Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
UN Disarmament Documents .PDF
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="mons meg" data-source="post: 1847983" data-attributes="member: 90"><p>Look, I do find concerns here, but I'm not investing in tinfoil futures. The real concern is that our current administration shows their hand, that they can downplay all they want about gun control, and how they aren't interested in it, but then they turn around and support this treaty so you know they still oppose private firearm ownership, and thus desire government to have a monopoly on force. This indicates their true beliefs, but doesn't mean they can upend the entire US system of government to implement their Utopian desires. That said. I'm not getting spun up by Wayne LaPierre's recent emails telling me that blue helmets are marching down my street, either.</p><p></p><p>What we learned in 8th grade Civics class is still on the books: </p><p></p><p>--2/3rd Senate supermajority required to implement a treaty as binding. Not gon' happen with the bad press this has gotten. They can't even pass LOST...how would they get 66 Senators to take the hit for a treaty that the majority of Americans oppose?</p><p></p><p>--a treaty can't usurp the Bill of Rights, no matter how many Internet lawyers say so.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="mons meg, post: 1847983, member: 90"] Look, I do find concerns here, but I'm not investing in tinfoil futures. The real concern is that our current administration shows their hand, that they can downplay all they want about gun control, and how they aren't interested in it, but then they turn around and support this treaty so you know they still oppose private firearm ownership, and thus desire government to have a monopoly on force. This indicates their true beliefs, but doesn't mean they can upend the entire US system of government to implement their Utopian desires. That said. I'm not getting spun up by Wayne LaPierre's recent emails telling me that blue helmets are marching down my street, either. What we learned in 8th grade Civics class is still on the books: --2/3rd Senate supermajority required to implement a treaty as binding. Not gon' happen with the bad press this has gotten. They can't even pass LOST...how would they get 66 Senators to take the hit for a treaty that the majority of Americans oppose? --a treaty can't usurp the Bill of Rights, no matter how many Internet lawyers say so. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
UN Disarmament Documents .PDF
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom