Americans Buying AK47's Like They Are Going Out Of Style

[RetiredGySgt]

....theirs is worldwide push to unarm and control the entire world.....

Is this the Illuminati again?

Are we in a Dan Brown novel?

Get a grip man - there is no nefarious organisation out there trying to DISarm and control the entire world.

It's a fantasy.

True. The greatest threat to Second Amendment rights are tinfoil hat-wearing rightists who see ‘gun-grabbing’ conspiracies everywhere they turn.

So you DENY that the UN has a treaty that would remove the right of citizens to possess firearms with out their consent and that the US Obama was considering signing it?

 

[The Rabbi]

....theirs is worldwide push to unarm and control the entire world.....

Is this the Illuminati again?

Are we in a Dan Brown novel?

Get a grip man - there is no nefarious organisation out there trying to DISarm and control the entire world.

It's a fantasy.

True. The greatest threat to Second Amendment rights are tinfoil hat-wearing rightists who see ‘gun-grabbing’ conspiracies everywhere they turn.

No. The greatest threat to 2A rights are politicians who think like some of the fools here and blame the tool rather than the user. Tin foil hat wearers are annoying but harmless.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

truth means nothing to gun-grabbing lefties......they live in their own little socialist world fantasies....

 

[M14 Shooter]

Look at the
Murder rates of Detroit and Windsor Ontario which are across the lake from each other.

Show that this difference in murder rates is because of the difference in gun laws.

I did not say it was because of the difference in the laws, it is because of the difference in the people.

Good to see that you understand that is the disposition of a portion of the people, not the availability of guns, that results in the increased crime rate here in the US.
Perhaps there is nome hope for you.

 

[Saigon]

So you DENY that the UN has a treaty that would remove the right of citizens to possess firearms with out their consent and that the US Obama was considering signing it?

I deny that.

The UN does not pass laws, and taking guns off people without their consent would be a law, not a treaty.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

So you DENY that the UN has a treaty that would remove the right of citizens to possess firearms with out their consent and that the US Obama was considering signing it?

I deny that.

The UN does not pass laws, and taking guns off people without their consent would be a law, not a treaty.

But they do create Treaty's
Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
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; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

So UN does create laws.

 

[gallantwarrior]

No, the UN passes resolutions and such. They've been after our firearms for a while, too. But they have been encouraged by the current regime and the possibility that our current leadership would be more than willing to abdicate our sovreignity...for a price, of course.

NRA-ILA | Senator Moran Leads Efforts Against U.N. Gun Ban Treaty--Restriction on Funding for U.N. Treaty Passes U.S. House Committee

 

[OODA_Loop]

If only you could abort your children or pack one hits with an AK we'd be set.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So you DENY that the UN has a treaty that would remove the right of citizens to possess firearms with out their consent and that the US Obama was considering signing it?

I deny that.

The UN does not pass laws, and taking guns off people without their consent would be a law, not a treaty.

But they do create Treaty's
Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
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; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

So UN does create laws.

International treaties have no force inside the US until Congresses passes laws to the same effect.

 

[Saigon]

So UN does create laws.

International treaties have no force inside the US until Congresses passes laws to the same effect.[/QUOTE]

Exactly so.

And this is true of all countries - the UN can pass a resoluton (such as banning land mines) but it has no power until it is ratified by each individual member state.

It's easy to be paranoid and think everything the UN does is about your own country, but it isn't - there are 206 (?) member states, and more often than not the main focus when it comes to issues like guns is the likes of Sudan and Liberia (whih desperately need disarming) - not the US or Finland.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I deny that.

The UN does not pass laws, and taking guns off people without their consent would be a law, not a treaty.

But they do create Treaty's
Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
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; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

So UN does create laws.

International treaties have no force inside the US until Congresses passes laws to the same effect.

But treaty's when passed by congress are law correct?

 

[Saigon]

But treaty's when passed by congress are law correct?

I would say that they aren't - they are merely a framework.

Quite often here in Finland when the EU adopts a treay of some form, the law Finland passes is quite different in nature.

It might be tighter in some areas, add in new sections, and clarify issues not mentioned at the EU level.

What UN and EU treaties do is provide a kind of template, and perhaps some minimum values for countries to work with.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

But treaty's when passed by congress are law correct?

I would say that they aren't - they are merely a framework.

Quite often here in Finland when the EU adopts a treay of some form, the law Finland passes is quite different in nature.

It might be tighter in some areas, add in new sections, and clarify issues not mentioned at the EU level.

What UN and EU treaties do is provide a kind of template, and perhaps some minimum values for countries to work with.

AGAIN A POST YOU SEEM TO INTENTIONALLY MISS


Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
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; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

 

[Saigon]

BigReb -

Um.....there is a difference between a treaty the US enters into as a sovereign state working with another sovereign state; and a treaty drawn up by the UN which the US then ratifies.

 

[M14 Shooter]

But they do create Treaty's
Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution


So UN does create laws.

International treaties have no force inside the US until Congresses passes laws to the same effect.

But treaty's when passed by congress are law correct?

No. Treaties are nto passed by Congress, they are ratified by the Senate.
International treates have no doemstic effect until Congresses passes a law that codifies the provisions of the treaty.

A UN resolution (which is NOT a treaty) could ban all privately owned guns; untill Congress passes a similar law, it means nothing here.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

International treaties have no force inside the US until Congresses passes laws to the same effect.

But treaty's when passed by congress are law correct?

No. Treaties are nto passed by Congress, they are ratified by the Senate.
International treates have no doemstic effect until Congresses passes a law that codifies the provisions of the treaty.

A UN resolution (which is NOT a treaty) could ban all privately owned guns; untill Congress passes a similar law, it means nothing here.

The Senate is part of the congress just like the house of Representative is part of congress.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

BigReb -

Um.....there is a difference between a treaty the US enters into as a sovereign state working with another sovereign state; and a treaty drawn up by the UN which the US then ratifies.

A treaty is a treaty otherwise why sign it in the first place.

 

[M14 Shooter]

BigReb -

Um.....there is a difference between a treaty the US enters into as a sovereign state working with another sovereign state; and a treaty drawn up by the UN which the US then ratifies.

A treaty is a treaty otherwise why sign it in the first place.

A treaty regulates the interactions of two or more countries.

Now, in some countries, the government can internally enforce the provisions of the treaty w/o any forther effort, but here, Congress has to pass a law that codifies those provisions.

UN resolutions are not treaties in an of themselves -- compliance is ultimately voluntary and the UN has only the means other countries are willing to commit to force that compliance - but members of the UN, according to treaty, are supposed to follow those resolutions.

In terms of effective international law, the UN is a joke.

 

[NoNukes]

OK, so at least you admit changing the laws will have no effect. That's a start.

This is why I do not bother listening to what you have to say.

Why? Because I repeat back what you've written and it defeats your own argument?

No, it is because of your seriously stupid responses.

 

[The Rabbi]

This is why I do not bother listening to what you have to say.

Why? Because I repeat back what you've written and it defeats your own argument?

No, it is because of your seriously stupid responses.

Garbage in, garbage out. I can't help it if you admit you are wrong. You posted that culture is more important than laws. I agree. That's my whole point. That's why passing strict gun laws here will not help crime one bit.