|
Post by avordvet on Jul 29, 2009 5:30:14 GMT -5
Damn, that pesky Constitution and Bill Of Rights keeps getting in their way... gotta do something about that. Foreign law shouldn't impact American gun-ownersBy: Ken Klukowski, Examiner Staff Writer, July 28, 2009 Gun owners are increasingly concerned with the White House's citing of foreign law when it comes to gun rights. Look no further than the recent Senate confirmation of Professor Harold Koh to be State Department legal advisor in June. Koh, a committed transnationalist, is a passionate opponent of gun ownership. Koh, recently the dean of Yale Law School, was confirmed as State Department Legal Advisor with 35 votes against him. He now becomes the top U.S. authority on international law, and the top advisor to the president and secretary of state about America's obligations and treaty commitments with the United Nations and other countries. Harold Koh is also one of the most far-left legal advocates anywhere in this country, on issues ranging from affirmative action to same-sex marriage to the reach of the federal government into people's lives. While many on the Left believe that foreign law should be considered by American courts in interpreting the Constitution, as a true transnationalist, Koh believes that U.S. courts should directly cite foreign law to decide cases, and that foreign policy actions such as war-making are illegal without express U.N. approval. There is no issue on which Koh is further from the mainstream, however, than the right to keep and bear arms. He openly advocates a global gun-control regime, run by the international community and based on foreign law, that would ban all handguns and subject all other firearms to draconian restrictions. The Koh nomination is only one of three nominations thus far to push an extreme anti-gun agenda using foreign law. Here's a little history: Senate Democrats' sustained opposition to John Bolton's nomination as U.S. ambassador to the U.N. originated from his service as the undersecretary of state for arms control early in the Bush administration. Some aggressively pushed at the time for an international treaty banning handguns and severely restricting all private firearm ownership worldwide. Bolton spoke at the U.N., declaring that the United States would never join a treaty that violated the Second Amendment rights of American citizens. That treaty never died, however. Anti-gun forces at the U.N. continue to push for adoption of this global gun ban treaty and for the U.S. to join it. That's why it's important that Obama's nominee as undersecretary of state for arms control is Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-Calif.), who was also confirmed on June 25. Tauscher is a fierce opponent of gun rights who holds an "F" rating by the National Rifle Association. Tauscher is the Obama administration's point person on these pending gun ban treaties, advised by Koh. The third nominee is Judge Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court. In addition to Judge Sotomayor's support of using international law in U.S. courts, her longtime opposition to gun rights became a central issue in her confirmation battle. Legal experts are all aware that Harold Koh is himself on the short list for the Supreme Court. Now that he holds this prestigious position, he could next be nominated for the D.C. Circuit federal appeals court. After a year of service on the bench, then-Judge Koh, with his scholarly credentials, would be an ideal pick for President Obama to make the first Asian-American nominated to the High Court, where he would then be the most liberal justice in U.S. history. Thus Harold Koh's nomination becomes part of a broader pattern, where adherents of foreign law and extreme gun control intersect both at the U.N. and the Supreme Court. Supporters of American sovereignty and the Second Amendment had better join forces quickly, because this part of President Obama's agenda is moving faster than many believed possible. Ken Klukowski is a fellow and senior legal analyst with the American Civil Rights Union. www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/OpEd-Contributor/Foreign-law-shouldn_t-impact-American-gun-owners-8027856-51812847.html
|
|
|
Post by fergus on Jul 30, 2009 7:20:14 GMT -5
I agree, they should not impact us.
|
|
|
Post by hefferman1 on Jul 30, 2009 21:51:00 GMT -5
If they pass a treaty that vilates the Constitution it is an unlawful treaty and should not be obeyed. I for one will not obey to turn in my guns to anyone.
|
|
|
Post by jerome on Jul 31, 2009 1:28:38 GMT -5
The problem is that most Americans nowadays have no clue what the actual meaning of the 2nd Amendment is. If you ask the average person on the street what it means they will tell you something along the lines of "it allows people to have guns for hunting and home/self defense." Actually what it means (and what was said about it at the time it was ratified) is that it allows the US population to have access to the same arms as the US military (I believe the exact phrase was "swords, cannon, musket, and all the terrible instruments of war). While I don't believe that anyone should have access to missles, bombs, and fighter jets I do believe that anyone should be able to buy ANY personal arms that are issued to our troops. Granted I think ppl should have to pass some safety training when it comes to full auto's but I don't think these weapons should cost upwards of $10,000 and come with so much red tape to buy that you spend months doing paperwork and background checks. Basically the truth of the 2nd Amendment is that the people would have everything the military has making it impossible for the military to ever enslave us (whether that is through the enactment of unconstitutional laws or through a military takeover).
