Vote for WHO?

[Rover]

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.

This is that brief, glorious moment in history
when everyone stands around...reloading.

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 "legislators" 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)

What? No Republicans?



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.

[william]

Ol' Rover has case of the vapors again! What the UN is trying to do is to curb the illegal international trade in small arms. Despite the scare tactics from whoever starts these email chain letters ("viral" is such a lazy term), it's not about the Second Amendment. I don't think you can deny there are too many small - and large - arms circulating around the world, most of them murdering innocent bystanders in brushfire wars. Or do you think it's just peachy?

ISIS, al Qaeda, al Shabaab, to say nothing of drug gangs and guerrilla groups in Latin America - don't you think it might be a good idea to make it harder for them and their ilk to get weapons?

[KatoomDownUnder]

http://www.news-leader.com/story/news/l ... e/6855353/

Rover, pull your head in ya mug.

It's people like you who go off like a fire cracker without any regard to actually checking your facts that make life tough for the rest.

Your precious Second Amendment is safe from the UN and your teachers with concealed carry permits can still shoot themselves at school. And school district police (school police, really???) can go and buy MRAP vehicles to rescue students.

Sometimes we sit here wondering how the hell you lot haven't imploded yet.

[rmca]

Rover, this treaty only applies to the international trade of arms.

Check the treaty here: http://www.un.org/disarmament/ATT/

From the preamble, 4th paragraph:

"Reaffirming the sovereign right of any State to regulate and control conventional arms exclusively within its territory, pursuant to its own legal or constitutional system"

This seems tailored for the US...

Plus:

"Article 1
Object and Purpose
The object of this Treaty is to:
– Establish the highest possible common international standards for regulating or
improving the regulation of the international trade in conventional arms;
– Prevent and eradicate the illicit trade in conventional arms and prevent their
diversion;
for the purpose of:
– Contributing to international and regional peace, security and stability;
– Reducing human suffering;
– Promoting cooperation, transparency and responsible action by States Parties
in the international trade in conventional arms, thereby building confidence
among States Parties."

Hope this helps

[william]

Hey, Rover, did you notice? Two comments from "furriners." What do those heathens know about anything? Apparently more than an old crank from the desert, eh?

[dronning]

The laughable part of this is that the UN Small Arms treaty will do NOTHING to stop arms from going to the people that they say they are trying to keep them from. There are massive transfers of military weapons being redirected via the black market directly from armories around the world. Stolen by the local military for their own profit. This is already illegal so tell me how the is the SAT going to change that. It will only make the black market sellers more profit.

Even worse is it will prevent the supplying of arms to citizens of nations that find themselves with a leader that decides to slaughter certain ethnic portions of the population. Unless of course the UN decides to approve the transfer or intervention and that would be sometime after the ethnic cleansing has been completed.

The UN-SAT is about control and nothing else.

Wait and see what happens when the UN really starts pushing for a world based currency.

- Dave

[rmarsh]

I'm with you Rover! As always with politicians, you have to look not at what they "say" the regulations mean. You have to anticipate how they will "interpret" those rules after they are established.

Notice how all those who are telling you, you are wrong, are from countries or states that have largely already lost their rights of gun ownership. Out here in fly over country we take our gun rights seriously. Politicians have learned to be incremental and sneaky. Any new gun regulations can and will be used to make it more difficult for the average person to own guns and protect yourself.

All 46 of those senators are traitors to their oath to "defend and protect" the constitution. They need to be voted out!!

[rmca]

Notice how all those who are telling you, you are wrong, are from countries or states that have largely already lost their rights of gun ownership.

My gun safe and all it's content begs to differ! :)
Don't talk of what you don't know!

Just read my post and see that it doesn't affect you one bit... Unless you are in mission abroad, like some of your armed forces (and mine!), and get shot at with the products of that arms trade!

[rmarsh]

Notice how all those who are telling you, you are wrong, are from countries or states that have largely already lost their rights of gun ownership.

My gun safe and all it's content begs to differ! :)
Don't talk of what you don't know!

