Results 1 to 22 of 22

Thread: UN ATT Killed - for those who hadn't heard

  1. #1
    Regular Member Bellum_Intus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Rush, Colorado
    Posts
    540

    UN ATT Killed - for those who hadn't heard

    It's dead! (for now)

    Full story here:

    http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/ar...de-treaty.aspx

    During the past week, it became increasingly possible that the Conference would fail to come to an agreement on draft language. On Thursday, the Conference President produced yet another draft of the ATT in an effort to salvage the process. The new draft, like previous ones, was wholly incompatible with the Second Amendment rights protected by our Constitution.

    The proponents of the treaty have goals that are clearly at odds with the American Constitution. Their refusal to remove civilian arms from the treaty was one major issue that led to the breakdown in negotiations. The U.S. delegation made it clear that they could not move forward with the language as it had been drafted.

    While this conference has failed to complete a treaty, the proponents will not give up. It is likely that a new conference will be held in the future and NRA will continue to fight to protect the rights of American gun owners.

    NRA maintains its steadfast opposition to any treaty that includes civilian arms in any way. NRA will continue to work with our allies, particularly in the U.S. Senate, to insure that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is not threatened by this or any future international treaty.
    -Rob
    Kenaz Tactical Group

    "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

    "Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They [socialists] always run out of other people's money. It's quite a characteristic of them."
    --Margaret Thatcher

  2. #2
    Regular Member rushcreek2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs. CO
    Posts
    924
    I think the handwriting on the Senate wall was pretty clear to Obama.

    Afterall........Obama believes he will have more "flexibility" after the elction...................

    Actually he will . He can choose another career path.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Bellum_Intus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Rush, Colorado
    Posts
    540
    Quote Originally Posted by rushcreek2 View Post
    I think the handwriting on the Senate wall was pretty clear to Obama.

    Afterall........Obama believes he will have more "flexibility" after the elction...................

    Actually he will . He can choose another career path.
    Funny how his comment to the Russian President didn't make more press.. hmm.. yeah..

    IMO, we shouldn't sign a UN ANYTHING anymore.. nothing, nada.. In fact, we should just bow out of that useless organization..

    --Rob
    Kenaz Tactical Group

    "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

    "Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They [socialists] always run out of other people's money. It's quite a characteristic of them."
    --Margaret Thatcher

  4. #4
    Regular Member Wolfstanus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Colorado springs
    Posts
    126
    I'm so happy I could dance.






    On another note.

    I think they will revise it to allow only bolt actions/hunting shotguns. And be 5 rounds max. The UN is pretty useless these days.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Maine Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Ukraine & Bangor Maine
    Posts
    235
    Quote Originally Posted by Bellum_Intus View Post
    Funny how his comment to the Russian President didn't make more press.. hmm.. yeah..

    IMO, we shouldn't sign a UN ANYTHING anymore.. nothing, nada.. In fact, we should just bow out of that useless organization..

    --Rob
    Bow out? Lets boot em out! And take our support money with us too.

    Don't let the pressure off your Senators either. Keep after em to "just say NO!" to the UN.
    “Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws.” ― Plato

    Plato knew this yet today's antis still don't get it!

    Join the fight for freedom
    Oathkeepers

  6. #6
    Regular Member M-Taliesin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Aurora, Colorado
    Posts
    1,504
    Howdy Folks!
    This is precisely why I didn't get all knickers in a bunch over the proposed treaty. First, the American delegation to the UN would have needed to support the thing, and they didn't. Even if it had passed UN muster, it would then require a 2/3 approval by the Senate. That ain't likely to happen. And those are only two quick examples of why I wasn't terribly concerned.

    That isn't the same as saying we do not need vigilance. Sure, we gotta keep an eye on stuff anti's try to foist upon the American people. But I have a great deal of confidence in the American people to counter such feldercarb with stiff resistence.

    This is a really great nation, and the way it was set up by our founding fathers wasn't anything short of brilliant. No one man, nor one party, nor one ideology, nor one President, nor one majority of one or the other party in the Senate is enough to muscle something through. Checks and balances is a terrific concept and has kept us out of some real bad issues before, and is doing it now. It will prevail again.

    All I can say about the defeat of ATT is.............. HUZZAH!

    Blessings,
    M-Taliesin

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,187
    Quote Originally Posted by Wolfstanus View Post
    I'm so happy I could dance.


    Is that Freddie Mercury? I'm suddenly in the mood to buy Sarah Brightman's cover of "Who Wants to Live Forever?" from the Highlander soundtrack.

