Real threat of UN ban?

[Shawnmoore81 623]

The ndaa passed through so i have no faith that this won't. It might not but I would t bet the house on it.

[raz-0 1,259]

 

So John Lott is blowing smoke??

 

He's speculating and placing it in venues to appear as reporting rather than editorializing. He's done much more unethical things than that lately.

[raz-0 1,259]

The ndaa passed through so i have no faith that this won't. It might not but I would t bet the house on it.

 

The ndaa only needed simple majority. Besides this can't run as a rider to a budget bill or any other fun stuff. It can't be put to a voice vote at 3am.

 

Getting this to be a done deal is basically the same as repealing the 2nd without having to get the house involved.

 

It is a very, very, very low grade threat.

[MrSurfboard 1]

POTUS is in charge of the executive branch, so yes he could enforce it. Doing so would be impeachable because it is a violation of our Constitution.

Vienna does not grant the POTUS immunity from his oath of office.

 

The interesting conflict would be COTUS passing a law that violates the ATT after the Hillmonster executes it. We would then need the SCOTUS to rule on which takes precedence. Watching that one would be worth the BIG bucket of popcorn.

 

No offense, but I trust Dick Morris' assertions more then some unknown face from this message board. He's pretty well connected in politics and knows what he is talking about. And it makes perfect sense for Obama. He gets his gun control/ban without doing a thing.

[gunforhire 826]

5 Fundamental Flaws in the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty

 

 

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/07/23/5-fundamental-flaws-in-the-u-n-arms-trade-treaty/

[Kaiser7 33]

I just saw something from the SAF, they said small arms are included on this.

[db1775 4]

Mr SurfBoard -- I don't put much stock in Dick Morris' analyses, nor in anything the NRA says. HOWEVER, I agree that the aim of the treaty is in line with Obama's ultimate 2A End Game -- that seems like common sense to me. I also don't buy into the "it can't happen here" mentality as I put NO faith in the solidity of any position held by paid-for/buyable Senators. Anyone remember the Cornhusker Kickback? Even the supposed "redlines" put into the negotiations by Hillary are not written in stone.

 

Regarding the statement above about impeaching Obama if he enforced this treaty, has he yet been impeached for the military operation in Libya last year? Not even a wink-and-nod to Congress, but he did cite UN/NATO approval for initiating hostilities. And when finally asked about it by the press he disingenuously said that the War Powers Act did not apply because our planes were not in 180 actual days of continuous combat, but less than 180 days stretched out over 6-9 months. Now, if THAT kind of willful and disgusting disregard of Congress and the Constitution doesn't scare the sh*t out of people, I don't know what will.

 

Do I believe that this, still to be fully outlined treaty, is a real threat? Maybe not at this time -- but this man cannot be trusted, at all. And neither can the supposed positions of 67 Senators this far out from the ratification process. (Concurrence = Ratification). It just makes more sense, to me, to be touchy and reactionary regarding this issue, rather than complacent or trusting in Congress.

 

 

 

POTUS is in charge of the executive branch, so yes he could enforce it. Doing so would be impeachable because it is a violation of our Constitution.

Vienna does not grant the POTUS immunity from his oath of office.

 

The interesting conflict would be COTUS passing a law that violates the ATT after the Hillmonster executes it. We would then need the SCOTUS to rule on which takes precedence. Watching that one would be worth the BIG bucket of popcorn.

No offense, but I trust Dick Morris' assertions more then some unknown face from this message board. He's pretty well connected in politics and knows what he is talking about. And it makes perfect sense for Obama. He gets his gun control/ban without doing a thing.