Not sure if this is old news ?

[hunter49]

  I got an e-mail form a friend today stating that the   "U.N. Small Arms Treaty" has been voted down 53 to 46 meaning that 46 out of 100 of our U.S. senators are willing to give away our 2nd Admen. rights!  There is a list of the vote but I don't do the copy & paste thing, sorry.   Also not sure about being old news. At least we are safe for the moment.

[Doc]

Yes it is pretty old news. It is a vote that took place in October of last year.

http://blog.heritage.org/2013/10/15/senate-decisively-rejects-u-n-arms-trade-treaty-2/

However, it is a significant and telling vote that shows how a very large percentage of our senators dismiss the sanctity of the Constitution. By the way, Schumer and Gillibrand  both voted to cede our 2nd Amendment rights to the UN.

 

By the way, not one vote for this UN treaty was from a Republican. You all can make of that whatever you want.

[Joe Red]

These are the idiots we need to get rid of first .

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)j

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.

Please send this to SOMEONE!

[Doc]

I have no problem with trying to get rid of New York's contribution to this list (Schumer & Gillibrand). I don't really hold out too much hope though.

[Sogaard]

  I got an e-mail form a friend today stating that the   "U.N. Small Arms Treaty" has been voted down 53 to 46 meaning that 46 out of 100 of our U.S. senators are willing to give away our 2nd Admen. rights!  There is a list of the vote but I don't do the copy & paste thing, sorry.   Also not sure about being old news. At least we are safe for the moment.

 

Do you even know what the U.N. Small Arms Treaty was about?  And do you know how it would effect the Second Amendment even it it had been passed?

 

Reid v. Covert, look it up.

 

Stop being sheep to fear mongers.  Doc, I'm actually surprised you bought into this one, you're usually one of the more informed people on the forum.

 

TLDR: The Constitution supersedes international treaties ratified by the US Senate.

Edited January 28, 2014 by Sogaard

[genesee_mohican]

I have no problem with trying to get rid of New York's contribution to this list (Schumer & Gillibrand). I don't really hold out too much hope though.

 

I'm with you Doc. And I'll do everything I can to spread the word to everyone I know. There is so much at stake now and it's scary. I fear the average gun owner and hunter is not informed on the current issues and they do not realize what is at stake so they won't even take the time to vote. They don't believe any of this will affect them now or that it will snowball somewhere down the road into something much worse that the safeact. I for one have had my eyes opened from news and members on this forum. I hope we will all take the time to read up on things and arm ourselves with knowledge so we can inform others and get this ship turned around while we still stand a chance.

[Doc]

Do you even know what the U.N. Small Arms Treaty was about?  And do you know how it would effect the Second Amendment even it it had been passed?

 

Reid v. Covert, look it up.

 

Stop being sheep to fear mongers.  Doc, I'm actually surprised you bought into this one, you're usually one of the more informed people on the forum.

 

TLDR: The Constitution supersedes international treaties ratified by the US Senate.

Basically, this is what the NRA-ILA has to say on the subject:

 

"Anti-gun treaty proponents continue to mislead the public, claiming the treaty would have no impact on American gun owners. That's a bald-faced lie. For example, the most recent draft treaty includes export/import controls that would require officials in an importing country to collect information on the 'end user' of a firearm, keep the information for 20 years, and provide the information to the country from which the gun was exported. In other words, if you bought a Beretta shotgun, you would be an 'end user' and the U.S. government would have to keep a record of you and notify the Italian government about your purchase. That is gun registration. If the U.S. refuses to implement this data collection on law-abiding American gun owners, other nations might be required to ban the export of firearms to the U.S."

 

Basically, it is a restriction on the free and uninhibited commercial flow of firearms which constitutes the availability of gun control on US citizens from entities outside our borders. That does in effect neuter the 2nd Amendment, taking the issue out of U.S. control and putting it in the hands of foreign entities.

[Sogaard]

"other nations might be required to ban the export of firearms to the U.S"

 

Honestly, do you really think foreign arms manufacturers are going to let this stop them from exporting guns to their biggest consumer nation? They have lobby groups too.

 

Buy American anyway.  

Edited January 28, 2014 by Sogaard

[Doc]

Do you honestly think that they would have a choice. Or are you looking for us (the end product buyers) to become recipients of black market firearms. Foreign arms manufacturers have absolutely no sway with the U.N. once the treaty is in place and eligible for enforcement. If they had any influence of the nature that you are suggesting, this whole issue would not even have gotten as far as it has.

