Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Newspaper contacts | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Constitutional contempt

March 5, 2014

The letter, “Saving Gun Rights,” by William Emick, Feb. 12, is precise and every U.S. citizen needs to heed his message....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(65)

DeanWormer

Mar-05-14 5:26 AM

The Constitution should be continually reviewed and changed to reflect a changing society. Many of the "Founding Fathers" were slave owners and perfectly legal at the time. Women weren't even allowed to vote until 1920. Yeah...let's protect the rights of people to engage in dangerous behaviors or industry to promote dangerous products. It's called privatizing the profits and socializing the costs.

5 Agrees | 21 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

AmericanCitizen

Mar-05-14 5:29 AM

From the US State Dept re: this treaty:

KEY U.S. REDLINES IN THE NEGOTIATIONS

The Second Amendment to the Constitution must be upheld.

There will be no restrictions on civilian possession or trade of firearms otherwise permitted by law or protected by the U.S. Constitution. There will be no dilution or diminishing of sovereign control over issues involving the private acquisition, ownership, or possession of firearms, which must remain matters of domestic law. The U.S. opposed provisions inconsistent with existing U.S. law or that would unduly interfere with our ability to import, export, or transfer arms in support of our national security and foreign policy interests.

The international arms trade is a legitimate commercial activity, and otherwise lawful commercial trade in arms must not be unduly hindered.

(continued)

3 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

AmericanCitizen

Mar-05-14 5:32 AM

(continued)

There will be no requirement for reporting on or marking and tracing of ammunition or explosives. There will be no lowering of current international standards. Existing nonproliferation and export control regimes must not be undermined. The ATT negotiations must have consensus decision making to allow us to protect U.S. equities. There will be no mandate for an international body to enforce an ATT.

3 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

VinceKnauff

Mar-05-14 6:00 AM

The Constitution should be continually reviewed and changed to reflect a changing society.

Dean - there is a process for that written into the constitution. It is called amendments. If you want to change the constitution, use the mechanism that is provided for that. But no dang gosh way will you change it the way you want to. This administration ignores the constitution anyway, so what's the point of changing it?

13 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

idiottwo

Mar-05-14 6:04 AM

aren't these politicians responsible to uphold the constitution and our laws? Why do they shirk such responsiblity and get a pass?

13 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

enigma

Mar-05-14 6:38 AM

AmericanCitizen, You do know that those State Department statements are meaningless, don't you? This is just something that they put out to fool us into accepting the treaty. Otherwise, they would have negated most of the treaty with their red lines and it would be meaningless. A country cannot pick and choose which parts of a treaty to accept, it's all or nothing and the point of the letter is that it should be nothing in this case. Why do you continue to believe anything this administration says? They want to take your guns and they will stop at nothing to accomplish that goal.

10 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

eriklatranyi

Mar-05-14 7:04 AM

The liberals tell us that Obamacare is law of the land, approved by the Supreme Court, so we should stop trying to repeal it and just eat our peas.

Meanwhile, liberals never stop their assault on the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth and Tenth Amendments.

11 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

AmericanCitizen

Mar-05-14 7:24 AM

Ok, take the governments assurances out of the equation. What wording in the treaty itself do you folks believe is attempting to circumvent the US Constitution?

4 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ericwilliamsport

Mar-05-14 7:28 AM

I would like to know what the author's specific objections to the Arms Trade Treaty are? Or any commentator here for that matter. I'm not looking to start a conservative vs liberal tirade by the same loons. I'm looking for objections to something specific... other than the keywords "gun", "arms" and "ammunition" striking fear and anger, specifically for those who didn't actually read the treaty.

6 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Steelman

Mar-05-14 7:39 AM

The Constitution should be continually reviewed and changed……………DeanWormer

We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.

Abraham Lincoln

I’m going with Lincoln on this one.

12 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DeanWormer

Mar-05-14 7:42 AM

What about my right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"? My right to peace of mind is certainly taken away so the rights of the gun-crazed, gun-fascinated are protected. Now, when I go to a public place, I have to constantly "scan my sector" so I'm prepared just in case some gun-lover has a nervous breakdown and starts mowing down strangers. It happens about once a week these days and the guns were typically bought legally either by the person who snapped or by a relative. Funny...I never heard one of the "good guys" with guns coming to the rescue.

3 Agrees | 17 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Josh84

Mar-05-14 7:58 AM

DeanWormer Mar-05-14 7:42 AM*****"My right to peace of mind is certainly taken away so the rights of the gun-crazed, gun-fascinated are protected."

Where is this right listed?

"Now, when I go to a public place, I have to constantly "scan my sector" so I'm prepared just in case some gun-lover has a nervous breakdown and starts mowing down strangers."

You sound like you may suffer from paranoia, I suggest seeing a professional.

"It happens about once a week these days and the guns were typically bought legally either by the person who snapped or by a relative"

Both statements are easily proven false. Are you this factually challenged, or simply lazy?

15 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Josh84

Mar-05-14 8:02 AM

DeanWormer Mar-05-14 7:42 AM*****"Funny...I never heard one of the "good guys" with guns coming to the rescue."

