A Real Important Message To Patients

[Hayduke]

are you just an offensive jerk?

 

Gun rights are broader in America today than any time in my lifetime and I am 58.

 

You obviously are so hot headed, your behavior suffers from poor performance.

 

There is no plot to disarm us. It is correct that each party is bad. It is just that I do not support a rich fellow like Romney, and I reject the R's social policies and utter abuse of the courts and their own form of judicial activism. In light of the fact the R's control Lansing, they are the current target. By the fact that Boehner has been such a prick in helping create jobs, he is also my target. Target meaning I would never vote for them.

 

I am not wild about Obama either, but it is my opinion he is a whole lot better than Willard.

 

fool...

[Hayduke]

And yes, I have often voted for the lesser of two evils (so to speak)...

 

Haven't you?

[MightyMightyMezz]

And yes, I have often voted for the lesser of two evils (so to speak)...

 

Haven't you?

 

Speaking for myself the first and only evil I voted for was Clinton in his first term. I learned fast not to vote for Dems and Republicans because they both serve the war machine. The thing about the lesser of two evils strategy is it really is one evil with two faces. Good cop, bad cop you know?

[SFC]

You are flat out wrong that in the last 32 years gun rights have expanded. You are leaving out the Clinton years Hayduke. Brady bill ring a bell? And again, I totally despise Romney too, I am just taking shots when ya'll get off track. And hey, you guys should not be so darn hard on Alycia, you can disagree with her without saying stupid BS like "and your in charge here"! Lets act like adults.

[Hayduke]

I didn't even begin to suggest the trip has not had ups and downs. The Brady bill was bi partisan in honor of Jim Brady, Ronald Reaguns main press guy. I am not off track but rather, ya'll act as though gun rights have not expanded in the last 32 years because of the Brady bill is just flat out wrong. Open carry would have gotten you arrested in the sixties or seventies or eighties or nineties. CCW permits were very hard to get in the eighties. Now everyone can get them by taking a one day class.

 

But I think the Brady Bill was a good bill. I also own many firearms and support the 2nd amendment. There is always a flux and give and take. For many freakin years that balance has weighted the scale heavily in favor of gun owners....

 

so get back on track SFC and give me more examples than the Brady bill or some lame conspiracy theory. Brady Bill is a red herring totally.

[SFC]

It is late and I am beat but I am sure I will come up with some more tomorrow. Realize I am just arguing with you guys now for the hell of it. And to bring a little balance lol

[Hayduke]

the examples that started the discussion were lies about Obama. That was the starting point.

 

Tomorrow we can debate, but let's at least agree to vet the comments so the extremist garbage doesn't get in the way...

 

peace...

[AKenewell]

http://www.nrapublic...ndment-by-2016/

 

http://www.nraila.org/175700

 

 

 

OK so the NRA has it all wrong too..all just lies and garbage. Wow all these different people..the Marijuana Policy Project..Americans For Safe Access..NRA..they must all be crazy..

[AKenewell]

the examples that started the discussion were lies about Obama. That was the starting point.

 

Tomorrow we can debate, but let's at least agree to vet the comments so the extremist garbage doesn't get in the way...

 

peace...

 

Yes of course it must be all lies..from every source! Wow what a conspiracy, heh? So you want to debate tomorrow..I'm game...

[Dr. Bob]

This topic has been completely derailed, have fun y'all.

 

Dr. Bob

[AKenewell]

[AKenewell]

Sorry to do this then(i will actually take the time to address this properly):

 

First, NO such treaty could "bypass the normal Legislative process in Congress" as ALL treaties to which the U.S. is a signatory must first be approved by a 2/3rds majority vote of the US Senate before they are considered to be ratified and binding.

 

Secondly, The President of the United States cannot enact a "ban on all weapons for US citizens through the signing of International treaties with foreign nations." The right to bear arms is guaranteed in the Constitution of the United States and in the 1957 case Reid v Covert, the US Supreme Court established that the Constitution supersedes interbational treaties ratified by the US senate.

 

There is no legal way around the second amendment other than a further amendment to the Constitution that either repeals or alters it, or a Supreme Court decision that radically re-interprets how the second amendment is to be applied.