    First, the American delegation to the UN would have needed to support the thing, and they didn't. Even if it had passed UN muster, it would then require a 2/3 approval by the Senate. That ain't likely to happen. And those are only two quick examples of why I wasn't terribly concerned.

    <snip>

    This is a really great nation, and the way it was set up by our founding fathers wasn't anything short of brilliant. No one man, nor one party, nor one ideology, nor one President, nor one majority of one or the other party in the Senate is enough to muscle something through. Checks and balances is a terrific concept and has kept us out of some real bad issues before, and is doing it now. It will prevail again.
    Gods, you are SOOOO naive M-T!! Don't you know that the president wields omnipotent emperorlike powers and can press his agenda to make Congress dance to whatever tune he pleases? Besides, he's not even the real threat when it comes to the UN! That Secretary of State of his has the REAL power! Whatever thought enters her Popeye's special head is LAW! C'mon! Grow up! Remove the scales from your eyes and smell the coffee! Turn your head and cough!

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by rushcreek2 View Post
    Afterall........Obama believes he will have more "flexibility" after the elction...................

    Actually he will . He can choose another career path.
    Zinger !!! (They'll be watching you now)

  9. #9
    Regular Member M-Taliesin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Aurora, Colorado
    Posts
    1,504
    Quote Originally Posted by mahkagari View Post
    Gods, you are SOOOO naive M-T!! Don't you know that the president wields omnipotent emperorlike powers and can press his agenda to make Congress dance to whatever tune he pleases? Besides, he's not even the real threat when it comes to the UN! That Secretary of State of his has the REAL power! Whatever thought enters her Popeye's special head is LAW! C'mon! Grow up! Remove the scales from your eyes and smell the coffee! Turn your head and cough!
    Howdy Pard!
    Yeah, what was I thinking!
    Still, there are more of us than of them!
    The President and Secretary of State are only 2 people.
    We number in the millions.
    And we vote!

    Blessings,
    M-Taliesin

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,187
    Who wants to live forever,
    When love must die?
    So touch my tears with your lips,
    Touch my world with your fingertips,
    And we can have forever...

  11. #11
    Regular Member Bellum_Intus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Rush, Colorado
    Posts
    540

    Important!

    A letter was drafted by Senator Moran and signed by 51 Senators, the letter in opposition was sent to the President.. Below are the signers, note that neither Mark Udall (D, CO) nor Micheal Bennet (D, CO) signed the letter.. VOTE THEM GONE!

    Bennet is up for re-election in 2017
    Udall in 2015

    Darn..

    Full letter here: http://moran.senate.gov/public/index...d-534bf60b52f7

    The letter was signed by U.S. Senators Lamar Alexander (R-TN), Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), Max Baucus (D-MT), John Barrasso (R-WY), Mark Begich (D-AK), Roy Blunt (R-MO), John Boozman (R-AR), Richard Burr (R-NC), Bob Casey (D-PA), Dan Coats (R-IN), Tom Coburn (R-OK), Thad Cochran (R-MS), Susan Collins (R-ME), Bob Corker (R-TN), John Cornyn (R-TX), Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), Mike Crapo (R-ID), Jim DeMint (R-SC), Mike Enzi (R-WY), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Dean Heller (R-NV), John Hoeven (R-ND), Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), James Inhofe (R-OK), Johnny Isakson (R-GA), Mike Johanns (R-NE), Ron Johnson (R-WI), Jon Kyl (R-AZ), Mike Lee (R-UT), Joe Manchin (D-WV), Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Jerry Moran (R-KS), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Ben Nelson (D-NE), Rand Paul (R-KY), Rob Portman (R-OH), Mark Pryor (D-AR), Jim Risch (R-ID), Pat Roberts (R-KS), Marco Rubio (R-FL), Jeff Sessions (R-AL), Richard Shelby (R-AL), Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Jon Tester (D-MT), John Thune (R-SD), Pat Toomey (R-PA), David Vitter (R-LA), Jim Webb (D-VA), and Roger Wicker (R-MS).

    --Rob

    PS.. I guess this letter Mark Udall sent me back was just BS.. (dated 5/11/12)

    Dear Robert,


    Thank you for contacting me regarding the International Arms Trade Treaty and the Second Amendment Sovereignty Act of 2012 (S.2205). I appreciate your taking the time to express your specific views. On March 19, 2012 the Second Amendment Sovereignty Act was referred to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations for review. While I am not a member of this panel, rest assured I will keep your thoughts in mind as Congress considers this bill.

    As you know, the Second Amendment provides for the right to bear arms for lawful purposes and responsible gun ownership is part of our way of life in the West. I believe that any legislation impacting constitutional rights requires thorough examination and I am committed to protecting the rights of citizens to own firearms for personal protection, hunting, collecting or for other legal purposes.

