[Faumpiggueria]

i have to laugh at all of the people with the "i'll die before i turn in my guns" rhetoric i'm reading all over the net. none of them do anything in regards to the rest of the parts of the constitution/bill of rights that are constantly ignored, but oh no, that one, that one, THAT'S THE ONE that's going to make all of them get off the internet message boards and do something.

99% of all of them will go "deeerrrrr, they let me keep my single shot .22LR so i have my rights! i will never give that one up though, out of my cold, dead hands!"

personally, i don't know what i'd do if they ever showed up at my house to collect them, but at least i'm honest about it. i suffer nothing worse than grandstanders and big talkers.

ares, this is in no way, shape, or form directed at you -you're cool- i'm just pissed off that people won't leave me alone. every fucking day people can't leave me alone.

[outsitWrord]

Anyone see the irony? 50% of ALL crimes committed are by 13% of the populations, and one of there's is in charge Leroy Obongo and gun and ammo sales go through the roof. And their head Leroy wants to ban guns, so only his Leroys have guns because they don't give a fuck about the law.

On a side note, I think this son of a bitch wants a full on race war, there's been a race war going on based on the statistics but he wants the bodies to hit the floor.

[myspacepro]

Well now we know what the Drones are for.

[margoaroyo]

Anyone see the irony? 50% of ALL crimes committed are by 13% of the populations, and one of there's is in charge Leroy Obongo and gun and ammo sales go through the roof. And their head Leroy wants to ban guns, so only his Leroys have guns because they don't give a fuck about the law.

On a side note, I think this son of a bitch wants a full on race war, there's been a race war going on based on the statistics but he wants the bodies to hit the floor.

A race war is a means to an ends. I am not saying that the doped up sheeple on both sides can see it for what it is. Proles are always good patsies.


edit...

[Hitfaromarf]

i have to laugh at all of the people with the "i'll die before i turn in my guns" rhetoric i'm reading all over the net. none of them do anything in regards to the rest of the parts of the constitution/bill of rights that are constantly ignored, but oh no, that one, that one, THAT'S THE ONE that's going to make all of them get off the internet message boards and do something.

99% of all of them will go "deeerrrrr, they let me keep my single shot .22LR so i have my rights! i will never give that one up though, out of my cold, dead hands!"

personally, i don't know what i'd do if they ever showed up at my house to collect them, but at least i'm honest about it. i suffer nothing worse than grandstanders and big talkers.

ares, this is in no way, shape, or form directed at you -you're cool- i'm just pissed off that people won't leave me alone. every fucking day people can't leave me alone.

Definitely understandable there, I too get pissed that people won't do anything regarding the liberties we've already lost. I used to fly a lot more than I do now. I avoid it at all cost now because I don't feel like getting sexually assaulted every time I go to the airport. My boss may not like it, but I've made my decision and I stand by it. Same with my money and other areas of my daily life, and definitely my weapons. I have prepared myself mentally, physically and spiritually for a confrontation with "authority" on the premise of them forcing me to comply.

I do not fear my death, and I've made peace with my creator. So if they come for my weapons let the cards fall where they may. I don't know what you or others will do, I just know what I will do.

Like I've said before, I'll die on my feet before I ever live on my knees. To the frustration of my wife I live by that motto. The state has no authority, or jurisdiction over me because I do not let them. Would it be easier to just "get along" to go along? Of course, but that's not who I am. I fight every step of the way, even down to a parking ticket I got last month. I do not, will not comply.

I'm a bad slave :-D

[Tibaveriafark]

you know what will happen? nothing.

Absolutely right. People won't do jack. People think this whole line in the sand they draw in their heads means something, it doesn't. If people were going to start taking shots against a tyrannical government they would've done it 100+ years ago..... wait they did do it then, and how did that turn out?

If people agreed to let the government send our kids off to die in pointless war after pointless war, legalize infanticide, steal 50% of everything we earn, regulate 100% of everything we do, and to take your very life if you disagree with them. They will go along with anything. More bitching and moaning, but that's about it.

[Tibaveriafark]

On a side note, I think this son of a bitch wants a full on race war, there's been a race war going on based on the statistics but he wants the bodies to hit the floor.

Well for the last 140 years for the most part we haven't shot back. If/When we do the bodies hitting the floor will be of a darker hue. Think the Battle of Blood River.

[brilkyPlayday]

Treaties supersede the constitution. Even if signed, they have to be ratified by the Senate.