 

 

 

I could go on and on... enough?

 

I see you understand how it's supposed to work…. But It does not look like you are well informed on how it works..President signs, 2/3 majority of the Senate votes to ratify. This is the reason why the US has a terrible reputation when it comes to treaties… they have often been signed and not ratified… going all the way back in our history. But there's international law as well. And although we're not part of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, it does set international law… which we've never disputed. Article 18 of the Vienna Convention is what international lawyers and academics use as a basis for creating obligations.

 

http://www.harvardil...e_48-2_bradley/

 

The issue has come up a number of times. The paper above cites the Convention on the Rights of the Child as an example.

 

So, yes, unless the treaty is approved by the senate it's not ratified. But it does create obligations for us even if it's not ratified and it could be ratified years or decades later… whenever a friendly majority exists in the senate. As a former professor of constitutional law, Obama is well versed in these topics. And as he has stated in the past, the 2nd amendment does not preclude the government from regulating where/how/etc you may legally possess your firearms. Did you watch the 2008 presidential debate..where he explained that? I can put it up for you if you like. A signed treaty in the hands of a friendly administration is all the basis they need to implement regulatory changes.

 

And if the administration truly cared about gun exports to foreign countries, they wouldn't have let 2000 weapons walk across the Mexican border during Fast and Furious. Lies and propaganda? Are you guys paying attention? This can't simply be chalked up to lies.

[Restorium2]

I see you understand how it's supposed to work…. But It does not look like you are well informed on how it works..President signs, 2/3 majority of the Senate votes to ratify. This is the reason why the US has a terrible reputation when it comes to treaties… they have often been signed and not ratified… going all the way back in our history. But there's international law as well. And although we're not part of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, it does set international law… which we've never disputed. Article 18 of the Vienna Convention is what international lawyers and academics use as a basis for creating obligations.

 

http://www.harvardil...e_48-2_bradley/

 

The issue has come up a number of times. The paper above cites the Convention on the Rights of the Child as an example.

 

So, yes, unless the treaty is approved by the senate it's not ratified. But it does create obligations for us even if it's not ratified and it could be ratified years or decades later… whenever a friendly majority exists in the senate. As a former professor of constitutional law, Obama is well versed in these topics. And as he has stated in the past, the 2nd amendment does not preclude the government from regulating where/how/etc you may legally possess your firearms. Did you watch the 2008 presidential debate..where he explained that? I can put it up for you if you like. A signed treaty in the hands of a friendly administration is all the basis they need to implement regulatory changes.

 

And if the administration truly cared about gun exports to foreign countries, they wouldn't have let 2000 weapons walk across the Mexican border during Fast and Furious. Lies and propaganda? Are you guys paying attention? This can't simply be chalked up to lies.

Malimute not well informed about how government works? Could it possibly be that your source, the NRA, is full of pucky instead? It's been known to happen .... often.

[AKenewell]

Malimute not well informed about how government works? Could it possibly be that your source, the NRA, is full of pucky instead? It's been known to happen .... often.

 

This isn't NRA. This is Harvard Law School, if you checked the reference…. you know, where the president went to law school. And even you aren't disputing things, you're simply attacking what you thought was the source. And there you were wrong. So now what? And as for Mal, if he knows about international law, soft law, and unratified treaties, he didn't mention it. He can speak for himself though.

[Restorium2]

This isn't NRA. This is Harvard Law School, if you checked the reference…. you know, where the president went to law school. And even you aren't disputing things, you're simply attacking what you thought was the source. And there you were wrong. So now what? And as for Mal, if he knows about international law, soft law, and unratified treaties, he didn't mention it. He can speak for himself though.

It is totally relevant to look at a source and see what their motives are, call it attacking, that's a good way to put it.

 

The NRA IS the original source for this line of thinking. Harvard as the source? It was the source of the paper you used to bulster one tiny part of the issue, a tangent. But the issue started with the NRA. Yes, I pay attention to details. You would have had to be living under a rock to not know the NRA started this and has been pushing it for a long time.

