In Favor of Bill
- Print print this page
- Discuss 25 comments, Blog about
Advertisement
There is a danger to our Second Amendment right to bear arms in the form of a United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.
Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) has introduced Senate Bill S.2205 to prohibit U.S. negotiations under this U.N. treaty that would restrict the rights of our citizens to bear arms under the Second Amendment.
It is important that you contact Senators Burr and Hagan and ask that they support Senate Bill S.2205.
One reason our country remains free is the Second Amendment. We individually must be able to defend ourselves. The global Arms Trade Treaty is to be drafted in July 2012. It is important that S.2205 be in place by then.
Linda Caudell
Pinehurst
More like this story
Advertisement
Comments
Bentpan 12 months ago
Right like Sen. Hagen would do anything to support our constitution, especially the 2nd Amendment. Honestly it's way past time we withdraw our 25% financial support ( there are currently 192 member states s o why are we footing 25% of the bill ), our military might and our reputation from the UN. Its' rampant corruption, its' continual failures, the seemingly endless police actions and honestly almost from inception it has worked diligently to undermine US interests and we allowed it so as to be fair. It is time to stop being the whipping boy for the worlds ills. As the UN has gained in size, our influence and reputation has suffered. It's time to cut the purse strings and allow this corrupt failed afterbirth of the League Of Nations to DIE, the sooner the better.
JimHeim 12 months ago
It takes a real idiot to think that any international agreement can overrule any part of the Constitution. Can't happen. Won't happen. Ever.
The bill is a total waste of time and money. But given the poverty of ideas on the Republican side, pointless grandstanding is all that's left.
madstork 12 months ago
Such a pleasant man ...this Heim guy.
Bentpan 12 months ago
JimHeim 1 hour, 6 minutes ago "It takes a real idiot to think that any international agreement can overrule any part of the Constitution. " Spoken by a real authority
geoffcutler 12 months ago
I'll take Republicans poverty of ideas over the wealth of Socialist ideas of the Democrats and Obama any day.
MichaelFlorence 12 months ago
The only "IDIOTS" on this coment line are the ones who have to use name calling and insults to best their make point. If you cannot be civilized then DO NOT COMMENT. I have suggested that both the comments of Jim Heim and Bentpan be removed and The Pilot should start a warning system that if people cannot discourse in a civil manner then they not be allowed to comment.
Everyone needs to Grow Up
fugitiveguy 12 months ago
I fail to see what Mr Pan has posted that would be objectionable, he just reposted Mr Heim's words. I'll read it again just to be sure.
emb6683 11 months, 4 weeks ago
As far as the UN is member nations are concerned, we are the 1% so it is only fair that we pay more.
pgericson 11 months, 4 weeks ago
Factually speaking, the UN Arms Trade Treaty will have no, thing to do with the ability to buy, sell, or own guns in the United States. Its about managing illegal arms sales among countries. I stand with JimHeim on this one.
"In reality, the Arms Trade Treaty will have no impact on domestic legal arms sales in the United States. This is something that the United States insisted upon as a condition of joining the talks. In October 2009, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton personally championed the insertion of a provision in a General Assembly resolution about the ATT that gave countries the exclusive authority to regulate arms within their borders."
For those seeking to understand what the discussion is really about see: http://www.undispatch.com/memo-to-cranks-the-arms-trade-treaty-will-not-affect-your-ability-to-buy-guns
mcgal 11 months, 4 weeks ago
I see no one has used that word "preacher" since Dusty was sent to the corner. They're words,not sticks and stones, folks.
lakeview 11 months, 4 weeks ago
Its about time for Taliban Jim Heim to be sent to the corner to join his buddy DR.
JimHeim 11 months, 4 weeks ago
lakeview, I see you have no counter to my argument. Personal attacks don't do much for your credibility.
Anybody here not familiar with the idea that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land? Nothing supersedes it. It's that simple.
Further, no treaty becomes valid except upon a 2/3 vote of the US Senate. Even if a treaty could trump the constitution, how do you expect such a treaty to get ratified?