Just read my post and see that it doesn't affect you one bit... Unless you are in mission abroad, like some of your armed forces (and mine!), and get shot at with the products of that arms trade!

rmca, I apologize. I must admit I am not familiar with the gun laws of Portugal. I have traveled extensively in Europe and other parts of the world, but unfortunately have not had the pleasure of visiting your country. My mistake is in making the (possibly) unfair comparison of Portugal to the other European countries I have visited, some very recently.

Other than that, I suspect much of our differences come from a very different culture and experience with guns. Just as an example...... This morning I got up and got dressed which includes as I do each day, holstering my "high capacity, semi-automatic handgun" on my hip. I then drove a number of miles to a nearby Church where I attended worship, then went to my families favorite pizza place for lunch, then drove home. All with my very legal concealed handgun. As soon as my son get his clothes changed, we will go out in the backyard and shoot a hundred shots or so on the skeet range in our backyard. It's a beautiful fall day here, so after we finish skeet training, I will pull out the 50BMG and bang off a few practice rounds at 1000 yards just for fun....... I have no doubt you have quite a collection in your gun safe. I will not on a public forum say what I have in my gun vault room, but many a third world dictator would be envious! ALL MY ACTIVITIES AND GUNS AND AMMO ARE PERFECTLY LEGAL here in the state I live in. So, my view of an encroachment of my freedom and yours are two entirely different things I expect.

I am not trying to argue with you here. As shooters, we are on the same side. It's just that the shooting / gun ownership community in this country is very suspicious any time some "new" gun regulation is introduced. The politicals always have "great" reason for the new law, but it never turns out to reduce violence or gun crime. It only serves to limit good law abiding people from access to guns or ammunition. Case in point: A friend who lives in one of our northestern states used to shoot sport pistol. She still has her pistols and although she does not actively compete, she still likes to shoot occasionally. Her state recently passed new handgun regulations that makes it illegal for her to have a semi-automatic pistol. She had to take her pistols and leave them with a friend in another state. That law was supposed to "protect people by denying access to certain types of handguns". Maybe they were not thinking of an olympic style competition sport pistol, but it certainly got caught in the net.

In the UN Treaty, they say a country retains the right to make their own rules with regard to "conventional" weapons. That is a term that is certain to experience "creep". Who gets to decide what a "conventional weapon" is. The UN? I consider my 50 cal rifle I use for fun long range shooting to be a "conventional weapon". I expect the UN would call it a restricted military style "long range heavy sniper rifle". Who NEEDS one of those?? I could go on......... it is all in the ever changing definition of what they want to put on the "unconventional" list and deny the average citizen from owning.

As for the treaty having no effect on me...... I recently bought a .22lr 3 position competition rifle from a Swiss company. The importer I used complained that all the new UN regulations are making it more and more difficult for him to get even a single shot bolt action competition gun imported. Maybe he don't know what he is talking about, but that is what he told me.

Again, I do not mean to be argumentative here. I just wanted to point out that some of us have seen this game played before by our own government. The new law always has a "good" reason and is "guaranteed" to not restrict the average gun owner. In the end, the average law abiding gun owner IS the one impacted and there is ALWAYS regulation CREEP over time.

We in the heartland of the USA simply don't want the UN or anyone else restricting our rights further. Call me dense, or paranoid or closed minded if you want. I simply believe the UN treaty is a "toe in the door" to disarming the average person in the US and elsewhere. You can disagree with me and we would probably be friends if we ever meet, but you will not change my opinion of the motives of the UN.

[Hemmers]

"Conventional" is generally considered to mean "not Nuclear/Biological/Chemical/Radiological".

That means you can't exactly "creep" from tanks to .50cal to smaller arms.

And seriously, that whole email is junk. Read the Snopes article. It's a ham-fisted attempt by an extreme Republican to discredit Democrats through the use of sensationalist reporting and outright inaccuracies/lies. (Or an attempt by a Democrat to make it look like a Republican was trying to mislead people with sensationalist rhetoric. Impossible to know which, and not really worth worrying about).