Obama expected to sign global gun control treaty

[nontheist]

I am looking for it but apparently it does affect civilian firearms it has NRA's hackles raised and they have already said they are fighting this full force until the civilian part is removed. They also pretty much told Obama we have 58 senators so "its not gonna happen" take it out.

[video=youtube_share;yq0FnVNUrXI]http://youtu.be/yq0FnVNUrXI[/video]

 

[cannabineer]

the first protects the 2nd, not the other way around. In fact that 2nd amendment is all but worthless in protecting any of our amendment described rights, or are you going to get your due process rights by waving a firearm in front of a court? Or are you going to get your right to be free from self incrimination by a vigilante group with shotguns outside the courthouse? How does your 2nd amendment rights protect your right to free speech and freedom of the press? No, any examination at all of this "the 2nd protects them all" NRA jingoistic claptrap shows it for the nonesense it is. Ultimately your firearm can protect your "right to life" but only from another citizens willingness to take it and not from your government's ability to do the same.

The single most compelling argument for the 2nd Amendment as an individual right is that a Gov't cannot effectively go rogue if its supporting populace is both informed and armed. Imo the two amendments are equivalent and interlocking. The 2nd guarantees that we can, if pressed, organize and unseat a rogue government. That is assuredly an incentive to our elected and appointed wardens to play nice. And that is, imo, the bone in the throat of those who'd like to see the right to individual gun ownership, use, carry etc. simply go away. cn

 

[desert dude]

"back door"? how so? where is there a back door for international treaties to intrude in domestic funamental laws of the land? I notice that there are a few folks who posted here who are either being facetious or actually believe that rubbish that was first posted. This is the sort of thing I am talking about. Those folk may not have read the resulting counter posts about the absurdity of the proposition that this treaty could or would have any effect and so they will take their new found "knowlege" and embed it in their world view. Now a few more conversations will include "well, you know Obama is taking our guns away, yeah, he signed a treaty that does it" and the response will be "of course, that man is an enemy of all of us" - and so it will go, exactly how the author of that piece of dog droppings wanted it to go, some of us being unwitting functionaries to the plan.

One example is the "single convention on narcotic drugs". Many have raised the point that the feds literally cannot remove cannabis from the controlled substances act because doing so would put the US in violation of that treaty. Treaties entered into by the US have constitutional weight, and should not be entered into lightly. My opinion is that the US should not enter into any treaty that makes domestic US law its hostage.

"The Single Convention has been extremely influential in standardizing national drug control laws. In particular, the United States' Controlled Substances Act of 1970 and the United Kingdom's Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 were designed to fulfill treaty obligations."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Convention_on_Narcotic_Drugs


The constitutional authority for treaties:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_Clause


This part is comforting:

'Additionally, an international accord that is inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution is void under domestic U.S. law, the same as any other federal law in conflict with the Constitution. This principle was most clearly established in the case of Reid v. Covert.[SUP][8][/SUP] The Supreme Court could rule an Article II treaty provision to be unconstitutional and void under domestic law, although it has not yet done so.'

 

[desert dude]

Watch this video of Eric Holder, Obama's choice for America's highest ranking law enforcement official, talking about gun control, then come back and tell me that he wouldn't violate 2A if given half a chance:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=s-6IAOBhlU4

 

[canndo]

The single most compelling argument for the 2nd Amendment as an individual right is that a Gov't cannot effectively go rogue if its supporting populace is both informed and armed. Imo the two amendments are equivalent and interlocking. The 2nd guarantees that we can, if pressed, organize and unseat a rogue government. That is assuredly an incentive to our elected and appointed wardens to play nice. And that is, imo, the bone in the throat of those who'd like to see the right to individual gun ownership, use, carry etc. simply go away. cn

Well put, however, let us look at something other than a (now questionable) "nuclear option" whereby the citizens rose up and began anew with government. That was the point I was making, you cannot enforce your right to a speedy trial, your right to be free from illegal search or any of our other rights with a firearm, some don't even make sense, others would require mass insurrection. So long as the public is well informed as to the goings on of their government (and something that as a reluctant Obama supporter that makes me very ill), then weapons are not needed. If weapons are posessed by every person but somehow government action is kept secret or only localy known, we have no security. All I am doing is what I tend to do in these sites, dispell the thoughtless myths and bumper sticker mentality that intrudes on reason. The 2nd does not "protect all the rest". ALL of them protect each other, and, as you say, work as a whole to keep us relatively free. and I am DAMN sorry I have to use state it that way.