Another thought-free letter about a lame-brained bill.
Bentpan 11 months, 4 weeks ago
JimHeim 1 hour, 43 minutes ago "Anybody here not familiar with the idea that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land? Nothing supersedes it. It's that simple..............................................." So why is it the left spend so much of their time attempting circumventing it, Example: Obamacare AKA the affordable health care act. The only time your party cares about the constution is when you can twist, pervert or manipulate it's words to fit your agenda (example; 14th Amendment-anchor babies ), otherwise you dismiss it as outdated,irrelevent and out of touch with american society today.
geoffcutler 11 months, 4 weeks ago
True words, Bentpan...true words! They take the 14th and squeeze it like a lemon. Then on to some sympathetic leftist judges, and presto... a malleable, new and improved constitution they can use. The upcoming decision by the Supreme Court regarding Obamacare butting heads with the commerce clause of the 10th should be a slam sunk as a clear violation of the Constitution...as written. Will it be?
LSM 11 months, 4 weeks ago
“I frankly don’t understand all the brouhaha lately from Congress and even from some of my colleagues about referring to foreign law,” Justice Ginsburg said in her comments on Friday.
As you can see these were words spoken by Justice Ginsburg in 2009. I seriously doubt her attitude has changed about looking outside the US Constitution for guidance.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/12/us/12ginsburg.html
http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/229653-house-to-examine-plan-to-let-un-regulate-internet
Even now there is pressure for the United Nations to oversee, right, the internet.
JimHeim 11 months, 4 weeks ago
Bentpan, you are not the sharpest knife in the drawer, are you? US courts have given mixed ruling on the constitutionality of ACA. In fact, most federal courts have upheld it.
What that has to do with international treaties is a mystery.
As to the 14th amendment, the words are crystal clear. It guarantees equal protection of the law to all citizens. There is no exception for gays. Someday the supreme court will rule that gays cannot be discriminated against, and the ugly stain on the NC constitution voted in earlier this month will be ineffective. Count on it.
geoffcutler 11 months, 4 weeks ago
Jim, if you think the framers of the 14th were thinking about gay couples when the amendment was crafted, and that privileges and immunities of citizens guaranteed gay marriage, you're a magician. Just isn't there, Jim. The amendment dealt with the freedoms of our black citizenry, not marriage. Otherwise, as so many have already pointed out, polygamy would then be covered too. But it isn't. Propose a new amendment.
pgericson 11 months, 4 weeks ago
Goeff, if you think the Supreme Court has limited the use of the 14Amendment to racial issues, you're a magician. The Court has used the Amendment to ensure that fundamental rights of all citizens guaranteed under the Constitution cannot be abridged by State laws. Where, over the last one hundred years, have you seen the Supreme Court back off from applying the 14th Amendment in issues that had nothing to do with race? If the Supreme Court can use the 14th Amendment, in conjunction with other Constitutional Amendments to decide on issues such as freedom to choose, right to purchase and own a weapon, right to a lawyer, and the right to privacy in sexual matters, there is no reason why they couldn't use it to decide that gay marriage is Constitutionally protected. I'm not saying they will decide that way, but based on past rulings, no new Amendment is necessarily required. If I'm not mistaken the Supreme Court has not ruled on the Constitutionality of state laws banning polygamy.
Bentpan 11 months, 4 weeks ago
JimHeim 2 hours, 54 minutes ago Bentpan, you are not the sharpest knife in the drawer, are you? US courts have given mixed ruling on the constitutionality of ACA. In fact, most federal courts have upheld it. ..............................................
