Page 1 of 2
UN Arms Treaty
Posted: Tue Mar 26, 2013 12:05 am
by TexasGal
...In order to assist these blue-helmets and their disarmament overlords in their search and seizure of ammunition, Section III, Paragraph 10 mandates that member states develop technology to improve the UN’s ability to detect stockpiles of ammo and arms...
...Kerry went on to declare that the United States would not support any treaty that “would be inconsistent with U.S. law and the rights of American citizens under our Constitution, including the Second Amendment.”...
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/it ... ust-treaty
Re: UN Arms Treaty
Posted: Tue Mar 26, 2013 12:49 pm
by bdickens
Flowery hyperbole is a sure sign you are not reading from a reliable source.
Re: UN Arms Treaty
Posted: Wed Mar 27, 2013 3:32 am
by TexasGal
good point.
Re: UN Arms Treaty
Posted: Thu Mar 28, 2013 9:44 am
by anygunanywhere
From the same website is this on the final version of the treaty.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/it ... s-on-track
Anygunanywhere
Re: UN Arms Treaty
Posted: Thu Mar 28, 2013 1:01 pm
by Dave2
It'll be an interesting day if they pass that.
Re: UN Arms Treaty
Posted: Thu Mar 28, 2013 1:43 pm
by anygunanywhere
AndyC wrote:Oh, you said "interesting" - somehow I read that as "very noisy". Carry on
Ear plugs.
Anygunanywhere
Re: UN Arms Treaty
Posted: Thu Mar 28, 2013 1:59 pm
by Dadtodabone
The U.S. Senate must consent to any treaty entered into by the Executive. And that consent must be in the form of a 2/3 majority vote before ratification can take place. There isn't a snowballs chance in a furnace, that the ATT would ever clear the Senate. Mr. Obama and Mr. Kerry are playing to a foreign audience they feel is more important and influential than the American people. All the while knowing that Senate consent was a dead letter. This will play out just like Kyoto, a rejected treaty used by the Socialist masquerading as President, and his minions, to hammer his political opponents.
Re: UN Arms Treaty
Posted: Thu Mar 28, 2013 2:16 pm
by RoyGBiv
Dadtodabone wrote:the Socialist masquerading as President
Re: UN Arms Treaty
Posted: Thu Mar 28, 2013 2:33 pm
by anygunanywhere
Dadtodabone wrote:The U.S. Senate must consent to any treaty entered into by the Executive. And that consent must be in the form of a 2/3 majority vote before ratification can take place. There isn't a snowballs chance in a furnace, that the ATT would ever clear the Senate. Mr. Obama and Mr. Kerry are playing to a foreign audience they feel is more important and influential than the American people. All the while knowing that Senate consent was a dead letter. This will play out just like Kyoto, a rejected treaty used by the Socialist masquerading as President, and his minions, to hammer his political opponents.
You mean that piece of paper called the Constitution? With the BOR?
Shall not be infringed?
Hahahahahahahahahaha!
They don't need no stinking Constitution!
SInce when has this meant anything?
Anygunanywhere
Re: UN Arms Treaty
Posted: Thu Mar 28, 2013 2:41 pm
by GeekwithaGun
anygunanywhere wrote:
You mean that piece of paper called the Constitution? With the BOR?
Shall not be infringed?
Hahahahahahahahahaha!
They don't need no stinking Constitution!
SInce when has this meant anything?
Anygunanywhere
The GOP will save us!
Re: UN Arms Treaty
Posted: Thu Mar 28, 2013 4:32 pm
by Dave2
AndyC wrote:Oh, you said "interesting"
Yes. In the Chinese sense of the word, I fear... This really can't go anywhere good.
Re: UN Arms Treaty
Posted: Thu Mar 28, 2013 4:46 pm
by TexasGal
I have read it is Two Thirds of the Senate present not the full 2/3. Let's hope all our Republican senators have good attendance.