Another is the falacy that our troops, either gave us our freedom or that they are the sole protectors of it. Or the one that says that dying for our country is the only way to have it continue to be free - there are hords of people who give their iives, living and not dying in order to have us be free. Am I ranting about this yet? It is Saturday lunch time and so I indulge a bit.

 

[canndo]

One example is the "single convention on narcotic drugs". Many have raised the point that the feds literally cannot remove cannabis from the controlled substances act because doing so would put the US in violation of that treaty. Treaties entered into by the US have constitutional weight, and should not be entered into lightly. My opinion is that the US should not enter into any treaty that makes domestic US law its hostage.

"The Single Convention has been extremely influential in standardizing national drug control laws. In particular, the United States' Controlled Substances Act of 1970 and the United Kingdom's Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 were designed to fulfill treaty obligations."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Convention_on_Narcotic_Drugs


The constitutional authority for treaties:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_Clause


This part is comforting:

'Additionally, an international accord that is inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution is void under domestic U.S. law, the same as any other federal law in conflict with the Constitution. This principle was most clearly established in the case of Reid v. Covert.[SUP][8][/SUP] The Supreme Court could rule an Article II treaty provision to be unconstitutional and void under domestic law, although it has not yet done so.'

Thanks for your input and links dude, I will look at them when I have a chance. I was given to believe that the U.S. was the prime motivator of those drug treaties and I would like to know more. I have been looking for text of the treaty and have found only opinion - most of which is from the rightist echo chamber as I said before but the fact that I see only circular references has me a bit suspicious of everything right or left. reminds me of the AZ immigration law that was published - then dissapeared and then republished only different the second time. We are being manipulated and even the deeper researchers can't get answers, just hunches. I'll keep trying though and I got your point, until I can get a more direct read - there would have to be either some guarantee or exclusion for our culture as well as our constitutional protections. Further, there would have to be a reasonable advantage to us in order for me to accept Obama's signing of the treaty.

I have to keep myself from accepting (or using) the slippery slope argument.

 

[canndo]

Watch this video of Eric Holder, Obama's choice for America's highest ranking law enforcement official, talking about gun control, then come back and tell me that he wouldn't violate 2A if given half a chance:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=s-6IAOBhlU4

your operative is "if given the chance". We should never ever trust anyone in power to "do the right thing". Would I "trust" Romney to do the right thing with regard to the health care law, or taxes or worse, the military? everyone is after our rights. (the true liberal has an exclusive read of the constitution - that which affords the individual with the most and most powerful rights and protections that can be had is the only correct reading - as such I am amazed that my liberal brethren have problems with the 2nd)

 

[cannabineer]

Well put, however, let us look at something other than a (now questionable) "nuclear option" whereby the citizens rose up and began anew with government. That was the point I was making, you cannot enforce your right to a speedy trial, your right to be free from illegal search or any of our other rights with a firearm, some don't even make sense, others would require mass insurrection. So long as the public is well informed as to the goings on of their government (and something that as a reluctant Obama supporter that makes me very ill), then weapons are not needed. If weapons are possessed by every person but somehow government action is kept secret or only locally known, we have no security. All I am doing is what I tend to do in these sites, dispel the thoughtless myths and bumper sticker mentality that intrudes on reason. The 2nd does not "protect all the rest". ALL of them protect each other, and, as you say, work as a whole to keep us relatively free. and I am DAMN sorry I have to use state it that way.

Another is the fallacy that our troops, either gave us our freedom or that they are the sole protectors of it. Or the one that says that dying for our country is the only way to have it continue to be free - there are hordes of people who give their lives, living and not dying in order to have us be free. Am I ranting about this yet? It is Saturday lunch time and so I indulge a bit.

