disarmament

[DaveHawk]

it's not uncommon knowledge who would vote for this but just to share who did vote....


The U.N. Resolution 2117 lists 21 points dealing with firearms control, but perhaps of most interest is point number 11. It: “CALLS FOR MEMBER STATES TO SUPPORT WEAPONS COLLECTION and DISARMAMENT of all UN countries”.
By a 53-46 vote - The U.S. Senate voted against the U.N. resolution. HOORAY.

Now, Which 46 Senators Voted to Destroy Us? Well, let their names become known ! See below . If you vote in one of the states listed with these 46 “legis..traitors”… vote against them.
In a 53-46 vote, the Senate narrowly passed a measure that will stop the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty. The Statement of Purpose from the Senate Bill reads: "To uphold Second Amendment rights and prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty." The U.N. Small Arms Treaty, which has been championed by the Obama Administration, would have effectively placed a global ban on the import and export of small firearms. The ban would have affected all private gun owners in the U.S. and had language that would have implemented an international gun registry, now get this, on all private guns and ammo.
Astonishingly, 46 out of our 100 United States Senators were willing to give away our Constitutional rights to a foreign power.
Here are the 46 senators who voted to give your rights to the U.N.
Baldwin (D-WI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bennett (D-CO)
Blumenthal (D-CT)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Coons (D-DE)
Cowan (D-MA)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hirono (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kaine (D-VA)
King (I-ME)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murphy (D-CT)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schatz (D-HI)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Warner (D-VA)
Warren (D-MA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)
Folks: This needs to go viral. These Senators voted to let the UN take OUR guns. They need to lose their next election. We have been betrayed.
46 Senators Voted to Give your 2nd Amendment Constitutional Rights to the U.N.

 

[sluggo6850]

Well I see our senator Johnson is on the list, but the good part is he isn't running again.

 

[have gun will travel]

Hmm they all have a D in front of the state. I think I have figured out a pattern....

 

[have gun will travel]

Oh my mistake two had an I

 

[tjones]

Here we go again.

 

[mtmiller]

Here we go again.

....but I read it on the internet.

 

[noharleyyet]

Here we go again.

Let's leave the political editorial centrifuge to trusted experts...like Susan Rice and Jay Carney.

 

[Wapiti Warrior]

The Arms Trade Treaty has nothing to do with restricting the legal sale or ownership of guns within the United States. The aim of the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty is to combat the illicit international trade of arms by "tightening regulation of, and setting international standards for, the import, export and transfer of conventional weapons" in order to "close gaps in existing regional and national arms export control systems that allow weapons to pass onto the illicit market":
The Arms Trade Treaty obligates member states to monitor arms exports and ensure that weapons don't cross existing arms embargoes or end up being used for human-rights abuses, including terrorism. Member states, with the assistance of the U.N., will put into place enforceable, standardized arms import and export regulations (much like those that already exist in the U.S.) and be expected to track the destination of exports to ensure they don't end up in the wrong hands. Ideally, that means limiting the inflow of deadly weapons into places like Syria.
The text of the proposed treaty specifically "reaffirms the sovereign right and responsibility of any State to regulate and control transfers of conventional arms that take place exclusively within its territory, pursuant to its own legal or constitutional systems," so even if such a treaty came to pass, U.S. rights and laws regarding the sale and ownership of small arms would still apply within the United States.
The Obama administration has stated that mandatory conditions for U.S. approval of such an arms trade treaty include the following:

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.

As the Wall Street Journal reported, the U.S. 'voted in favor [of the treaty only] after the Obama Administration secured its key "red line" that the treaty would have no impact on the Second Amendment. The final draft specifies "non-intervention in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction" of signatories.'
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 two-thirds vote of the U.S. Senate before they are considered to be ratified and binding.
The President of the United States cannot enact a "complete ban on all weapons for US citizens through the signing of international treaties with foreign nations." The right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed in the Constitution of the United States, and in the 1957 case Reid v. Covert, the U.S. Supreme Court established that the Constitution supersedes international treaties ratified by the U.S. Senate.

As Rachel Stohl, a senior associate with the Managing Across Boundaries initiative at the Stimson Center and co-author of the book The International Arms Trade, noted:
Those opposed to the accord have misrepresented what it does, suggesting that it would somehow infringe on American gun owners’ rights. It would do nothing of the kind.

The treaty applies only to international transfers of conventional arms and, in fact, reaffirms “the sovereign right of any State to regulate and control conventional arms” within its territory. The treaty's preamble also makes specific reference to the legitimate trade, lawful ownership and use of certain conventional arms for recreational, cultural, historical and sporting activities.

Secretary of State John Kerry emphasized these points in his statement welcoming the treaty's adoption, noting that “nothing in this treaty could ever infringe on the rights of American citizens under our domestic law or the Constitution, including the Second Amendment,” a point on which the United States insisted throughout the negotiations. This treaty has no reach into domestic gun policy, nor would it create a United Nations gun registry. There is absolutely nothing in it that violates the Second Amendment.
In short, there is no "legal way around the 2nd Amendment" other than a further amendment to the Constitution that repeals or alters it, or a Supreme Court decision that radically reinterprets how the 2nd Amendment is to be applied.
Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp#1YlmStZvquH0zupm.99

 

[Ben Lamb]

what Wapiti Warrior said.

Also - Baucus hasn't been a U.S. Senator for a few months now, so, I'd not take that email as anything other than internet silliness.

 

[tjones]

Dang those pesky facts again.

 

[Zach]

Let's leave the political editorial centrifuge to trusted experts...like Susan Rice and Jay Carney.

Ken, you are the Dennis Miller of the hunting world...

 

[Forerunner]

It sounds like we need to pass it so we can see what's in it.
As long as Obama or Kerry says "If you like your second ammendment, you can keep it," I don't see why we shouldn't trust them.

I wonder if the treaty could have prevented the Fast and Furious Scandal?

 

[sagebrush]

What is the enforcement mechanism?

The gun re-purchase in Benghazi and transfer to Syria probably would not be legal under the treaty. So what would the UN do? Send a sternly worded letter to the president?

Not that it matters much, but I am curious.

 

[RobG]

Your people. I have found them.

 

[belly-deep]

I don't know about the original post, but there is no doubt in my mind the UN and liberal democrats would strip us of our gun rights in a second if they could.

 

[ShootsManyBullets]

Your people. I have found them.

Are those 2 in the running for CSEH 2014?

 

[bigbuckhughes]

I think some of our forum members are relying on the politicians way too much. Politicians are not to be trusted. The "Man" has a pen. Be very careful!!!!

 

[idnative1948]

I re-read that list a couple of times. Correct me, but I didn't see any from ID? But, we know things can change..... I don't know OR that well, but guessing any listed on there are from the West Side?