Conservagunpornwhorage. (NFSW)

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

NSFW.

Well, that was an interesting way to end his career. Also, its cowardly to disable comments, Chief.

He sure has gay sex on his mind a lot too!

He subjects his youtube videos with things like, "SHOOT A LIBTARD OUT OF A TREE :)"

Enjoy:

Comments

[farchivist.livejournal.com]

And? How does this affect us, exactly?

[hookemnick.livejournal.com]

Good question. Initially, it would do very little. My concerns come more from the implications of ceding authority of our gun ownership to an international body against the will of a great majority of our population from the polling I have seen. I'm not exactly sure why Kerry and Obama have come out in favor of this treaty especially after we have handed over so many weapons to thugs around the world. I also see serious privacy concerns of creating a gun owner registry without any suspicion of criminal behavior.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

I'm not exactly sure why Kerry and Obama have come out in favor of this treaty

Its because they want the right to go after the big ones. You actually do have to sacrifice a bit of liberty for security when it comes to nuclear bombs. All they have to do is float one over in a shipping container and we lose at least a city in one day.

[farchivist.livejournal.com]

y concerns come more from the implications of ceding authority of our gun ownership to an international body against the will of a great majority of our population from the polling I have seen.

Your concerns are unfounded. Can't happen. See Reid v. Covert (1957) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_v._Covert): The Constitution supersedes international treaties ratified by the United States Senate. We can sign it and shit-all will happen to our gun ownership.

Everyone who claims that this or that treaty will negate the Constitution always forgets that bit of caselaw. I sometimes wonder if it's deliberate.

[hookemnick.livejournal.com]

Your rebuttal is based on our government actually following the Constitution. If you've been paying attention the past decade or so, and I'm pretty sure you have, you'll note that they don't seem to give a fuck.

[farchivist.livejournal.com]

Your rebuttal is based on our government actually following the Constitution.

No, my rebuttal is based on our government actually following the Constitution as currently interpreted by existing Constitutional caselaw. Which, for the history of the nation, we do an excellent job. You may not agree with the caselaw, but it is followed.

If I were relying on JUST the Constitution, then yes, the international treaty WOULD override the Constitution, as there is nothing in the Constitution that says "International treaties do not override this." It took caselaw to confirm that. Remember, if it isn't explicitly forbidden, it's absolutely permitted.