Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

Well then there is this that was also posted online.

http://www.wnd.com/2012/07/obama-told-t ... aty/print/

Over 100 members of Congress appear to share the concerns of a former Army general who has sounded the alarm over efforts by the Obama Administration to push through the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty, or ATT.

As WND reported, retired Lt. Gen. William Boykin earlier this year, in a video in which he claimed Obama was leading America down the path of a quiet, Marxist revolution, blasted the ATT, also known as the small arms treaty, saying it would regulate private gun ownership.

“There has been a decree by the administration by the president and the secretary of state saying that our president will sign the United Nations small arms treaty, which is about how we will buy sell and control individual private weapons,” Boykin warned. “That means the United Nations, an international body will decide how you and I as Americans can buy and sell our weapons, how we control those weapons, who is authorized to have those weapons and where they are. This is a dangerous trend.”

Charles.

I was under the impression that treaties have to be ratified by the senate. League of Nations anyone! Additionally it is against the law and a violation of the presidents oath of office for him to sign treaties that would be illegal under the constitution. Not that his oath, the constitution or the law has constrained this man in the least.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

CORRECT! AND! According to Wayne LaPierre, 58 Senators, and a majority in the House are saying "um... NO FRIGGIN' WAY WE'RE AGREEING TO THAT!"

If you look at the video, it says (I don't know if is real or not, but I assume it is) that is not necessarily to be voted by senate. Nobel Peace laureate vote is enough.
I am very sad and upset. In my country right now is a political coup d'etat orchestrated by socialists to take all power (they will suspend the president today), breaking the constitution and a lot of laws and threatening constitutional judges. Here is happening quite the same. Where to go? What to do? I came here for the America of the hard working people, and it is becoming the America of the state assisted people. What I want is a place with opportunities and freedom and rule of law in the spirit of the law, but I think there is no such place anymore.
Oh yeah, according to DHS I am a terrorist. See ya in FEMA camp!

Just saying but the potus needs to run down the curtain and join the choir invisible. And you know I might shed a tear just as soon as I stop laughing!

Actually, the President can make agreements that contradict the Constitution. But he needs 2/3 of the Senate to agree, so that won't work.

This treaty could be dangerous to our ability to afford firearms. If it blocks the small arms manufacturers in this Country from selling their product out of the Country,they will be forced to make up that lost revenue by increasing the cost of their product here in the United States. That could put many firearms out of reach for alot of people.

That is a good point.

Also many foreign companies will likely go out of business, reducing the available arms in the marketplace. Better order my CZ Compact ASAP.

zerodown1 wrote::pistol: This treaty could be dangerous to our ability to afford firearms. If it blocks the small arms manufacturers in this Country from selling their product out of the Country,they will be forced to make up that lost revenue by increasing the cost of their product here in the United States. That could put many firearms out of reach for alot of people.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Hmmmm.... That dovetails very neatly with Obama's class warfare strategy, if you think about it. If he can arrange to make firearms so expensive only the "rich" can afford them, THEN they'll be just like that money he constantly says the "rich shouldn't have any more of than HE says they can keep. Lord knows the "rich" are second-class citizens with subordinated rights in his world. And rich or poor, if you share a vice (like firearms ownership and use) with those degenerate "rich folks, he'll get around to telling you that you need to be brought back to the RIGHTEOUS path.

U.S.secretary of State Hilliary Clinton has not signed,nor has the U.S. Congress ratified,a United Nations small arms treaty. In fact,such a treaty hasen't even been drafted yet. It's merely a concept which is currently in the discussion phase. An arms trade treaty conference is taking place at United Nations Headquarters in New York throughout the month of July 2012. No such treaty could bypass the normal legislative process in Congress, as all treaties to which the U.S. is a signatory must be first approved by a two thirds vote of the U.S. Senate before they are considered to be ratified and binding. The President of the United States cannot enact a complete ban on all weapons for U.S. citizens through the signing of international treaties with foreign nations. The right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed in the Constitution of the United States,and in the 1957 case Reid vs Covert,the U.S. supreme court established that the Constitution supersedes international treaties ratified by the U.S. Senate. There is no "legal way around the second amendment" other than a further amendment to the Constitution that repeals or alters it,or a supreme court decision that radically reinterprets how the second amendment is to be applied. snopes.com

I think thehill http://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/d ... un-control is a more serious source than snopes.

kelu wrote:I think thehill http://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/d ... un-control is a more serious source than snopes.

That's Dick Morris pimping his new book (and Dick Morris). I think that if one were to look into this whole "Obama will sign the treaty on 7/27" business, one will find that it's all sourced from Dick Morris' baseless assertion.

kelu wrote:I think thehill http://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/d ... un-control is a more serious source than snopes.

I went to that site and read the article and I admit it is confusing. There is still the 1957 supreme court case Reid vs Covert that established that the U.S. Constitution supersedes treaties ratified by the Senate. On the face of it dosen't make sense treaties ratified by the senate could supersede our Constitution. It would have been destroyed long ago. More research is needed on the alleged preemption clause that would allow international treaties to supersede our law.

Very brief recap: It is actually called the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) and deals with ALL conventional weapons ... from warships and subs, to tanks, to small arms. Bush refused to play ball at the UN on this treaty because other countries insisted on including "small arms." That posture effectively stopped the treaty for a few years because we have veto power at the UN. Obama reversed course and allowed the State Dept to consent to drafting a treaty. After a couple years of homework, the first draft of the treaty is being ginned up THIS WEEK. Obama appears to support it and will likely sign it at some point. But, as any treaty, it must be ratified by the Senate. (And by my math, the votes simply aren't there -- the Senate is surprisingly pro-gun right now...)

Sssshhh, stop type forums, and start typing E-MAILS TO YOUR SENATORS!!!!

Already done mine...

As to e-mailing the long-legged liar in chief? Why...waste...the...effort?

If you know it's a duck, don't try to make him bark.

Reverenddel wrote:Sssshhh, stop type forums, and start typing E-MAILS TO YOUR SENATORS!!!!

Already done mine...

As to e-mailing the long-legged liar in chief? Why...waste...the...effort?

If you know it's a duck, don't try to make him bark.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Sure he can bark. He's a sh!t-eatin' hound, ain't he?

Lol

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

Damn poop eating hound, now that's rich! Bark on mandingo, bark on.