You and I both know this garbage legislation is headed to the trashbin when SCOTUS renders their decision and no your penchant for deceit is showing yet again six federal courts have rendered rulings three have struck it down and three have upheld it. I've said it before and I'll say it again you, sir, are a serial liar, As for being " not the sharpest knife in the drawer" somehow that insult coming from, well, you doesn't carry much weight.
geoffcutler 11 months, 4 weeks ago
That's right, pg, because liberal judges are reading into the 14th what isn't there. It's a catch-all for whatever the liberal mindset has in store on any given day. Look, Republicans have fielded the idea of an amendment to the Constitution that would make marriage between a man and a woman. Tell me why liberals don't have the same guts and ideas in mind. If gay marriage is so obvious and right, why not put up for an amendment to deal with it explicitly instead of reading into the Constitution what isn't there, and judge shopping?
Bentpan 11 months, 4 weeks ago
Mr. Cutter what, you don't think Barney Fwank didn't try' I guarantee they've tried and it never made it out of legislative committee. Truth is most democrats are, shall we say, uncomfortable with the whole homosexual agenda, they just don't want to be seen as disloyal to the democrat platform.
geoffcutler 11 months, 4 weeks ago
Thank you, Bentpan, but It was a rhetorical question. The answer is obvious. Sure, support any special interest for votes, True, but this is simply about the fact that they couldn't get the thing started if cows jumped over the Moon. Hence, turning the 14th upside down with liberal judges. It's the only way to get around the people. Chip away...wear us down slowly... it's the same thing they are doing with every part of the economy, our education, our environment, health, and our society in general... to slowly but surely socialize the nation.
Zoey 11 months, 4 weeks ago
"We individually must be able to defend ourselves."
http://www.wral.com/news/national_world/national/story/11146989/
JD 11 months, 4 weeks ago
Truth is most democrats are, shall we say, uncomfortable with the whole homosexual agenda, they just don't want to be seen as disloyal to the democrat platform.
You got proof or taking the lib way of just making up facts Bedpan?
SamAdams1776 11 months, 4 weeks ago
Heim is only part right, He obviously has not read article 6: Check out item 2 below.
Article VI 1: All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
2: 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.
3: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Assuming that the treaty is ratified and signed by the President (and he will), it becomes together with the Constitution, the supreme Law of the land, though in conflict with the Second Amendment. But the 2nd Amendment nor any part of the Bill of Rights, actually grant rights, it forbids government from interfering with pre-existing rights.
SamAdams1776 11 months, 4 weeks ago
Heim take note:
and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
ANY THING in the CONSTITUTION to the contrary NOTWITHSTANDING.
This treaty would end the protection of the Second Amendment, PERIOD! And courts WILL enforce it and if the people are smart under such circumstances they will hopefully rise up in arms. 3% would do---that would be 2.7 million armed Americans. More is better, of course, but 3% will do.
SamAdams1776 III Molon Labe No Fort Sumters
Bentpan 11 months, 4 weeks ago
New batter up SamAdams1776 and he knocks it out of the park and in process helps Mr. Heim expose his own shortcomings yet again. Mr Heim you were refering to idiots earlier, in this instance I really wish you were right for once.
JimHeim 11 months, 4 weeks ago
Sorry, SamAdams, you are not going to get 67 votes in the Senate for this treaty (which has not been presented to that body and never will). Period. What are you smoking?
Further, I take "Under authority of the United States" to mean under the Constitution. I'd be interested in a constitutional scholar willing to suggest that a UN treaty could supersede that document.
This bill remains a total waste of time and a platform for mindless grandstanding. But what else do Republicans in congress have to do with their time.
JimHeim 11 months, 4 weeks ago
The words in the fourteenth amendment are perfectly clear. If they had wanted to limit it to Americans of African descent they were perfectly able to do that.
There are scholars of the opinion that the real reason for the equal protection clause was Southerners, who after deserting the United States of America, could have been prevented from returning as citizens (a fate that might have affected their descendants).
geoffcutler 11 months, 4 weeks ago
Jim, there's no where else for you libs to go except the 14th. It was about equal citizenry for blacks, and that's all it was about. The Constitution is purposely limited and vague for just that reason. But you guys keep finding stuff in it that isn't there and get the judges to do the dirty work for you that you couldn't pass in a ballot box. All you've got is like minded judges, some of them with life terms.