[AKenewell]

As far as the NRA though, there is basis to their claim. This is not just lies and propaganda. The Arms Trade Treaty is real. It will be signed on July 27th unless people wake up. International law exists and already has an impact on us. Go ahead and educate yourself. If you think that the NRA and all these other people and these petitions are wrong, then you should learn more about it, especially before you vote.

[Restorium2]

As far as the NRA though, there is basis to their claim. This is not just lies and propaganda. The Arms Trade Treaty is real. It will be signed on July 27th unless people wake up. International law exists and already has an impact on us. Go ahead and educate yourself. If you think that the NRA and all these other people and these petitions are wrong, then you should learn more about it, especially before you vote.

So you admit NOW the source IS the NRA and not Harvard. That's a start.

[AKenewell]

It is totally relevant to look at a source and see what their motives are, call it attacking, that's a good way to put it.

 

The NRA IS the original source for this line of thinking. Harvard as the source? It was the source of the paper you used to bulster one tiny part of the issue, a tangent. But the issue started with the NRA. Yes, I pay attention to details. You would have had to be living under a rock to not know the NRA started this and has been pushing it for a long time.

 

The NRA takes it upon themselves to police 2nd amendment issues. No surprise they would jump all over it. If it were a free speech issue, you'd expect the ACLU. Racial issue? Maybe the NAACP. When your government signs a treaty like this, it matters. Not a tangent, that's central to the argument. We all agree on how treaties are supposed to work, but it goes beyond that. It's international law and it does become an issue even before it's ratified in the Senate. Go tell Harvard their wrong.

[AKenewell]

So you admit NOW the source IS the NRA and not Harvard. That's a start.

 

Now your just being willfully ignorant and trying to spin things..so if you can't win the argument..attack the messenger or try to spin it!

[cristinew]

NRA suks they do not stand up for cannabis patients, or non violent felons that want to protect their home and family

[GanjaWarrior]

NRA suks they do not stand up for cannabis patients, or non violent felons that want to protect their home and family

 

 

um...well....obammer doesnt stand up for medical patients and your swinging from his short hairs like its the 2nd comming? as for non violent felons....um its illegal for them to own a gun....and no they supported the man in Washington dc who got his rights back....

[cristinew]

Nether does MIttt ,,who said i supported Obama? you? I voted 3rd party last time,

Edited July 11, 2012 by cristinew

[GanjaWarrior]

Well let's see, Mal gets it, Hay gets it, IT WAS A FREAKING DISPENSARY GROW Ganja. Get a clue will you? It wasn't a grandma with glaucoma growing 6 plants in her closet. It wasn't a cancer patient,. The DEA memo said they weren't interested in patients, but WERE interested in commercial operations. As for your approval of 1800 plants on one piece of property- clearly a large scale commercial operation and a fool's gambit, go right ahead and do it my friend, we'll see you in the funny papers doing a perp walk. Because you will be busted, they can see that sort of a grow from space for crying out loud. The smell from it wakes them up at home in the middle of the night and you sir, will be their new hobby.

 

Now find me an article where the aforementioned grandma was raided by the dea.

 

 

Dr. Bob

 

ok first off...show me where i said 1800 plants on one property was ok? now show me where i mentioned a grandma? Now you get the gist of why i keep asking you to stop talking to me. every time i attempt to talk with you you babble on some incoherent bunny muffin then two post later attempt to argue with me as if i said what you said.

The man was a patient.... only had 20 plants well under his count. you can say he owned a disp...im not sure what that matters, that's not what he was arrested for...he was arrested for being a legal medical pt in Michigan.

 

now you only have your twisted slanted opinion to offer...no real knowledge or experience...your not a pat your not a cg, your not familiar with courts . some may feel you have a valid point on issues you know about....im just not sure what those are...so please refrain from talking to me....or check yourself and always provide a link to what i said that way you dont confuse yourself.

[AKenewell]

How ya doing on that link to the video of Obama deferring all marijuana enforcement to the States?

 

I don't know about a video..but I have put up 2 statements from the Marijuana Policy Project in this thread as well as a letter sent by lawmakers both Democrat and Republican to the Obama administration in regards to his broken promises where MM is concerned…and you still need a video?

[Celliach]

Zap doesn't want secondhand info from the MPP, he want to see the words right of the president's mouth.