Of the two sentences I've highlighted, I don't believe the first is possible. Government has become too big and hydra-headed. As a result, i consider sentence two to describe a basic principle: We have no security currently. I see our police and judicial system misbehaving an awful lot. Quis custodiet custodes?
So I see inherent value in the "nuclear option", and yes, that is how i see it ... the threat of insurrection. Imo that informs one of the engines of the gun control movement ... part of an integrated dissent management plan, to coin a euphemistic phrase. cn

 

[desert dude]

Thanks for your input and links dude, I will look at them when I have a chance. I was given to believe that the U.S. was the prime motivator of those drug treaties and I would like to know more. I have been looking for text of the treaty and have found only opinion - most of which is from the rightist echo chamber as I said before but the fact that I see only circular references has me a bit suspicious of everything right or left. reminds me of the AZ immigration law that was published - then dissapeared and then republished only different the second time. We are being manipulated and even the deeper researchers can't get answers, just hunches. I'll keep trying though and I got your point, until I can get a more direct read - there would have to be either some guarantee or exclusion for our culture as well as our constitutional protections. Further, there would have to be a reasonable advantage to us in order for me to accept Obama's signing of the treaty.

I have to keep myself from accepting (or using) the slippery slope argument.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Convention_on_Narcotic_Drugs

"The Single Convention created four Schedules of controlled substances and a process for adding new substances to the Schedules without amending the treaty. The Schedules were designed to have significantly stricter regulations than the two drug "Groups" established by predecessor treaties. For the first time, cannabis was added to the list of internationally controlled drugs. In fact, regulations on the cannabis plant – as well as the opium poppy, the coca bush, poppy straw and cannabis leaves – were embedded in the text of the treaty, making it impossible to deregulate them through the normal Scheduling process. A 1962 issue of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs' Bulletin on Narcotics proudly announced that "after a definite transitional period, all non-medical use of narcotic drugs, such as opium smoking, opium eating, consumption of cannabis (hashish, marijuana) and chewing of coca leaves, will be outlawed everywhere. This is a goal which workers in international narcotics control all over the world have striven to achieve for half a century."[SUP][4]"[/SUP]


Text of the actual treaty, for what it is worth:

http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/treaties/single-convention.html

 

[canndo]

Of the two sentences I've highlighted, I don't believe the first is possible. Government has become too big and hydra-headed. As a result, i consider sentence two to describe a basic principle: We have no security currently. I see our police and judicial system misbehaving an awful lot. Quis custodiet custodes?
So I see inherent value in the "nuclear option", and yes, that is how i see it ... the threat of insurrection. Imo that informs one of the engines of the gun control movement ... part of an integrated dissent management plan, to coin a euphemistic phrase. cn

We continue to almost agree on different topics. There is inherent value to the nuclear option but I think we see that nuclear option a bit differently. I see the interem after such an option as a time of no protected rights at all, between government so to speak - and in that, for that time, we have lost all protected rights. So, the weapons have protected nothing except our "right" to start over. I do not see this government as afraid of an armed citizenry. I doubt that any leader has ever sat in his basement with others and said "well, I'd really like to become dictator but all those people have GUNS!".

Ruby ridge and Waco are perfect examples, our government was not detered by the presence of individualy owned guns, in my opinion it never will be, even if by chance, they actually overstepped their bounds an triggered a revolt they would not have taken an armed citizenry into account. unfortunately, I vew the 2nd as a luxury more than anything else when it comes to a deterent to tyranny. Tyranny comes in many forms - only one of which is governmental and that, in this country is still the easiest to curtail with simple public outrage.

 

[cannabineer]

Oh. I see one of your main points. Yes; after a revolution is a time of supreme vulnerability to even worse tyranny. I view the revolution option with extreme distaste. I also view disarmament with similar distaste. I still remember the lessons of 20th-century Europe. cn

<edit> I want to take a moment to acknowledge that you are a thoughtful interlocutor. It's refreshing.