Really...

– Edinboro, Pa., 1998: A student shoots up a junior high school dance being held at a restaurant; restaurant owner pulls out his shotgun and stops the gunman. Total dead: One.

– Pearl High School, Mississippi, 1997: After shooting several people at his high school, student heads for the junior high school; assistant principal Joel Myrick retrieves a .45 pistol from his car and points it at the gunman’s head, ending the murder spree. Total dead: Two.

11 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Josh84

Mar-05-14 8:03 AM

– Santee, Calif., 2001: Student begins shooting his classmates — as well as the “trained campus supervisor”; an off-duty cop who happened to be bringing his daughter to school that day points his gun at the shooter, holding him until more police arrive. Total dead: Two.

– Appalachian School of Law, 2002: Crazed immigrant shoots the dean and a professor, then begins shooting students; as he goes for more ammunition, two armed students point their guns at him, allowing a third to tackle him. Total dead: Three.

– Winnemucca, Nev., 2008: Ernesto Villagomez opens fire in a crowded restaurant; concealed carry permit-holder shoots him dead. Total dead: Two. (I’m excluding the shooters’ deaths in these examples.)

10 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

eriklatranyi

Mar-05-14 8:04 AM

DeanWormer:

One right cannot infringe another.

Your paranoia is proven by a recent study in Florida of concealed carry permits. Less than a fraction of 1% are used criminally.

7 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

eriklatranyi

Mar-05-14 8:12 AM

ericwilliamsport asked:

"I would like to know what the author's specific objections to the Arms Trade Treaty are?"

The UN Arms Trade Treaty is a useless piece of paper. Even if ratified, it will have ZERO impact on the illegal arms trade worldwide.

Firearms are easy to manufacture.

In Pakistan, I can buy a fully automatic AK-47 for around $50.

In the US, they just arrested Mexican citizens in Northern California who were building fully automatic weapons and suppressors.

This entire premise of arms control is laughable.....even more so because the "power" of the UN is behind it.

6 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ericwilliamsport

Mar-05-14 8:24 AM

erik:

So your objection is to what the realized effect and actual impact of the treaty and not 2nd amendment arguments?

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DeanWormer

Mar-05-14 8:33 AM

Paranoia? Ha...that's the pot calling the kettle black. I guess carrying a weapon around makes you feel like a big man/woman. Whatever...

4 Agrees | 9 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CMReeder

Mar-05-14 8:43 AM

I see that the right thinks the Second Amendment is the only right we have.

The right is wrong and is he ll bent in destroying this nation.

They are lying about the treaty.

6 Agrees | 12 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

johnnyad3

Mar-05-14 8:56 AM

This piece of trash letter along with Emick's garbage is what is known as scarelore. Someone writes an email fully knowing it is a lie and poor saps get sucked in. Just like the executive order letter the other day.

The Arms Trade Treaty has nothing to do with restricting the legal sale or ownership of guns within the United States. It does not infringe on our 2nd amendment rights.

The aim of the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty is to combat the illicit international trade of arms. While it sounds like a good idea, you know, to stop something that is illegal, Erik is probably right. It's too easy to buy guns.

6 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

SilverFeather

Mar-05-14 9:09 AM

I agree with the Constitution. I do not agree with these cry babies! Who has taken your guns? Who is the person who has come to your door and asked for your guns? We're are two years into this presidents second term and he still hasn't shown the nads to take your guns so stop your wimpering! The same situation here with Russia. I'll vote for a Dem over a war mongering Republican president any day ONLY because we are a military family, but you don't have to worry about him growing a set and taking your guns, grow up, put on your big boy panties, have a popsicle and get a pacifier!!!

7 Agrees | 10 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

SilverFeather

Mar-05-14 9:10 AM

DeanWormer, always an intelligent comment! You are correct, thank you!

4 Agrees | 9 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

AmericanCitizen

Mar-05-14 9:51 AM

For anyone who wants to actually think for themselves the full text of the treaty (its not long) is at UN dot ORG.

Two phrases that caught my eye - "Non-intervention in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any State" and "the sovereign right of any State to regulate and control conventional arms exclusively within its territory, pursuant to its own legal or constitutional system."

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

eriklatranyi

Mar-05-14 9:57 AM

ericwilliamsport:

My objection is based on the UN being a gutless, spineless organization that passes these stupid treaties, but never backs them up.

How many treaties on human trafficking have been passed by the UN? Has it made one iota of a difference?

How many treaties of workplace safety, worker conditions, etc. have been made, yet people in many nations still suffer?

My main objection is that this is merely symbolic and "feel good" nonsense that wastes our taxpayer money that is used to partially fund the UN.

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DeanWormer

Mar-05-14 9:58 AM

Looks like Josh84 downloaded some talking points from the NRA site, especially the MANY examples of gun-toting citizens coming to the rescue. How about all those gun owners who snap and kill their significant others. It happens pretty much every day. What about the victims' rights in these cases? I'm sure the guns were purchased legally.

3 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 65 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web