans have been purposely dumbed down, divided, deceived, brainwashed, emasculated, and softened for many many decades now. Many would foolishly hand over everything for "bread and circus", and the illusion of security. Humans have fought since our beginnings to destroy the serf system they seem to be successfully reimplementing.
 
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
Top