I thought these IDIOT'S took an oath to defend the constitution!!! HOORAY – a 53-46 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.
Neither of my Senators from Tennessee are on that list. Thank you. I've done my job here.
As a side note, Obama has done more for NRA membership than anyone before. And AR-15 sales are crazy high. You've got to give credit where credit is due.
Updated An item circulated in April 2013 claimed to identify "46 senators that voted to give your rights to the U.N." in reference to a Senate vote on the U.S. Arms Trade Treaty: WHAT A MESS
Over the weekend, we came four votes away from the United States Senate giving our Constitutional rights over to the United Nations. 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 bill read:
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 on all private guns and ammo.
Astonishingly, 46 of our United States Senators were willing to give away our Constitutional rights to a foreign power.
Here are the 46 senators that voted to give your rights to the U.N. Notice that ALL are either Democrat or "Independent." However, the measure voted upon was not the treaty itself, but a non-binding test amendment expressing opposition to the ATT which was tacked onto an unrelated congressional budget resolution. The record of the U.S. Senate Roll Call Vote confirms that all the senators who voted against the amendment were Democrats or independents.
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.
And we've clearly seen how staunch a supporter 0bama is of the 2nd amendment and individual rights. You can read the text of the treaty here and decide for yourself if you think it's a good idea: https://unoda-web.s3.amazon...2013/06/English7.pdf
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. The U.S. opposed provisions inconsistent with existing U.S. law or that would unduly interfere with our ability to import, export, or transfer arms in support of our national security and foreign policy interests. The international arms trade is a legitimate commercial activity, and otherwise lawful commercial trade in arms must not be unduly hindered. There will be no requirement for reporting on or marking and tracing of ammunition or explosives. There will be no lowering of current international standards. Existing nonproliferation and export control regimes must not be undermined. The ATT negotiations must have consensus decision making to allow us to protect U.S. equities. There will be no mandate for an international body to enforce an ATT.
That's a lot of objections from our own government for a treaty that has nothing to be concerned about.
Senate votes 53-46 to stop US from joining UN Arms Trade Treaty Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) introduced an amendment that would prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty in order to uphold the Second Amendment. His amendment passed on a 53-46 vote.
Republicans have been critical of President Obama’s decision to consider the treaty, although Obama has said he would not vote for anything that would violate the Second Amendment. “We’re negotiating a treaty that cedes our authority to have trade agreements with our allies in terms of trading arms,” Inhofe said. “This is probably the last time this year that you’ll be able to vote for your Second Amendment rights.”
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) offered an alternative amendment that clarified that under current U.S. law, treaties don’t trump the Constitution and that the United States should not agree to any arms treaty that violates the Second Amendment rights. His amendment passed by voice vote.
Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) said he thought it was irresponsible to be considering major foreign policy decisions at 3 a.m. on Saturday morning.
I wonder why this was a 3AM Saturday vote? You trust your government, right?
You do know that they didn't vote on what the Email says didn't you, or did that part fly right over you?
quote
Originally posted by 84fiero123: Here are the 46 senators that voted to give your rights to the U.N. Notice that ALL are either Democrat or "Independent." However, the measure voted upon was not the treaty itself, but a non-binding test amendment expressing opposition to the ATT which was tacked onto an unrelated congressional budget resolution. The record of the U.S. Senate Roll Call Vote confirms that all the senators who voted against the amendment were Democrats or independents.
Last updated: 26 September 2013
Steve
It was a roll call vote, that the republicans were not there for, not a vote for the disarmament of us as private gun owners. Now I am more of a second amendment supporter than many here but get the facts right, it was not a vote for or against the thing they want you to believe, if you ask me it was just a republican BS story to get themselves more votes in the next election.
You do know that they didn't vote on what the Email says didn't you, or did that part fly right over you?
It was a roll call vote, that the republicans were not there for, not a vote for the disarmament of us as private gun owners. Now I am more of a second amendment supporter than many here but get the facts right, it was not a vote for or against the thing they want you to believe, if you ask me it was just a republican BS story to get themselves more votes in the next election.
funny how when it fits your agenda you post snopes but when it doesn't you degrade it being right.
Steve
I typically only use snopes if there isn't a better source. Whenever possible I like to get the data from the primary source. Like I said before - read the text of the ATT and decide for yourself. Don't take my word, or some pundit's word on what it actually means. Same for politicians. Forget what they tell you. Pay attention to how they vote. The verbal promise of a politician isn't worth the paper it's written on. How they vote is what matters.
Originally posted by Formula88: I typically only use snopes if there isn't a better source. Whenever possible I like to get the data from the primary source. Like I said before - read the text of the ATT and decide for yourself. Don't take my word, or some pundit's word on what it actually means. Same for politicians. Forget what they tell you. Pay attention to how they vote. The verbal promise of a politician isn't worth the paper it's written on. How they vote is what matters.
What would be a better source ABC, CNN, FOX ? They all have their own agenda and so do our politicians, themselves not us, they could all care less about us and they care about is when they can buy their next vacation home, luxury car, hookers and beer.
What would be a better source ABC, CNN, FOX ? They all have their own agenda and so do our politicians, themselves not us, they could all care less about us and they care about is when they can buy their next vacation home, luxury car, hookers and beer.
Steve
What makes you think Snopes has less of an agenda than ABC, CNN or FOX?
It doesn't have to be a "news" outlet. Think outside the box, Steve. One example is the US government concerns with the treaty I linked directly from the US State Department.
I see the problem. They all have a "D" for dumb in front of their names. A couple have a "I" for idiot in front of their name too.
Isn't that what you are supposed to see... an email with mis-leading information so as to have people making comments and spreading lies based on mis-information? Hey, I thought that was the job of the liberal media...
[This message has been edited by jaskispyder (edited 09-17-2014).]
A couple have a "I" for idiot in front of their name too.