As far as using international or foriegn law in the US: They've been pushing it on us for years! As far as I can tell our guns are the only thing that doesn't fall under international laws. It's time for ppl to remember, or learn, that any law that is enacted that goes against the constitution is illegal and should not be followed (including treaties which was actually talked about in the Federalist Papers). We have a system set up for people to change what they "think" is wrong with the constitution, it's called amendments. The only reason they won't try that course is because they know they will get their nose bloodied for trying, that's why they've been using the courts to tear it down since the 30's. Anyway, i'll quit ranting now.
Jerome
|
|
|
Post by avordvet on Aug 1, 2009 7:46:26 GMT -5
While I don't believe that anyone should have access to missles, bombs, and fighter jets I do believe that anyone should be able to buy ANY personal arms that are issued to our troops. Granted I think ppl should have to pass some safety training when it comes to full auto's but I don't think these weapons should cost upwards of $10,000 and come with so much red tape to buy that you spend months doing paperwork and background checks. Basically the truth of the 2nd Amendment is that the people would have everything the military has making it impossible for the military to ever enslave us (whether that is through the enactment of unconstitutional laws or through a military takeover). that's why they've been using the courts to tear it down since the 30's. Anyway, i'll quit ranting now. Jerome Jerome sez: "...I don't believe that anyone should have access to missles, bombs, and fighter jets..."Why not?... "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."... I don't see any prohibitions on anything, break the law with a .22 pistol or an M1 Abrams Tank and lose your freedom and/or life. Jerome sez: ... Granted I think ppl should have to pass some safety training when it comes to full auto's...Say what? how about taking a test to be able to use your other "Natural" or Individual Rights. Should you have to take a test to show you can properly exercise your right to free speech? Jerome sez: ... Basically the truth of the 2nd Amendment is that the people would have everything the military has making it impossible for the military to ever enslave us (whether that is through the enactment of unconstitutional laws or through a military takeover). that's why they've been using the courts to tear it down since the 30's. Anyway, i'll quit ranting now...That statement is what the Second Amendment IS for... not "licensing" what I can own or carry, not "regulating" my right to self defense. It is to protect a "Natural" Right, the right of Self-Defense, not only of the individual, but for the preservation of the Constitution.
|
|
|
Post by avordvet on Aug 1, 2009 8:18:17 GMT -5
Here is a glaring example of the "Licensing" and "Regulation" of a "Right".
First Amendment - "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Yet if you want to assemble in pretty much any State, City or Town, you must first "Register", sometimes pay "fees" for the privilege of exercising your rights and in some cases you will have to follow government mandated "guidelines" and "protest rules".
And in any case, the State, City or Town can just arbitrarily deny or cancel said protests for "personal" or "public" safety, or just because someone in the government doesn't like it. If they don't mind being blatant about it, they they can just "move" the "protesting citizens" into controlled "protest zones" (fenced in pens!), miles from the politician or event for "personal" and/or "public" safety.
So, in the end, do we really have "the right of the people peaceably to assemble"? if it is actually a government approved, licensed and controlled assemblage... I think not.
|
|
|
Post by jerome on Aug 1, 2009 18:47:39 GMT -5
My reason's for believing people should pass safety training is simple. We don't hand out troops full auto's and send them into battle, they are trained in their use. There are also people who CANNOT control the recoil on these weapons making them more dangerous in their hands than in the hands of someone else. Also there are a few people I know who want access to these weapons who I believe shouldn't have access to ANY firearm because of the fact that they can not even use simple small arms safely. Just look at the 9 year old kid killed earlier this year with an UZI, someone should have been there to prevent that kid from shooting himself in the head when the gun started traveling upwards. That is why I believe safety training would be good for these weapons. I'm not talking about a "Licensing or Regulation" program, I'm talking about a course that lasts for a limited amount of time to make sure that whoever is buying this gun can control it. Just like with any other type of firearm not everyone can use them equally. I've got friends who can't control the recoil on a 44 mag yet I can shoot them one handed all day long. If the weapons are going to be out there lets at least make sure the owners can use them safely (and i'm not talking about Pelosi's version of safety training for firearms where no one can pass, i'm talking about shooting maybe 100 rounds in full auto to make sure you don't lose control of the weapon, wouldn't you feel safer knowing that anyone who has one of these isn't going to shoot you because of the fact they can't hold the weapon on target?) As far as the restriction of out rights goes, the 2nd amendment is already the most restricted right we have, if having to pass a safety course to buy this weapon without having to apply for a class 3 firearms license were to become law it would be a drastic improvement upon our current situation. Restoring our rights is going to be a long and slow process. The reason for this is that if you take things in small steps you have a better chance of enacting positive change than you would if you tried getting a law passed allowing anyone to buy anything they wanted. It's a personal belief, if you feel differently that's fine by me, that's what makes this country worth fighting for.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Downing on Aug 1, 2009 22:48:20 GMT -5
"Koh, a committed transnationalist, is a passionate opponent of gun ownership."
