• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

UN Arms Treaty could put US gun owners in foreign sights, say critics

Wiseone said:
Based on what? And why would the United States sign such an agreement that required us to disarm our populous?
Click to expand...

The US could not sign such as treaty as is. Nothing on Earth can override the Constitution except an amendment to it.
 
Thunder said:
the USC cannot be overridden by a treaty.
Click to expand...

I never said that, I said that state/local laws can be overriden by a treaty. We NOW readily accept STATE and CITY "infringment" of the right to keep an bear arms, by allowing the states to issue "permits" for large fees to actually exercise these "rights of the people", it is but a TINY step to let the UN do so as well.
 
Last edited:
ttwtt78640 said:
I never said that, I said that state/local laws can be overriden by a treaty. We NOW readily accept STATE and CITY "infringment" of the right to keep an bear arms, by allowing the states to issue "permits" for large fees to actually exercise these "rights of the people", it is but a TINY step to let the UN do so as well.
Click to expand...

we also allow cities & states to infringe upon freedom of speech, the right to assemble, and freedom of religion by requiring protest & demonstration permits, and enforcing Blue Laws.
 
apdst said:
If we didn't currently have a president who hates our costitution, I wouldn't be concerned.
Click to expand...

:doh
Yes.....
Cool baseless accusation bro. Keep on living in fear of absolutely nothing. It really brings the best out of you.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Not so, as international treaties are "on par" with the U.S. constitutional and override ALL state/local laws.

Link: Supremacy Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Well you didn't address what I said for one thing, and given the fact that gun ownership has been ruled an individual right protected by the 2nd Amendment, my statement still stands. No treaty can override the Constitution. Any contradiction to the Constitution is null.
 
Thunder said:
we also allow cities & states to infringe upon freedom of speech, the right to assemble, and freedom of religion by requiring protest & demonstration permits, and enforcing Blue Laws.
Click to expand...

We can finally agree on something. They also infringe on our 2nd Amendment rights.
 
American said:
Well you didn't address what I said for one thing, and given the fact that gun ownership has been ruled an individual right protected by the 2nd Amendment, my statement still stands. No treaty can override the Constitution. Any contradiction to the Constitution is null.
Click to expand...

If state and city law can NOW override the constitution then why NOT a treaty as well? I would agree with your assertion IFF federal law did not define what are legal "arms" and that state and city gov'ts could not impose fees (infringements?) for the preservation of that right. If you do NOT pay the state/city a large fee in advance then you have NO "right" to carry that arm, so how is that NOT an infringement? That fee/permit convert that right into a mere state issued privilege, like driving, not a right like voting or having an attorney present during police questioning. Sure I may BUY a handgun and keep it in my home, yet if I leave home with it (bear it), then my "right" is contingent upon a state/city permit, thus it is hardly constitutionally protected.
 
Thunder said:
we also allow cities & states to infringe upon freedom of speech, the right to assemble, and freedom of religion by requiring protest & demonstration permits, and enforcing Blue Laws.
Click to expand...

The first amendment states "Congress shall pass pass no law to...." the second says "the right of the people to... shall not be infringed", a distinct difference as the "right of the people" is far different that only banning any federal gov't restrictions. Establishing "gun free" zones, or charging fees for "parade permits" to cover added LEO costs, is far different that saying that any and ALL carrying of arms must be precleared by a permit. Your free speech right is NOT totally restricted to use only by permit, or you are subject to arrest.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
:doh
Yes.....
Cool baseless accusation bro. Keep on living in fear of absolutely nothing. It really brings the best out of you.
Click to expand...

This is what Thomas Jefferson thought about your "fear."

Thomas Jefferson Tyranny.jpg
 
Last edited:
Fear is a survival instinct, perhaps the the most powerful, most prevalent instinct found in most all animals, even overriding the need to eat at times.
Fear is a good thing, it's healthy for man to have fear. Only when fear controls your life does it evolve into paranoia.
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1060692496 said:
This is what Thomas Jefferson thought about your "fear."

View attachment 67130989
Click to expand...

Yea. Cool story bro. Cool misquotation. Ummm soo what are your guys "fear" on this issue based off of again? Oh yea i can answer that for ya. ****ING NOTHING.
 
some folks need to have fear of some shadowy international conspiracy to steal their freedoms in the dead of night.

this thread is evidence of such fear.
 
I always love how agreeing to a treaty is somehow attacking our sovereignty.

Signing a treaty infringes upon our sovereignty the same way a rental car contract infringes on your right to drive.
 
Thunder said:
some folks need to have fear of some shadowy international conspiracy to steal their freedoms in the dead of night.

this thread is evidence of such fear.
Click to expand...

yeah we see that all the time from the Obama slurpers who blame all their woes on "the rich", "CEOs" and "corporations"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom