parados wrote:It seems you didn't bother to read the statement by Bolton oralloy
No, I am well aware of his speech.
parados wrote:It seems Bolton (and the US) is against "illicit" trade just like the UN treaty is.
So?
In his motion for a rehearing, however, defendant claimed that the law of the state of Texas forbidding the carrying of weapons, and authorizing the arrest, without warrant, of any person violating such law, under which certain questions arose upon the trial of the case, was in conflict with the second and fourth amendments to the constitution of the United States, one of which provides that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and the other of which protects the people against unreasonable searches and seizures. We have examined the record in vain, however, to find where the defendant was denied the benefit of any of these provisions, and, even if he were, it is well settled that the restrictions of these amendments operate only upon the federal power, and have no reference whatever to proceedings in state courts.
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158.
oralloy wrote:Setanta wrote:It has been pointed out that the proposed treaty deals only with the illegal manufacture and distribution of firearms--in which case, your objections don't seem to actually refer to the text of the proposed treaty.
As they build stronger and stronger measures to track down "illegal weapons" they'll move into making treaties that start declaring more weapons illegal.
This is a contention without a foundation on your part, and without evidence, constitutes paranoia--the more so as you miss the point altogether about Senate ratification . . .
Even were there no NRA, it is doubtful that anyone could ever cobble together two thirds of the Senate to agree to the ratification of any treaty which in effect legislated for the United States.
The second amendment does not guarantee the right to keep any damned weapon someone wants
it is doubtful if any legislative body in the United States will consider it incumbent upon themselves to assure that you can have fully-automatic weapons with armor-piercing rounds.
Are you saying there is not national legislation concerning firearms.
That doesn't change the fact that the US has laws that closely mirror the paragraph you take umbrage with.
Your unconstitutional charge only proves my point about you not wanting to support existing laws.
oralloy wrote:parados wrote:Tie the treaty to other groups that have nothing to do with it.
I've linked to groups that have everything to do with the treaty.
Really? Because someone supports a treaty doesn't mean they have anything to do with it.
oralloy wrote:parados wrote:Don't tell us you want to enforce US laws when you argue so vociferously against international treaties that propose the same or less than present US laws.
Request denied.
Go ahead and make a fool of yourself. I really don't care.
You can't fully support US laws at the same time you call them unconstitutional.
oralloy wrote:parados wrote:It seems Bolton (and the US) is against "illicit" trade just like the UN treaty is.
So?
By your logic Bolton is for taking away all your firearms since he supports what is in the treaty.
The argument of the fanatics of the gun lobby is, whether overtly made, or inferentially, that they need weapons to protect themselves from the tyranny of the government, and that this was the intent of the second amendment.
In 1939, an appeal was made to the Supreme court by a representative of the Justice Department after an idictment was quashed against two men for transporting a sawed-off shotgun. In The United States versus Miller, the Court held:
Quote:In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158.
This case can be read at this Findlaw page.
********************************************
The Supreme Court has never comprehensively reviewed the application of the IInd amendment.
Further, in The United States versus Miller, the Court suggested that there might be a standard for determining what constitute the arms of the militia, although they did not delve further into what that might be.
So far, case law with the Supremes holds that states may regulate the militia and their arms, and prohibit armed bodies outside their regulatory code.
Quite apart from the appalling poor performance of militia in the history of the United States, there is no good reason to believe that any state ever has or ever will allow citizens to arm themselves as they choose and associate in armed bodies at their own discretion.
Whatever may please Oralloy has no bearing upon what regulation the states may enact, and whether or not the Supreme Court will permit such regulation.
It's a dream, and a sick and dangerous dream at that.
If the Supreme court decided a law was constitutional then how can it be unconstitutional?
So, you don't support enforcing the laws then oralloy. You only support enforcing those you don't disagree with, those laws you don't think violate the constitution.
The legal rulings don't matter. Only your personal opinion does. A fool's game that allows you to pretend to want to follow the law at the same time you are more than willing to ignore it.