Heck Koh is another spawn of hell a just like the rest of the of the Socialist/Progressive Demoncrats and Rhinos in DC. If they want my guns they can not have them. If they come to take them and somehow I survive then I will go and find a fast running stream. David went to a fast running stream and picked out 5 round smooth stones. He took his sling and went to meet Goliath becuase he had faith in his God and God's promise. Several years ago when I lived in SC my Pastor asked me why David would pick out five smooth stones? His reply was that it was not because David doubted his God or his God's power. It was because Goliath had four brothers in the Philistine Army and the four remaining stones were there just in case the brothers doubted the Power and promise of David's God.
Jesus said He was the Son of the God of David. God inspired our founders and the blessed the birth of this nation. God is not yet done with this nation and He will raise up those who stand for this nation, in this world or the next.
"Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God." Thomas Jefferson
"You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe" John Adams - 2nd Pres.
John Adams and John Hancock: "We Recognize No Sovereign but God, and no King but Jesus!" [April 18, 1775]
|
|
|
Post by avordvet on Aug 2, 2009 5:51:44 GMT -5
That is why I believe safety training would be good for these weapons.... I'm not talking about a "Licensing or Regulation" program... Hey jerome, I understand what your intent is, I agree and pretty much everyone I know would agree, but people are usually smart enough to figure out when they need training on something. As a matter of fact, people get firearms training everyday throughout the U.S., even though IT IS NOT government mandated. Just because someone is "Trained" and "Licensed" does not make them any better or safer, if you think it does just look up how many people were killed in vehicle accidents this year. Just like vehicles, Firearms must be used responsibly, if you don't use them that way then our Laws take over. Citizens in the U.S. owned unrestricted "select fire" weapons up until the mid 30's and there was not a blood bath in the U.S. streets due to lack of training. and as I pointed out to someone awhile back; If the average Iraqi and Afghan farmer can handle a "full auto" AK without formal training then I think the average American can as well. But again, if you let the Government in the door on "controlling" any facet of a "Right", then it ceases to be a "Right". Incrementalisim... chipping away at our "Rights" for many years, little pieces at a time, is what got our Republic to the position we are in now, and a lot of the chips were well intentioned, but if you chip away long enough... it will eventually collapse.
|
|
|
Post by jerome on Aug 3, 2009 1:50:46 GMT -5
Incrementalisim... chipping away at our "Rights" for many years, little pieces at a time, is what got our Republic to the position we are in now, and a lot of the chips were well intentioned, but if you chip away long enough... it will eventually collapse. That being said if we are to restore out rights to what they once were there are only 2 ways to do so. One is by an outright revolution where it will be anyones guess what the outcome will be. The other way is to restore them the exact same way they were destroyed: a little bit at a time. And i know this is kind of a moot point because the commies we have in office right now would shoot down any laws allowing American's a little more freedom but if there were a different batch of ppl there (2010 and 2012 maybe) then we could get away with passing good laws that restore our rights. If we tried to enact sweeping legislation overturning the last 70 years of treason it would never get to the floor for a vote.
|
|
|
Post by avordvet on Aug 3, 2009 5:13:50 GMT -5
Incrementalisim... chipping away at our "Rights" for many years, little pieces at a time, is what got our Republic to the position we are in now, and a lot of the chips were well intentioned, but if you chip away long enough... it will eventually collapse. That being said if we are to restore out rights to what they once were there are only 2 ways to do so... And i know this is kind of a moot point because the commies we have in office right now would shoot down any laws allowing American's a little more freedom... If we tried to enact sweeping legislation overturning the last 70 years of treason it would never get to the floor for a vote. Only two ways to push back?! You are partially right. The Federal Government is and has been out of control for awhile, so why have we had so many Second Amendment victories lately? Because we are doing an end around on the Feds, almost all of our 2A wins are coming out of the States, not The Federal Government. The States is where the Constitutional battle can build strength, consolidate our winnings and then push back hard against the Fed. and you are starting to see it now, in the 10th Amendment resolutions and laws being passed throughout the country. Whether it be the 2A or Taxes, besides open Revolution, the only thing we can do to change the direction of of the Feds and re chain them within their Constitutional restraints, is use the last bit of consolidated power "The People" have left... The States.