[Sogaard]

I think you give the UN way too much credit.  

[Doc]

Perhaps, but if they are unable to enforce and maintain their treaties, then why are we even bothering to consider signing them? Somebody must think this thing is effective and enforceable. Actually, a lot of somebodies. But then that's not even the question is it? The point is that some outside entity is trying to usurp our second amendment rights via an end run. That is not something to simply shrug off and ignore. We have far too much of that kind of attitude already.

[virgil]

If other nations or 'some outside entity' were interested in 'usurping our 2A rights', they could simply stop allowing exportation of their weapons into the US.

[Sogaard]

The UN has never been able to enforce their treaties.  It has always been countries promising to do something, until they don't feel like it anymore.  If the point you're getting at is the UN is a completely useless, I agree.  All the UN can try to do in impose sanctions through the Security Council, which the US would have to chooses to do (along with China, France, Russia, the UK).

 

Again, I believe you give them way to much credit.

 

Edited January 28, 2014 by Sogaard

[Doc]

I do honestly believe that if there were to be some sort of judgment against us, there would be no problem for them to shut of commercial gun trade to the U.S.  I think we simply see that point differently. But beyond all that, I simply don't even like the attempt, and I really don't appreciate any of our legislators voting for such a thing. Whether you believe it to be enforceable is like I said before, totally irrelevant. It is the attempt and the willing accomplices that have been found in our own government supporting such a scheme that I find repugnant.

[Sogaard]

I understand your view on the Treaty, but you also must take into effect what the Treaty was actually written to prevent.  

 

"On 2 April 2013, the General Assembly adopted the landmark Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), regulating the international trade in conventional arms, from small arms to battle tanks, combat aircraft and warships. The treaty will foster peace and security by putting a stop to destabilizing arms flows to conflict regions. It will prevent human rights abusers and violators of the law of war from being supplied with arms. And it will help keep warlords, pirates, and gangs from acquiring these deadly tools."

 

Source: http://www.un.org/disarmament/ATT/

 

When that message gets twisted by politicians and fear mongers with a political and monetary agenda, you get "They are trying to take away our 2nd Amendment Rights!!!!!!".  The dirty truth is, US Arms manufacturing companies want to profit from selling to these conflict regions, so they do not want it approved. 

 

To quote John Goodman in one of my favorite movies, "It's all about the money, boys!"

Edited January 28, 2014 by Sogaard

[Doc]

I have accessed the page that you linked before and have seen the quote that you put into your last reply, and I have to say that it all sounds so much like the kind of language used by any anti-gun organization. You know the usual anti-gun mantra of, "if only there were no guns, all violence would go away". My gosh what ridiculous trash. It is still ignorance no matter whether it comes from Handgun Control Inc. or the U.N. 

 

I have expended way more time and effort than I should trying to repeatedly explain to you that there are real issues here that cannot and should not be casually passed off as fear mongering. You choose to ignore those replies, as is your right. So there probably is no real point to my continuing to respond. I have pretty much said my piece, and any further discussion will simply result in repeating.

 

The only thing that does deserve repeating to those that have not completely buried their head in the sand is that those who voted to support this foreign intervention on our sovereignty should be made to answer for this at the polls. In the case of New Yorkers, that would be a vote against Gillibrand and Schumer.

[Sogaard]

Lol. The constitution stopped being effective once the Ink dried on the paper.Where have you been these last 100 years?

 

 

 

Well, for most of the past 100 years, I have to admit, I wasn't around much.

[Doewhacker]

Must be someting with this time of year, all the conspiracy theorist are out in full force.

[Doewhacker]

Question:  Did Saudi terrorists conspire to fly planes into the WT center on 9/11?

 

No it was George Herbert Bush in a plot to help his son win re-election.

 

 

I know this is the part where you bring in un-related conspiracy's to prove you aren't crazy, next you will post links to extremist sites that got the story right when no else would dare ask the questions, its all a cover up by liberal media, ect ect

 

I'll save you the trouble,

 

 

you are right.

[ants]

But but but...there are no such things as conspiracies! Go have a Bud-light on the porch and thank Dick Cheney for protecting your ability to be free to drink crappy beer.

HEY!! attacking Bud-light is a little out of line sir!!!