The fool's game is deciding solely on your own about what is constitutional without reference to the constitutional manner in how constitutionality is decided.
You just seem to think we shouldn't support some laws at the same time you seem to want us to enforce the laws on the books.
I see a disconnect there.
The same disconnect in the argument that if someone wants to limit the trafficking in illegal arms then they want to take your guns away unless that person is John Bolton, then they don't.
There is no logic to your argument oralloy.
You claim that when the treaty says one thing it means another
The point of Bolton's speech was to block those parts of the proposal that would begin to take guns away from civilians.
oralloy wrote:The point of Bolton's speech was to block those parts of the proposal that would begin to take guns away from civilians.
And what part of the proposal enables the Government that signs the treaty to take guns away from the civilians?
In fact, quote it right in your post so we can all see it in its horrific glory.
A 1999 report of the Disarmament Commission to the UN General Assembly:
http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N99/132/20/PDF/N9913220.pdf
On page 22 of the PDF, there is the following:
36. States should work towards the introduction of appropriate national legislation, administrative regulations and licensing requirements that define conditions under which firearms can be acquired, used and traded by private persons. In particular, they should consider the prohibition of unrestricted trade and private ownership of small arms and light weapons specifically designed for military purposes, such as automatic guns (e.g., assault rifles and machine-guns).
The treaty that is currently at issue is derived from the "Program of Action" document that came out of the 2001 disarmament conference.
The rough draft contained the following provision:
20. To seriously consider the prohibition of unrestricted trade and private ownership of small arms and light weapons specifically designed for military purposes.
http://disarmament.un.org/cab/smallarms/files/2001confpcl4rv1e.pdf
An outstanding diplomat by the name of John Bolton put them in their places with the following speech, and the offending paragraph was removed from the POA:
http://www.un.int/usa/01_104.htm
This resulted in much whining and gnashing of teeth from those who wanted to violate our freedom.
Some of the would-be freedom violators then got together and drafted the Nairobi Protocol, which says (in part):
(b) State Parties undertake to : (iii) prohibit the civilian possession of semi-automatic and automatic rifles....
http://www.smallarmsnet.org/docs/saaf12.pdf
Never let them try to tell you that they aren't coming for people's guns.
oralloy wrote:cjhsa wrote:Thanks for posting that. It shows that the U.N. is fully for disarming the law abiding public. The attitude expressed in that article is exactly what I'm talking about. How could someone be that pathetic?
Actually, IANSA is rather open about the anti-freedom agenda they have planned for their civilian victims:
http://www.iansa.org/un/bms2005/Ownership.pdf
I've long felt that this organization should be regarded as a threat and subjected to military strikes.
Of note in the above document is:
1. Prohibit civilian ownership of certain weapons 2. Prevent the build-up of private arsenals 7. Limit the carrying of guns
Also of note is this document:
http://www.hdcentre.org/datastore/Small%20arms/Rio_Chair_summary.pdf
Particularly:
[b]Civilians should be restricted from acquiring or possessing small arms designed for military use[/b]. Ownership of small arms should be contingent on obtaining a firearms license, which, in turn, could be based on the following minimum criteria, inter alia - meeting a minimum age requirement; lacking a relevant criminal history, including of intimate partner and family violence; [b]existence of a legitimate reason to acquire weapons[/b]; observance of relevant gun laws as well as the safe and efficient handling of small arms. Small arms ammunition sales should be restricted to those with a valid firearms license, and only for ammunition suitable for the type of gun specified on the license [b]as well as limitation on the number of rounds of ammunition allowed[/b].
I'll say it once again: We need to have the military conduct airstrikes on these NGOs. They hate our freedom even more than Osama does.
A single napalm raid on IANSA headquarters could save us a lot of grief in the long run.
I'm not sure how I could miss a point that I've acknowledged twice now. )(i.e., Senate ratification)
And there is plenty of evidence. First, there is the example of what these groups do when they get their way, as has happened in some US localities and in other countries. Second, there are the stated goals of these groups, which I have linked to repeatedly.