|
|
|
Post by Patriots Support on Aug 3, 2009 6:39:28 GMT -5
Per the Militia Act of 1792 all male citizens between the ages of 18 and 44 are members of the militia and must provide at their own cost, arms, ammo, and gear. www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htmThe Militia Act of 1792, Passed May 8, 1792, providing federal standards for the organization of the Militia. An ACT more effectually to provide for the National Defence, by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States. I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes. This covers both the training and what your firearms are for, and is an act of Congress. By the very nature of this legislation, it defines the type of arms, (most modern available), what they are for, and training with them, and of course the duties and responsibilities of every citizen 18-44 years old.
|
|
|
Post by lighteye on Aug 3, 2009 7:08:30 GMT -5
If they pass a treaty that violates the Constitution it is an unlawful treaty and should not be obeyed. I for one will not obey to turn in my guns to anyone. I don't plan on turning in my "teeth" either.
|
|
|
Post by brocktownsend on Aug 6, 2009 19:46:32 GMT -5
Speaking of guns, and only $89.95. It's got nine user reviews, all good, with one stating he had fired 200 rounds through his without a hitch. Might be a smart move at this price, if you only squirreled it away. Ammo is only $99.95 for a tin of 440 rounds. www.classicarms.us/ammunition.htm(ncffp163, NCCM. BT)www.waltherprecision.com/item.aspx?pid=80226&Russian M91/30 Mosin-Nagant Rifle, model RI660V. 7.62 x 54R caliber. Bolt action. 5-round capacity, 26-inch barrel length. Wood stock. Blued finish. Condition: USED, VERY GOOD $89.95"The Russians modernized their M91 rifle into what would become one of the most successful military arms the world has ever known! Its simple and robust design, accuracy, and reliability served the Soviets well as their main battle rifle of WWII."
|
|
|
Post by Echo5Alpha on Aug 6, 2009 21:26:09 GMT -5
That being said if we are to restore out rights to what they once were there are only 2 ways to do so. One is by an outright revolution where it will be anyones guess what the outcome will be. The other way is to restore them the exact same way they were destroyed: a little bit at a time. And i know this is kind of a moot point because the commies we have in office right now would shoot down any laws allowing American's a little more freedom but if there were a different batch of ppl there (2010 and 2012 maybe) then we could get away with passing good laws that restore our rights. If we tried to enact sweeping legislation overturning the last 70 years of treason it would never get to the floor for a vote. We actually need no additional laws. We just need to stand up to the thugs imposing restrictions on our rights. These rights aren't granted by law. They are in fact only acknowledged by the supreme law of the land, the Constitution for the united States.
|
|
|
Post by jerome on Aug 7, 2009 2:11:47 GMT -5
I agree that we don't need additional laws. We need the laws that are on the books repealed. That can be done one of 2 ways, either through legislation or the courts. The court system is a slow process that takes a few years to work through in some cases and you can never count on the outcome. Legislation, while sometimes hard to enact (like the Thune amendment), can be done on a much quicker time scale. I know these rights were not given to us by law, they are the rights that pre-existed the Constitution. The problem is that people have gotten so use to the gov telling us what we can and cannot do that when a law is passed that violates the Constitution no one cares anymore. They accept it because it is a law and since it was a law passed by our reps it must be ok. This comes from the fact that real, true US History is no longer taught in schools. They hit upon the revolution but don't give all the reason's for it, they talk about the civil war and say that it was slavery that caused it, all because liberal's have taken over our education system. You raise 2 generations of children through a system that acts as nothing more than a proganda machine for the left and it gives us exactly what we have now: a nation of people who have no idea what this country was founded to be, a nation that believes that government intervention into every area of our lives is ok, a nation that views the Constitution as a "Living document" that has to change with the times, and a nation that will do whatever the fed tells it to do because it is the fed there for it must be ok. Children grow up listening to their teachers talk about the murder rate and how guns cause murder. They listen to people tell them that guns are "evil" and only criminals use guns. They become so use to hearing about the evil of guns that they never stop to think about (and never even hear about) how many lives are saved each year because of good people with guns. I live in Arkansas, I learned at a very early age what a gun would do and was taught to use one responsibly. I've been told many times that my world view matches the views of people who are 15+ years older than I am (and have witnessed that fact many times over because I can't stand most people my own age since they bought into all the liberal BS that was fed to us in school). And I know everyone on this site has a world view that is similiar to mine or you wouldn't be on this site. Basically what i'm trying to say in this rant is that kids grow up believing that an inantimate object (basically a tool) is evil because they were never taught that people who use them wrongly are the evil ones. Anyway, i'll end this rant and get on to my next point, sorry that took so long.