 

[canndo]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Convention_on_Narcotic_Drugs

"The Single Convention created four Schedules of controlled substances and a process for adding new substances to the Schedules without amending the treaty. The Schedules were designed to have significantly stricter regulations than the two drug "Groups" established by predecessor treaties. For the first time, cannabis was added to the list of internationally controlled drugs. In fact, regulations on the cannabis plant &#8211; as well as the opium poppy, the coca bush, poppy straw and cannabis leaves &#8211; were embedded in the text of the treaty, making it impossible to deregulate them through the normal Scheduling process. A 1962 issue of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs' Bulletin on Narcotics proudly announced that "after a definite transitional period, all non-medical use of narcotic drugs, such as opium smoking, opium eating, consumption of cannabis (hashish, marijuana) and chewing of coca leaves, will be outlawed everywhere. This is a goal which workers in international narcotics control all over the world have striven to achieve for half a century."[SUP][4]"[/SUP]


Text of the actual treaty, for what it is worth:

http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/treaties/single-convention.html

Kinda falls into line with what we have been watching for the last 30 years, culminating with oaksterdam and Harborside eh? again, thanks for playing with me by getting to the root of things, maybe you have a point about this gun thing as well - did I scoff too soon? The problem here for me was the presentation of the original post (and the echo chamber posts on the web). If this is a genuine concern then let there be genuine presentation of facts rather than descemination of hit pieces. I think that is what spurred my initial comments on it. I will be going out soon but will review the thing next week. Oh, and wiki is not as bad as people say, it is a very good starting place.

 

[cannabineer]

An open question on the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. Is it amenable to being amended? And is the USA genuinely compelled by it? Seems fishy. I worry that the USA is using the Convention as a bludgeon, not the other way around even if it's being postured that way. cn

 

[canndo]

Oh. I see one of your main points. Yes; after a revolution is a time of supreme vulnerability to even worse tyranny. I view the revolution option with extreme distaste. I also view disarmament with similar distaste. I still remember the lessons of 20th-century Europe. cn

<edit> I want to take a moment to acknowledge that you are a thoughtful interlocutor. It's refreshing.

Thanks canna - at the risk of appearing to laud like minded people as being "inelligent" simply because they are like minded, I enjoy our conversations as well and I see you as bringing thoughtfulness and civility to this site - try THAT on the political face book pages and see where it gets you.

Disarmament? in another world perhaps but we can't get all of those weapons back in the bottle, nor do I think I would want to unless and until we could charge our government with protecting us from other citizens with ill intent. I have a rather jaded view of the requirements of freedom in this country. Freedom entails gobs of collateral damage, our freedom rests upon the death of children, women's reproductive rights come with great cost, so do our rights to keep and bear - I want both freedoms and am sorry that the cost is so high, but there is no other way. I will never accept any but the most basic inhibitions on our right to bear. Years ago I was a firm believer in strict gun control until I took a winter trip across our country. I flew over hundreds of miles of big squares with a tiny house somewhere within each square. I didn't see towns anywhere near. How were those people supposed to protect themselves? From that moment I realized the value in the 2nd even apart from that nuclear option.

 

[canndo]

An open question on the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. Is it amenable to being amended? And is the USA genuinely compelled by it? Seems fishy. I worry that the USA is using the Convention as a bludgeon, not the other way around even if it's being postured that way. cn

That is kinda what I figure as well. I watch "locked up abroad" regularly - reminds me of my youth, and I think "why would this country be so adamant about drug control? the drugs in their country probably bring revenue, they have other pressing problems of poverty and violent crime, their culture does not seem particularly vulnerable to the effects of drug abuse, so why would they be so nearly neurotic about drugs? When we reflect on the amounts of money we contribute to the "problem" in other countries I can't help but think that the treaty was more to subdue those countries than anything else. In one particular episode the arresting officers and many of the staff posed for pictures, each holding a bit of the confiscation - all joyful and proud - just like uncle DEA would do.

 

[desert dude]

An open question on the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. Is it amenable to being amended? And is the USA genuinely compelled by it? Seems fishy. I worry that the USA is using the Convention as a bludgeon, not the other way around even if it's being postured that way. cn

I absolutely think the single convention is being used as camouflage, with the drug warriors saying, "I would love to deschedule cannabis, but my hands are bound". Having said that, any treaty can be amended but it ain't easy, which is one very significant reason to avoid treaties in the first fucking place.

