Which 46 Senators voted to destroy us?

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • gunman41mag

    Shooter
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Feb 1, 2011
    10,485
    48
    SOUTH of YOU
    We came four votes away from the U.S. 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 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 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.
    44 DEMOCRATS/2 INDEPENDENTS
    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.

     

    K_W

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    8   0   0
    Aug 14, 2008
    5,385
    63
    Indy / Carmel
    Was this THE VOTE, or a seperate measure to show opposition to the treaty?

    I only ask because it was just signed yesterday, it seems real fast work to get it to a vote already.
     

    K_W

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    8   0   0
    Aug 14, 2008
    5,385
    63
    Indy / Carmel
    Also this will never be "unsigned" as that would have a very bad appearance, so this will forever be an axe waiting to drop the moment the Dems ever get full control, be it next election or 2024.
     

    BehindBlueI's

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    29   0   0
    Oct 3, 2012
    25,890
    113
    Symbolic vote against a symbolic UN treaty. Showmanship at its worst, and some folks obviously just can't get enough.

    You don't have to vote down a treaty. You have to get 2/3 of the Senate to ratify it before it takes affect. As has been explained numerous times (and which you can read yourself, as the treaty is online) it doesn't create any new laws in the US, doesn't have any affect on you whatsoever, and certainly doesn't give the UN any additional authority to regulate arms or the arms trade with the US and its partners.
     

    afcolt

    Plinker
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Sep 24, 2013
    91
    8
    Madison Co.
    Symbolic vote against a symbolic UN treaty. Showmanship at its worst, and some folks obviously just can't get enough.

    You don't have to vote down a treaty. You have to get 2/3 of the Senate to ratify it before it takes affect. As has been explained numerous times (and which you can read yourself, as the treaty is online) it doesn't create any new laws in the US, doesn't have any affect on you whatsoever, and certainly doesn't give the UN any additional authority to regulate arms or the arms trade with the US and its partners.

    It would, however, very likely curtail or reduce the supply of milsurp arms and ammo, which would be a detriment to affordable firearm ownership (especially at the entry level) in this country.

    I'm not trusting the U.N. to craft any standards on the export and import of firearms, and I'm against any treaty that in any way might dry up or affect in any way the import of firearms into this country. More red tape is never a good thing.
     

    afcolt

    Plinker
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Sep 24, 2013
    91
    8
    Madison Co.
    Also, I'd mention if folks want to read the treaty for themselves, it may be found here (pdf):

    http://www.un.org/disarmament/ATT/docs/ATT_text_(As_adopted_by_the_GA)-E.pdf

    Check out Article 5:

    Article 5 General Implementation
    1. Each State Party shall implement this Treaty in a consistent, objective and
    non-discriminatory manner, bearing in mind the principles referred to in this Treaty.

    2. Each State Party shall establish and maintain a national control system,
    including a national control list, in order to implement the provisions of this Treaty.

    3. Each State Party is encouraged to apply the provisions of this Treaty to the
    broadest range of conventional arms. National definitions of any of the categories
    covered under Article 2 (1) (a)-(g) shall not cover less than the descriptions used in
    the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms at the time of entry into force of
    this Treaty. For the category covered under Article 2 (1) (h), national definitions
    shall not cover less than the descriptions used in relevant United Nations
    instruments at the time of entry into force of this Treaty.


    4. Each State Party, pursuant to its national laws, shall provide its national
    control list to the Secretariat, which shall make it available to other States Parties.
    States Parties are encouraged to make their control lists publicly available.
     

    Expat

    Pdub
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    23   0   0
    Feb 27, 2010
    108,736
    113
    Michiana
    I saw Judge Napolitano on FNC this morning. He said that he didn't think this would even get out of the Senate committee to be voted on by the full Senate. He said Reid knows this is a no win vote for Democrats and that it could be the straw that lost the Senate to the Republicans. He also mentioned that this treaty could affect our Importers ability to bring in guns and ammo from other countries even if it isn't ratified.

    I also heard on the radio yesterday that Canada is refusing to sign the treaty. They feel it could negatively affect their right to keep and bear arms...
     
    Rating - 100%
    15   0   0
    Aug 14, 2009
    3,816
    63
    Salem
    Ehhh... one party wants to be our Masters and the other party apparently wants to outsource the job :p
    One party wants to have more say in what you smoke, etc than many of us would like (me included) - the other wants to take away your freedom of speech, opposition, and the means to defend it. It is completely fair to say that you don't like either option. But to say that they are the same is intellectually dishonest...
    As has often been stated here - the Second Amendment is arguably the most important in the sense that it protects all of the others.

    So... a :p right back atcha... :D
     

    lucky4034

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    13   0   0
    Jan 14, 2012
    3,789
    48
    One party wants to have more say in what you smoke, etc than many of us would like (me included) - the other wants to take away your freedom of speech, opposition, and the means to defend it. It is completely fair to say that you don't like either option. But to say that they are the same is intellectually dishonest...
    As has often been stated here - the Second Amendment is arguably the most important in the sense that it protects all of the others.

    So... a :p right back atcha... :D

    Well... I can make the argument that the 2-party political system is nothing more than a "divide and conquer device" perpetuated by a media propaganda machine. Which in my mind means that rather than being 2 separate groups working independently, it is actually nothing more than an interconnected group controlled by a single entity, who pits you against your neighbor with the underlying goal of keeping you distracted.

    It seems having a D or R next to your name trumps your ability to think and behave on your own. As soon as you add that little letter next to your name, then without thinking, you immediately take an oppositional stance on EVERY subject regardless of your intellectual integrity.

    I find it remarkable that two groups, consisting of hundreds/thousands of "individuals" never agree on ANYTHING. They always oppose each other and the majority of their constituents instinctively follow them without batting an eye.

    The system is so divided and void of intellectual honesty in fact, that there is little hope for anything to ever get accomplished... and it seems that way by design. Maybe originally it wasn't intended to be this way... but it surely has evolved this way. So I ask you... whether or not you think there is a discernible difference between the 2 Parties in this political system... does it really matter?


    *****NSFW*****
    [video=youtube_share;i5dBZDSSky0]http://youtu.be/i5dBZDSSky0[/video]
     
    Last edited:
    Top Bottom