Don't all treaties in effect legislate for the US (presuming we are a party to them)? They have the same force as a federal statute.
Yes. That is why I don't have the right to have a Tommygun, which I would like to use to shoot tin cans with in the back yard.
But it does protect the right to have weapons appropriate to a militia, such as an automatic rifle.
Setanta wrote:it is doubtful if any legislative body in the United States will consider it incumbent upon themselves to assure that you can have fully-automatic weapons with armor-piercing rounds.
Well technically that is a matter for the courts, not the legislature.
And so long as our Second Amendment rights are being violated like this, it is important to block all new gun laws, regardless of how helpful they would otherwise be. We may not be able to force the legislature to respect our civil rights, but we can at least hold up further gun legislation.
That is where groups like the NRA come in. By organizing, we are better able to fight against those who hate our freedom.
oralloy wrote:I'm not sure how I could miss a point that I've acknowledged twice now. )(i.e., Senate ratification)
For all that you've acknowledged it, you continue to prate about what the treaty will do--the treaty can do nothing if it is not ratified. You acknowledge the necessity for ratification, and then begin to rant away about what will happen as though it were never pointed out to you that the treaty would require Senate ratification.
Time enough to howl if it is ever even presented to the Senate.
Your assertions about the agendae, covert or overt, of such organization is nothing more than paranoia, because they cannot either force legislation in the United States, nor force resolutions or proposals in the United Nations.
Once again, you're howling before you're hurt.
oralloy wrote:Don't all treaties in effect legislate for the US (presuming we are a party to them)? They have the same force as a federal statute.
This is either a naive or disingenuous statement. Most treaties deal with the international relationships and/or actions of the states united (which is precisely why they are the purview of the Senate--it was a means for the framers to assure equality of state sovereignty), which cannot be said to impinge on the states themselves, nor in the domestic affairs of the several states or the states united.
oralloy wrote:Yes. That is why I don't have the right to have a Tommygun, which I would like to use to shoot tin cans with in the back yard.
But it does protect the right to have weapons appropriate to a militia, such as an automatic rifle.
In which case, if any body of interested parties were ever to push the issue, it would be necessary to determine who has the authority to determine what weapons are appropriate to a militia (sorry to disappoint you, but the the independent clause at the beginning of the amendment in no way suggests that you get to determine that yourself).
It is noteworth that one of the paragraphs listed under the general heading (Congress shall have the power . . . ) of Section Eight, Article One, reads:
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United states, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
The courts have never visited this paragraph specifically to state or deny that Congress has the power to regulate firearms on the basis of providing for the arming of the militia.
oralloy wrote:Setanta wrote:it is doubtful if any legislative body in the United States will consider it incumbent upon themselves to assure that you can have fully-automatic weapons with armor-piercing rounds.
Well technically that is a matter for the courts, not the legislature.
No, if you look at court decisions, it is clear that Federal courts, including the Supreme Court, have determined that the IInd amendment is not binding on the states insofar as they do not prevent any citizen from bearing arms as a part of a well-regulated militia.
oralloy wrote:And so long as our Second Amendment rights are being violated like this, it is important to block all new gun laws, regardless of how helpful they would otherwise be. We may not be able to force the legislature to respect our civil rights, but we can at least hold up further gun legislation.
That is where groups like the NRA come in. By organizing, we are better able to fight against those who hate our freedom.
This is an example of where you wander off into paranoid delusion, complete with unrealistic descriptions of those with whom you might disagree. The treaty in question has not been ratified, so there is no basis upon which to make an absurd allegation that your rights have been violated.
You are advancing "the thin end of the wedge" argument, and without any basis, as, once again, this treaty has not been ratified.
Then you wrap yourself in the lunatic flag with the suggestion that those who support firearms control "hate our freedom."
EDIT: You have said, in another post, responding to another member, that you have as much right as any Supreme Court justice to determine what the IInd amendment means. This is not so.
