Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 9/16/2004 4:51:48 AM EST
while reading this months American Rifleman i happened across the article on the United Nations Gun ban that is being drafted. Could the senate legally sign a UN treaty that violates the US Constitution?

hopefully this will be a moot point and the republicans will remain in control of congress and the presidency.
Link Posted: 9/16/2004 6:24:24 AM EST
Treaties have force of law. Let the U.N. try and get them from us. They can come with Swinestein and find out how hard it will be.
Link Posted: 9/16/2004 1:25:49 PM EST
The UN can pass all the laws they like, but if it violates the US Constitution, Congress is not allowed to sign it. We (the US) have already done that on at least one "International" Law that I can think of: the International Criminal Court. This violated the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 19th amendments, so by law, we can't be join into it. This put us on a short list of other "great" nations like Algeria, North Korea, Iraq, Iran and Libya.
Link Posted: 9/17/2004 12:09:55 PM EST
Who are the nations that so desperately want "international small arms control"?

Banana republics and third world dictatorships. And Europe (but I repeat myself).

So, that tells you the who and the why right there, and why we must "Just say no!" at all costs.


Hey, if you were the "Man in Charge" of Indonesia, Iran, Zimbabwe, England, Nigeria, France, Italy, Uraguay, Paraguay, or Mexico, you'd want small arms control, too.

In the USA, our leaders are afraid of the people, and we need to keep it that way. The Forefathers had a damned good reason for the 2nd Amendment. And this is it.
Top Top