    In 2008, the General Assembly of the United Nations announced plans to establish a committee to discuss a possible treaty aimed at reducing the number of weapons that end up in the hands of illegal brokers and smugglers. The proposed outline for the treaty would target trade between nations, not trade within a nation. While no text has yet been proposed for the treaty and it is not expected to be drafted until 2012, I sent a letter in July 2011 to President Obama and Secretary Clinton expressing my belief that the treaty cannot in any way subordinate the Second Amendment to the Constitution.

    As your U.S. Senator, I have the constitutional obligation to advise and consent on any and all treaties, a duty I take seriously. If this treaty is drafted and comes before the U.S. Senate for debate, you can be sure that I will remember your thoughts and concerns.

    I will continue to listen closely to what you and other Coloradans have to say about matters before Congress, the concerns of our communities, and the issues facing Colorado and the nation. My job is not about merely supporting or opposing legislation; it is also about bridging the divide that has paralyzed our nation's politics. For more information about my positions and to learn how my office can assist you, please visit my website at www.markudall.senate.gov.


    Warm regards,

    Signature

    Mark Udall
    U.S. Senator, Colorado
    Last edited by Bellum_Intus; 07-29-2012 at 02:19 PM.
    Kenaz Tactical Group

    "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

    "Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They [socialists] always run out of other people's money. It's quite a characteristic of them."
    --Margaret Thatcher

  12. #12
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Bellum_Intus View Post
    A letter was drafted by Senator Moran and signed by 51 Senators, the letter in opposition was sent to the President.. Below are the signers, note that neither Mark Udall (D, CO) nor Micheal Bennet (D, CO) signed the letter.. VOTE THEM GONE!

    Bennet is up for re-election in 2017
    Udall in 2015

    Darn..
    When I wrote them both about the UN ATT issue, Udall wrote me back about a whole bunch of pro-gun jibber-jabber. Now I know for a fact he's a lying POS. Bennet didn't write me back at all, so they're both pieces of...

    What do you expect? They're Democrats. Out of the 51 Senators who signed it, I believe only 3 or 4 Dems were among them. The rest of the un-American anti-Constitutional leeches deserve a free ticket home, where they can just park their de-voted butts for the rest of their natural days.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,187
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    When I wrote them both about the UN ATT issue, Udall wrote me back about a whole bunch of pro-gun jibber-jabber. Now I know for a fact he's a lying POS.
    I'm missing something. Did Udall vote for the treaty?

  14. #14
    Regular Member Bellum_Intus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Rush, Colorado
    Posts
    540
    Quote Originally Posted by mahkagari View Post
    I'm missing something. Did Udall vote for the treaty?
    There was no vote, it was killed before it went anywhere.
    Read my post.. he did not sign the letter opposing it.. If he didn't sign opposing it.. what does that leave? ...

    --Rob
    Kenaz Tactical Group

    "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

    "Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They [socialists] always run out of other people's money. It's quite a characteristic of them."
    --Margaret Thatcher

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,187
    Quote Originally Posted by Bellum_Intus View Post
    Read my post.. he did not sign the letter opposing it.. If he didn't sign opposing it.. what does that leave? ...
    Working instead of grandstanding?

    That he didn't participate in a 8 1/2 x 11 rally doesn't mean he was "lying" about his position on the treaty.

  16. #16
    Regular Member Bellum_Intus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Rush, Colorado
    Posts
    540
    Quote Originally Posted by mahkagari View Post
    Working instead of grandstanding?

    That he didn't participate in a 8 1/2 x 11 rally doesn't mean he was "lying" about his position on the treaty.
    Anyway, My vote will not be for Mr. Udall in 2015.. I don't think it's grandstanding, had Sen Moran not drafted the letter of opposition, the Treaty may well have been signed..

    --Rob
    Kenaz Tactical Group

    "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

    "Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They [socialists] always run out of other people's money. It's quite a characteristic of them."
    --Margaret Thatcher

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,187
    Quote Originally Posted by Bellum_Intus View Post
    had Sen Moran not drafted the letter of opposition, the Treaty may well have been signed..
    By whom?

  18. #18
    Regular Member Bellum_Intus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Rush, Colorado
    Posts
    540
    Quote Originally Posted by mahkagari View Post
    By whom?
    Hillary Clinton ?

    lol.. ok for those who don't know me.. ^^ THAT was a joke..