Is the USA bound by it? The simple answer is yes, treaties have the full force of the constitution behind them, which is, again, a very good reason to avoid (complicated) treaties in the first place.

I have no objection to entering into a treaty that fully comports with the US constitution, but I am quite leery of a treaty that does not afford citizens of other countries the right to keep and bear arms, for example. It's fine for other countries to have such overbearing laws but there is no need for us to enter into such a treaty.

From a philosophical, American point of view, why would our leaders enter into a treaty that contradicts the US constitution on such a fundamental right? Is it because our leaders fundamentally dishonor the US constitution, yes I am thinking of Obama and Hillary when I say this? Do we want leaders like that? Do we, as a people, believe that other people should not be free?

Just to be clear, I am not arguing that the US constitution should be applied anywhere except for the US. I fully respect the UK's decision to be a nanny state, but I see no reason for the US to join in such foolishness.

 

[cannabineer]

I absolutely think the single convention is being used as camouflage, with the drug warriors saying, "I would love to deschedule cannabis, but my hands are bound". Having said that, any treaty can be amended but it ain't easy, which is one very significant reason to avoid treaties in the first fucking place.

Is the USA bound by it? The simple answer is yes, treaties have the full force of the constitution behind them, which is, again, a very good reason to avoid (complicated) treaties in the first place.

I have no objection to entering into a treaty that fully comports with the US constitution, but I am quite leery of a treaty that does not afford citizens of other countries the right to keep and bear arms, for example. It's fine for other countries to have such overbearing laws but there is no need for us to enter into such a treaty.

From a philosophical, American point of view, why would our leaders enter into a treaty that contradicts the US constitution on such a fundamental right? Is it because our leaders fundamentally dishonor the US constitution, yes I am thinking of Obama and Hillary when I say this? Do we want leaders like that? Do we, as a people, believe that other people should not be free?

Just to be clear, I am not arguing that the US constitution should be applied anywhere except for the US. I fully respect the UK's decision to be a nanny state, but I see no reason for the US to join in such foolishness.

DesertDude, in re "dishonor", I do fear that many many folks in power see the 2nd Amendment as a savage postmedieval leftover, one where the Constitution got it wrong. And they're not above doing what's "right" even if it plays fast&loose with the law. And I don't think it's a partisan divide either, wingers on both sides have their "preferentially ignored" points of Constitutional law in their quest for perceived/deeply held moral progress. My opinion. cn

 

[desert dude]

DesertDude, in re "dishonor", I do fear that many many folks in power see the 2nd Amendment as a savage postmedieval leftover, one where the Constitution got it wrong. And they're not above doing what's "right" even if it plays fast&loose with the law. And I don't think it's a partisan divide either, wingers on both sides have their "preferentially ignored" points of Constitutional law in their quest for perceived/deeply held moral progress. My opinion. cn

I completely agree with you. By singling out Obama and Hillary, I did not mean to imply the Republicans are any better overall. This particular issue is being pursued by the Obama administration though, so right now they get my scorn. I will be happy to heap ridicule on the Republicans when the time comes.

 

[canndo]

I have no objection to entering into a treaty that fully comports with the US constitution, but I am quite leery of a treaty that does not afford citizens of other countries the right to keep and bear arms, for example. It's fine for other countries to have such overbearing laws but there is no need for us to enter into such a treaty.

.

Wow, I never thought about that. If I am religiously for the right to keep and bear in my own country, who am I to declare that another citizen in another country is not entitled to the same right - Shame on my liberal self, I am not supposed to be selfish with creator endowed rights.

 

[cannabineer]

I completely agree with you. By singling out Obama and Hillary, I did not mean to imply the Republicans are any better overall. This particular issue is being pursued by the Obama administration though, so right now they get my scorn. I will be happy to heap ridicule on the Republicans when the time comes.

Now that we've both carefully asserted our partisan neutrality, I worry about Hillary. I come from the grand old home of Boxer and Feinstein, and I see a great deal of gun-hate in the fabric of today's neoliberal values. I wonder if Hillary is being smarter than the usual ones such, and is waiting for the moment to make her first strike really hurt. Pure speculation on my part. But O's second term is the one to watch ... I doubt he'll dump Hillary. cn