I thought all treaties had to be ratified by the Senate to become valid. Am I wrong?
Has anybody READ the article....there is NO mention of 2nd ammendment rights mentioned???
Not quite...
And yes.
Let me explain
Yet they have to be ratified to become valid
No this one does not
The plan
Freedom from War (1961)
Look at USC 22 Chapter 35
[url]http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/22C35.txt[/URL]
-CITE-
22 USC Sec. 2552 01/08/2008
-EXPCITETITLE
22 - FOREIGN RELATIONS AND INTERCOURSE
CHAPTER 35 - ARMS CONTROL AND DISARMAMENT
SUBCHAPTER I - GENERAL PROVISIONS
-HEADSec.
2552. Definitions
-STATUTE
As used in this chapter -
(a) The terms "arms control" and "disarmament" mean the
identification, verification, inspection, limitation, control,
reduction, or elimination, of armed forces and armaments of all
kinds under international agreement including the necessary steps
taken under such an agreement to establish an effective system of
international control, or to create and strengthen international
organizations for the maintenance of peace.
(b) The term "Government agency" means any executive
department, commission, agency, independent establishment,
corporation wholly or partly owned by the United States which is
an instrumentality of the United States, or any board, bureau,
division, service, office, officer, authority, administration, or
other establishment in the executive branch of Government
He has been authorized by congress to do it already.
Combine that with Globalist Plan to Disarm America - PL87-297 Arms Control and Disarmament Act / State Department Publication No. 7277
And you will have the same migraine I have
You will also go home every night and load magazines.
I was waiting on someone to bring this up.Our safety net with this idiotic move by Obama is that, indeed, the Senate has to ratify this and any other treaty to have any impact on us. IMHO that's where our efforts should be directed. Get in touch with your senators and make it clear that if they vote to ratify this POS, they will be looking for honest work come the next election. I don't see this sneaking past the Senate, but it's just evidence of how underhanded the current administration is. Add this to the move to reinstate the weapons ban to help "solve" the border drug war and you can see that Obama and his flunkies have no intention of trying to jam actual anti-gun legislation through the Congress; they've found other ways to do it that they hope will not attract attention. Forget HR45; keep your eyes on diplomatic moves to disarm us.
You know, I am not so sure anymore. There willful disregard to listen to "We the people............." Not to mention, I believe the libs / socialists / fascist / marxists think we are full of bravado and won't stand up to them when / if it came to gun control / confiscation. I don't want to see this day come but it is my belief that those of the aforementioned political ideology are hell bent in their beliefs and plans for the future of this nation. Furthermore, I believe 99.9% of us would agree that the day gun confiscation of the American citizen is enacted is the day the civil war starts.I'm betting the Senate knows better than to start a civil war. At least I'm hoping.
With all the violations and bastardizations of the Constitution going on with the President and members of Congress, I have my doubts that the system will function "as advertised" much longer.
I'm not trying to be contentious, I'm just really not aware of any. I hear lots of vague generalizations to this effect, and some stuff that is not at all grounded in reality(rumors of his Kenyan birth, etc), but I'm not aware of any real constitutional violations. I will probably be flamed for even suggesting such an idea, but so be it. It's a free country, RIGHT?
I'll give you a few of them...a wide variety, but all relevant.
Look no further than the government health care plan. Absolutely no provisions in the Constitution for government to provide it to the people, and no provision to force it down your throat with government confiscation of personal finances/property and imprisonment for not participating.
The National Organ Transplant Act (NOTA), enacted by Congress in 1984, makes it illegal to give anything of value in exchange for bone marrow or other organs, tissue, etc. There is no justification for the Congressional prohibition on this practice other than arbitrary unconstitutional abuse of power that too many Americans tolerate.
There's absolutely no Constitutional authority for Congressional spending on various things like prescription drugs for the elderly, subsidies to farmers, or food stamps to the poor. In 1794, Congress appropriated $15,000 for relief of French refugees. James Madison stood on the floor of the House to object, saying, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." James Madison, you'll recall, is the acknowledged father of the Constitution, and he couldn't find constitutional authority for spending "on the objects of benevolence."
Trust me, the list goes on and on....
I'm asking this sincerely, not to be contentious, but are the "czar" appointments made by Obama different from those made by Bush? What kind of "sweeping powers" do these positions entail? I'm not terribly politically informed, nor do I claim to be, but would definitely like to know if I have sufficient reason to be concerned, but I guess I just don't see it. (note: This does not mean that I have been duped by the trickery of the liberal media and democratic propagandists. While I do not research politics extensively, I can spot bull$hit from any political position, and base my views on what seems reasonable rather than party lines and ideology. Mostly, I love guns.)