I thought I had read somewhere that this was a treaty signed in the 60's. Could be wrong with this, though.

http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/c...united-states/

Not according to Publius Huldah:



TREATIES: Part Of The Supreme Law Of The Land
By Publius Huldah
If the United States Senate ratifies the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, will that UN Convention become part of the supreme Law of the Land? [1] If the Senate ratifies the proposed cap and trade “climate” treaty, will that become part of the supreme Law of the Land? [2]
We hear it said that whenever the Senate ratifies a treaty, it becomes part of “the supreme law of the land”. But is that True? Not necessarily! Walk with me, and I will show you how to think through this question, and how to analyze other constitutional questions which come your way.
You must always ask: Is this authorized in the Constitution? Where exactly in the Constitution? And precisely what is authorized by the Constitution?
1. Does the federal government have authority to make treaties? Can treaties be about any subject? Or, are the proper objects of treaties limited by The Constitution?
Art II, §2, cl. 2, U.S. Constitution, says, respecting the powers of the President:He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur…Article VI, cl. 2 says:This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. [emphasis added]Thus, we see that the federal government is authorized to make treaties. Now, we must find out whether there are limitations on this treaty making power.
2. It is a classic rule of construction (rules for understanding the objective meaning of writings) [3] that one must give effect to every word & phrase. The clause does not say, “Treaties made by the United States are part of the supreme Law of the Land”. Instead, it says Treaties made under the Authority of the United States, are part of the supreme Law of the Land.
So we see right away that a Treaty is part of the supreme Law of the Land only if it is made “under the Authority of the United States“.
3. From where do the President & the Senate get Authority to act? From The Constitution. The objects of their lawful (as opposed to usurped) powers are enumerated in the Constitution. Thus, the President & Senate must be authorized in the Constitution to act on a subject before any Treaty made by them on that subject qualifies as part of “the supreme Law of the Land”. If the Constitution does not authorize the President & Congress to act on an object, the Treaty is not “Law” – it is a mere usurpation, and deserves to be treated as such. [4] Because the Constitution is “fundamental” law, [5] it is The Standard by which the legitimacy of all presidential acts, all acts of Congress, all treaties, & all judicial decisions is measured. [6]
4. The Federalist Papers were written during 1787-1788 by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, & John Jay, in order to explain the proposed Constitution to The People to induce them to ratify it. Because of this, The Federalist Papers are the most authoritative commentary on the meaning of The Constitution. Thus, we must always consult The Federalist Papers to learn what they say about any constitutional provision. In Federalist No. 44 (7th Para from end), James Madison said that a treaty which violates a State constitution would have no effect in that State:…as the constitutions of the States differ much from each other, it might happen that a treaty or national law of great and equal importance to the States would interfere with some and not with other constitutions and would consequently be valid in some of the States at the same time that it would have no effect in others. [emphasis added] [7]Madison thus illustrated the Principle that a treaty which interferes with the Constitution has no effect. I found no other discussion in The Federalist on this point. So, let’s turn to Thomas Jefferson, who wrote: [8]In giving to the President and Senate a power to make treaties, the Constitution meant only to authorize them to carry into effect, by way of treaty, any powers they might constitutionally exercise. –Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1793. ME 1:408 [emphasis added]Surely the President and Senate cannot do by treaty what the whole government is interdicted from doing in any way. –Thomas Jefferson: Parliamentary Manual, 1800. ME 2:442 [emphasis added]According to the rule established by usage and common sense, of construing one part of the instrument by another, the objects on which the President and Senate may exclusively act by treaty are much reduced, but the field on which they may act with the sanction of the Legislature is large enough; and I see no harm in rendering their sanction necessary, and not much harm in annihilating the whole treaty-making power, except as to making peace. –Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1796. ME 9:330 [emphasis added]5. So! We have seen that the treaty making power of the United States is limited! What, then, are the proper objects of treaties? To find the answer, we must go to The Constitution to see what it authorizes the President & the Congress to do in this area! The Constitution delegates to Congress powers “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations…and with the Indian Tribes” (Art I, § 8, cl. 3); and “To declare War…and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water” (Art I, § 8, cl. 11). The Constitution authorizes the President to “…appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls…” (Art II, §2, cl. 2).
The authors of The Federalist Papers commented on the treaty making power of the United States. John Jay said treaties relate to “war, peace, and to commerce” and to the promotion of “trade and navigation” (Federalist No. 64, 3rd & 6th Paras). Madison said treaties also relate to sending and receiving ambassadors & consuls and to commerce. (Federalist No. 42, 1st & 4th Paras).
There may be additional objects of the treaty making power authorized in The Constitution. For example, Art I, § 8, cl. 8, authorizes Congress “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries“. Thus, The United States could properly enter into treaties respecting patents & copyrights. [9]
