Senate votes 53-46 to stop US from joining UN Arms Trade Treaty

Have you read the legislation - If not how do you know what the US being asked to do and not to do

 

Who ever said that we are only capable of opposing treaties that directly impact our Constitutionally protected rights?

As far as your "Fox News" non-sense goes....

http://now.msn.com/msnbc-more-biased-than-fox-news-according-to-pew-research-center-study

 

The treaty targets the private sale of weapons to illegal armed groups.

- - - Updated - - -

How is opposing the arming of illegal armed groups treason?

 

NO one ??????????

How does this make Fox not a liar? Please explain.

But actually the Pew study showed the MSNBC relies on more pundits and opinion pieces not that it is more skewed. The idea the negative coverage could include a down turn in the polls. But that doesn't really matter it doesn't exonerate Fox's continued lies.

 

I see that you haven't read it. It would give the UN authority to MAKE CHANGES in US FIREARMS REGULATIONS, as it sees fit, using whatever criteria it chooses.

- - - Updated - - -

NO...it's the "NAYS" that must be punished. The vote was to "Uphold the 2nd Amendment,and STAY OUT OF the UN treaty"...therefor a "yea" is what we are looking for...

 

I posted them a few posts back..for just that reason, sir...

It is the NAYS we must target...

- - - Updated - - -

Statement of Purpose:

To uphold Second Amendment rights and prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.

- - - Updated - - -

Statement of Purpose:

To uphold Second Amendment rights and prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.

 

You have a source for that in the treaty itself?

I will not accept a Rightwing blog lying about what is in the treaty as a source. Directly quote the treaty.

 

Any explanation as to why Jews in the Senate voted for UN Treaty?

 

Text of the UN Arms Trade Treaty:


http://www.acronym.org.uk/sites/default/files/ATT Draft text 24 july.pdf



Some of the MAJOR PROBLEMS with it:

Article 1


Goals and Objectives

Cognizant of the need to prevent and combat the diversion of conventional arms into the illicit market or to unauthorized end users through the improvement of regulation on the international trade in conventional arms,

The goals and objectives of the Treaty are:
 For States Parties to establish the highest possible common standards for regulating or improving regulation of the international trade in conventional arms;
 To prevent, combat and eradicate the illicit trade in conventional arms and their diversion to illegal and unauthorized end use;


Article 19


Reservations

1. Each State party, in exercising its national sovereignty, may formulate reservations, unless the reservation is incompatible with the object and purpose of this Treaty .

Article 20

Amendments

1. At any time after the Treaty’s entry into force, a State Party may propose an amendment to this Treaty.

3. Any amendment to this Treaty shall be adopted by consensus, or if consensus is not achieved, by two-thirds of the States Parties present and voting at the Conference of States Parties. The Depositary shall communicate any amendment to all States Parties.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And amendments could be PASSED WITHOUT US APPROVAL.

And exactly WHO determines who an "unauthorized end user" is...let me guess: THE UN, that's who.

If you cannot see that this SUBJEGATE'S the sovereignity of the United States, to the UN, then you have a comprehension problem

BRAVO to the those who voted "YEA" to remain OUT OF THIS OUTRAGEOUS TREATY.

A POX upon those who DID NOT....

- - - Updated - - -

Democrats.

 

See post #84, article 19.

 

First and foremost the UN is broken organization run/controlled by dictators, and communists, and criminals of the international community, yet I repeat myself.

2nd this treaty if signed, can be changed in the future and the wording of it at present, would mean we would have to go along with the changes without question. That is in itself unacceptable, and treasonous, if any elected official of the USA agreed to granting a foreign power authority over us, and in general such stupidity, they would be violating their oath of office, and jeopardizing our sovereignty as well as the constitution.

This isn't pass it and we will decide what it says later optional, the health care fiasco should have stopped that type of legislation from ever happening again, foreign or domestic.

 

Then the US can withdraw from the treaty.

 

The purpose of the treaty is to block the sale of weapons by civilians to illegal armed groups.

How does that in any way interfere with our domestic ownership or sale of weapons?

 

Why enter something so fickle in the first place? If it is only to keep criminal elements from obtaining guns then make it illegal for gunrunners to sale guns criminals period. No need to change that, right? Oh that's right, the UN is crawling with the criminal elements, who do this routinely. Give me a break. The UN is the last entity that needs to be dictating civility, since their own members are some of the biggest violators.

 

Yes anything to maintain the rage................

 

Straw purchases, and the gun running(Unless youre the Obama Admin)is already illegal in the States. So what the (*)(*)(*)(*) is going to be accomplished by signing some treaty, that American law already covers? What is it about redundancy that gives you statist a hard on?

Memo to all the idiots: The sale of arms to groups that the US deems terrorist is already covered by Federal law. Hense, there is no need for this treaty.

 

Yes, because without this UN treaty, you can legally supply arms to terrorist.
Oh wait, you'd have the ATF and FBI kicking in your door if you even tried, because this is already covered by our federal laws.

Do you even think before you post?

 

I take it sarcasm isn't your forte?

Get the pen out of your ear. The UN isn't a world government organization or NWO. This type of talk has been going on since the 1950's and has been rejected by traditional conservatives as conspiracy theory. It is still conspiracy theory by traditional conservatives

The whole point of the UN, and its predecessor, the League of Nations, has been to try to resolve inter regional and intra regional conflicts through other means rather than war.

 

Do you really think groups such as sovereign citizens are misinterpreted by MSM or traditional conservatives as just peace loving individuals who want nothing more than cooperation amongst the legitimate authority? Do you actually think Sovereign citizens are freedom fighters in your eyes? Or do you want to continue to allow illegal arm shipments from the United States to Mexico, or to other countries, that was not fast and furious.

Read : this

 

Stop trying too side step the issue.

Is it illegal by federal law to buy weapons, and resale them to Mexican cartels?

 

LOL, now you want to pretend that your original comment was sarcasm.

That wasn't sarcasm. You were serious. Nice to see that your utopian pipe dream crumbles when one simple counter argument is provided and suddenly you try to distance yourself from your own statements and positions.

Throw in a little childish non-sense like a good little liberal.

So... basically have member nations react to the problem cohesively? Yes?

 

This isn't surprising...

However, the Arms Trade Treaty has to do with international arms trade, not personal, so, it wouldn't have affected Second Amendment rights...