I fully believe in States Rights but what you have to look at is the fact that Cali and NY are the proving grounds for almost every single thing the liberal's in government want to do. If it's good for them then it's good for the rest of us is the mindset of our politicians. Cali and NY are NEVER going to relax their gun laws unless they are forced to do so by the federal gov. The other problem with using the states to enact positive change at this time is the fact that some states (like mine) are ran by Obama-bots. Arkansas's state reps had the chance to vote on a 10th amendment resolution durinig their last session and shot it down. They said the we had nothing to worry about from DC because they are there to serve us and protect our interests. My only reply to that was WTF?!?!? Have they even been watching what's going on in DC? Despite the fact that the majority of Arkansasan's wanted this resolution to pass it was shot down because it would be going up against the wishes of the DNC. Until this type of attitude is removed from gov officials we can only go so far through the states because each of us are standing alone. The only other option using states rights is to secede and form a government of our own (which, by the way is perfectly legal since the Constitution is a contract between the states and the fed but that is no longer taught in school either, you are taught now that when the south broke away during the civil war that it was illegal because we can't break away).
|
|
|
Post by avordvet on Aug 7, 2009 5:16:32 GMT -5
Wrong, If you fully believe in states rights then YOU MUST BELIEVE IN STATES RIGHTS! there should be no "but". Those States will get rid of those laws when the People that live there grow some spine and take back their State and their Rights,
You are following the same path as the leftist have, and no I'm not calling you a leftist, but that is one of the reasons we are in this fix, the leftist and the feds have been stripping away states rights since the "new deal". Just like the current Second Amendment battle, the Second Amendment guarantees our right to keep and bear arms, but the States may "regulate the manner of carry", agree with it or not that is the way that it is... A gun rack full of weapons in your truck may work fine in Montana but not New Jersey.
Everyone in this fight must understand YOU DO NOT WANT TO BRING IN THE FEDS TO "REGULATE" ANY INDIVIDUAL OR States "RIGHT", you do it at your own peril. Sure right now you have a couple of states that don't want to play ball, but that can be changed by the citizens of that state IF THEY TRULY WANT IT! If we allow the Feds get in there, you have lost control... Just like Interstate Commerce, EPA etc.. they will interject themselves deeper and they will be much harder to remove.
You want to do something to help the states out, help organize the your fellow citizens to get your state to enforce the 10th Amendment clause, and fight to repeal the 17th Amendment thereby returning to the State, their Constitutional Representative.
|
|
|
Post by Echo5Alpha on Aug 7, 2009 9:40:08 GMT -5
Does it really matter that some states have resisted 10th amendment movements? It seems to me that it is just a fact of life. Some people, or groups, will be slow to get moving on a new path, but that is no indication of the eventual path they will choose. We have over 60% of the states on board now with the movement. At what point do we achieve critical mass? I don't have an answer for that. I suspect though that the people of states like Arkansas will eventually bend their own legislatures to their will. This is one of the areas I have always agreed with busboy on. I have even proposed to every member of the Arizona legislature that they should consider organizing the constitutionally prescribed militias to add some teeth to the resolution. The reception was well received by some, but the overall response was lukewarm at best. I did not receive any outright rejections of the idea, but the ones I did receive favoring it also came with reasoning of why it was not likely to be introduced on the floor. I refrain from characterizing them as excuses, because I think they were being realistic. Senator Jack Harper of district 4 has in fact introduced a measure to organize the militia in response to what he called the "National Guard grab" that was buried in the federal Military Appropriations Act of 2007. He went on to say that he doubted he could get a militia bill through again. I will likely raise the subject with them again soon, but I think my next best step is to broach the subject with our County Sheriff. He can label it militia, posse, I don't care, so long as I can sway support of an elected representative to our side. The alphabets will have to characterize the office holder as renegade at least if not criminal to denigrate the militia organized under their authority. It makes it much more difficult for them which is what we want. Don't write off your State Legislature, Jerome, or others out there in the same position, but rather seek to drive them out. As long as there aren't people being herded into camps or any such outright assaults on the people, we have to make use of the ballot box. Use the commies hammer to beat the drum and their sickle to cut the legs from under their policies.
|
|