Publius Maximus wrote: > OK, point taken. Just to clarify: Your position is you're uninformed > and unconcerned about it, then? > > I was under the impression you were "for" it and I apologize for > jumping to that conclusion. > >> This is all >> political bs. China is the worst polluter in the world. Have you seen the >> satellite pictures of a dust plume coming from their mining and mfg >> facilities near Mongolia? It is thousands of miles across and full of >> mercury, lead, and all the other heavy metals plus dangerous gases. >> >> Why do you assume I approve of "treatying" away our rights. At no time have >> I ever written about any of these "Constitutional safeguards" you keep >> mentioning that I approve of. I am not even sure we will lose anything in >> any case. > > Well, not anything we're not already losing by other means, I guess. I > just know that treaties take precedence over the Constitution and as > such represent a far easier way to amend it, if you don't like this or > that about it and want to do away with it altogether, as I believe is > true about the current administration and its officials.
Hi Bob, Indeed. The Clintonistas tried to use a UN treaty to repeal the Second Amendment. It half worked. All the non-criminal Ds gave up their guns. -- Regards, Pete http://pete-theisen.com/ http://elect-pete-theisen.com/ _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