6. Let’s look now at the proposed U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child. If ratified by the Senate, would it become part of “the supreme Law of the Land”?
To answer that Question, we must first ask: Does The Constitution grant to Congress the power to make laws respecting “children”? Does The Constitution grant to the Executive Branch jurisdiction over “children”?
The answer to both questions is “NO!” In addition, the 10th Amendment says if a power is not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, it is [generally] reserved to the States or the people Thus, jurisdiction over “children” is reserved to the States or the People! Accordingly, if the Senate were to ratify the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, the treaty would NOT become part of “the supreme Law of this Land”, because it would not have been made under the Authority of the United States. It would be a mere usurpation and would deserve to be treated as such.
If the Senate were to ratify the cap-and-trade “climate” treaty, which, among other things, would force energy companies to buy allowances or permits for their “carbon emissions”, would it become part of “the supreme law of the Land”? You are now equipped to find the answer, and you can confidently defend it!
Do not forget: The federal government may not lawfully circumvent the U.S. Constitution by international treaties. It may NOT do by Treaty what it is not permitted to do by the U.S. Constitution.
7. Finally, Thomas Jefferson pointed to a legislative remedy if the President and the Senate ignore the constitutional limits on the treaty making power of the United States; or even if they enter into a treaty which is permitted by the Constitution but of which the House disapproves. Thomas Jefferson said: [10]We conceive the constitutional doctrine to be, that though the President and Senate have the general power of making treaties, yet wherever they include in a treaty matters confided by the Constitution to the three [did he mean, "two"?] branches of Legislature, an act of legislation will be requisite to confirm these articles, and that the House of Representatives, as one branch of the Legislature, are perfectly free to pass the act or to refuse it, governing themselves by their own judgment whether it is for the good of their constituents to let the treaty go into effect or not. –Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1796. ME 9:329 [emphasis added]I was glad… to hear it admitted on all hands, that laws of the United States, subsequent to a treaty, control its operation, and that the Legislature is the only power which can control a treaty. Both points are sound beyond doubt.–Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1798. ME 10:41What a man! And our system of checks & balances is an elegant one, indeed!
8. Folks! For too long, we have blindly accepted whatever we hear others say. Someone on TV says, “If the Senate ratifies this treaty, it will become part of the supreme law of the land!” And not only do we believe it, we repeat it to others. And thus, we became part of the misinformation dissemination network. In order to restore our constitutional republic with its federal form of government, we must rediscover the lost art & science of Thinking & Analysis. And then, we must learn to say, “They don’t have authority under The Constitution to do that!”
Publius Huldah
September 18, 2009; revised Oct. 11, 2011
[1]http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/02/25/boxer-seeks-ratify-treaty-erode-rights/
[2] http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-B...51Q22L20090227
[3] Educators no longer teach “rules of construction”, because it has become the dogma of our time that texts have no “objective meaning” to be discovered. Instead, each person is to come up with his own “understanding” – and one person’s “understanding” is as good as another’s. A friend recalls the following incident which occurred in an high school English class during 1960: The class read a short story, & then the teacher asked each student to say what the story meant to him. Whatever a student said was praised by the teacher. But when it was my friend’s turn, he said: “It doesn’t matter what it means to me – what matters is what the author meant.” The teacher was not pleased with this ‘out of place’ comment. Is it any wonder many judges feel free to “understand” the Constitution any way they please? They were conditioned in school to “think” this way; and they did not resist the conditioning.
[4] In Federalist No. 33 (7th Para), Alexander Hamilton pointed to Art. VI, cl.2, and said that laws which are not pursuant to the Constitution are merely acts of usurpation and deserve to be treated as such.
[5] The Federalist No. 78 (12th & 13th Paras), A. Hamilton.
[6] The Federalist No. 78 (11th Para), states: “There is no position which depends on clearer principles than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.” A. Hamilton.
[7] Madison thus showed why it was necessary that Art. VI, cl. 2 grant to Treaties supremacy over State Constitutions.
[8] See the Univ. of Virginia website at http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/...s/jeff1020.htm for these and more quotes on the same subject.
[9] It has been said that Charles Dickens’ works were pirated, printed and sold in these United States without paying any royalties to Dickens! A copyright treaty with Great Britain might have discouraged this theft of Dickens’ intellectual property.

[toponlinecasinoer]

Monty - doesn't matter. Since when has a regime sided with someone else where the interests of oligarchs were concerned?

[outsitWrord]

Monty - doesn't matter. Since when has a regime sided with someone else where the interests of oligarchs were concerned?

Skirnir, since you've turned into such a cunt in the past 2 years, maybe you should have a friend shoot you in the other foot.

[myspacepro]

Well when they come for me or my firearms i'm gonna smile and wave ... then i'm gonna make Charles Whitman look like a God damn boy scout!

[Corporal White]

If frigging silver would jet up to $50, I would sell and bunch and buy a shitpile of guns.

[Corporal White]

But except for I lost my silver in a terrible boating accident, of course. Just sayin, if I had any...

[antiggill]

Jesus Christ, you sound like some of the women here, never fucking satisfied.

Shut the hell up, dipstick..