    When Bill was Pres, I often called him the first man... she THINKS she's in charge.. hence the joke.. oh well lol nobody understands me ! :P
    Last edited by Bellum_Intus; 07-30-2012 at 01:43 PM.
    Kenaz Tactical Group

    "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

    "Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They [socialists] always run out of other people's money. It's quite a characteristic of them."
    --Margaret Thatcher

  19. #19
    Regular Member carolina guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Concord, NC
    Posts
    1,790
    Glad it is dead (for now...socialists ALWAYS come back again later)...however, I think people need to keep this kind of treaty in perspective...

    1) Even if it gets agreement from the US delegation
    2) Even if it gets signed by the Prez
    3) Even if it gets approval by 2/3 of the Senate

    A treaty is still subordinate to the Constitution. Period.
    If something is wrong for ONE person to do to another, it is still wrong if a BILLION people do it.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,187
    Quote Originally Posted by Bellum_Intus View Post
    Hillary Clinton ?
    Actually, I'll retract that. Yeah, the letter probably did have an effect.

  21. #21
    Regular Member mobiushky's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Alaska (ex-Colorado)
    Posts
    840
    Let's get one thing straight. The only person who can legally sign an international treaty is the President. However, Hillary did announce not long ago that the new administration is not opposed to the treaty and signaled that it would be signed and that she would push to "have it ratified." So it's a given at this point that the treaty would have been signed had it made it out of committee. However, the 2/3 to ratify issue would have been tough.

    It's possible that the treaty died only because the letter was written and the UN knows that without the US on board, it's pointless. Most of the other countries don't follow the treaties they sign anyway. They needed the US to be the main point.

    As for Udall. He was not opposed to ratifying the treaty. Read that letter again. Nothing in there says I will not vote for this. What he uses is much the same wording that Hillary used when touting the treaty to be signed and ratified. They are trying to convince people that it would not affect the average person, only terrorists. However, much news has been reported that the treaty definitely included anit-2A language. One such ban was the outlawing of any firearm fed by magazine. Remember, you can have the right to bear arms as long as they are the ones we say you can... Udall sidestepped the fact that much of the treaty actually would have caused problems for the average US citizen that could violate 2A. And we all know that our current politicians are SO keen on upholding the Constitution...

  22. #22
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by carolina guy View Post
    A treaty is still subordinate to the Constitution. Period.
    Correction: A treaty is supposed to be subordinate to the Constitution, which is why all executive, legislative, and judicial officers in our government take an oath of office to our Constitution.

    And gee - that works, right? Oh, heck no. Their oaths of office hasn't kept them honest -- Congress keeps the Supreme Court well-supplied with laws year after year SCOTUS finds un-Constitutional. We the people have kept them honest, namely by voting out the bastards who refuse to adhere to our Constitution.

    In fact, the US Supreme Court has declared a total of 1,315 laws (as of 2002, the most recent year for which statistics are available; the database may be updated in 2012) unconstitutional using the process of judicial review.

    The first time the Court declared a federal law unconstitutional was in Chief Justice John Marshall's opinion for Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137 (1803), in which he asserted Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 was unconstitutional because it extended to the Supreme Court an act of original jurisdiction not explicitly granted by the Constitution.

    Unconstitutional and Preempted Laws 1789-2002
    According to the GPO (Government Printing Office Database):

    1789-2002 Acts of Congress Held as Unconstitutional..............................158

    1789-2002 State Statutes held unconstitutional.................................. ....935

    1789-2002 City Ordinances held unconstitutional.................................. ..222

    1789-2002 State and City laws preempted by Federal laws.......................224

    Total State, Local and Federal Laws Declared Unconstitutional................1,315

    Total State and Local Law Preempted by Federal Laws..............................224

    Total Laws Overturned, all governments....................................... .......1,539

    These are merely the ones they overturned. Others, like Obamacare, stand in all their un-Constitutional glory.

    Bottom line: Continued insistence that "all treaties are subordinate to the Constitution" is ostrich-like head-in-sand-hiding. You're deceiving yourselves! You're making an erroneous assumption that the President, all Supreme Court Justices, and all members of Congress will adhere to the letter of the law, when 235 years of history has consistently proven they do not.

    We mustn't dare to allow this treaty to ever reach the Senate floor. What happened last week must be as far as this bill ever gets, lest we wake up one morning and find it's been incorporated into public law, regardless of what the Constitution says.

    mobiushky, I think we wound up agreeing with one another, particularly your comment, "we all know that our current politicians are SO keen on upholding the Constitution..." So, hope you don't think I was countering your argument. I wasn't. The info in my post substantiates it.
    Last edited by since9; 07-31-2012 at 05:28 AM.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •