Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 40

Thread: Obama Wants Senate To Ratify Arms Treaty

  1. #1
    Regular Member Wolfgang1952's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Mt Hermon / Franklinton,La ,
    Posts
    173

    Obama Wants Senate To Ratify Arms Treaty

    U.S. REP TO U.N. SAYS OBAMA WANTS
    SENATE TO RATIFY ARMS TREATY
    BELLEVUE, WA - The Obama administration "is seeking advice and consent" for
    Senate ratification of an international small arms treaty, and also supports
    the inclusion of small arms in the UN Register of Conventional Arms, the Citizens
    Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms learned today.
    The disclosure is found in the text of a statement to the First Committee
    of the 66th session of the UN General Assembly, delivered by Laura E. Kennedy,
    the permanent United States representative to the Conference on Disarmament.
    CCRKBA obtained a copy of the statement.
    In her statement, Kennedy recalls that the United States in 1997, under the
    Clinton administration, signed the Inter-American Convention Against the Illicit
    Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives and Other
    Related Materials. However, the Senate never ratified the document, and there
    was no interest in pushing the treaty during the Bush administration. American
    firearms rights activists have steadfastly fought against inclusion of small
    arms in any such treaty.
    "More than half the members of the Senate have already advised Barack Obama
    that they will not ratify any treaty that threatens the Second Amendment rights
    of American citizens," noted CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb, "so it's not clear
    why he is - according to Kennedy's revealing statement - suddenly seeking Senate
    ratification of this measure.
    "If the Obama administration is this eager to push adoption of a treaty that's
    been gathering dust for eleven years," he added, "one can only imagine how
    fast this president will want to see action on the proposed global Arms Trade
    Treaty.
    "This suggests that Obama fears he may be a one-term president," Gottlieb
    stated, "and he feels a compelling need to finally bring his anti-gun agenda
    to the surface and push it through. We have known all along about his desire
    to bind this country to an international gun control scheme, and now Kennedy's
    statement confirms that."

    With more than 650,000 members and supporters nationwide, the Citizens Committee
    for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is one of the nation's premier gun rights
    organizations. As a non-profit organization, the Citizens Committee is dedicated
    to preserving firearms freedoms through active lobbying of elected officials
    and facilitating grass-roots organization of gun rights activists in local
    communities throughout the United States. The Citizens Committee can be reached
    by phone at (425) 454-4911, on the Internet at www.ccrkba.org or by email to





    < Please e-mail, distribute, and circulate to friends and family
    Pres. Florida Parishes Chapter of LOCAL www.laopencarry.org

    .308 Isn't an area code, but it can still make long distance calls.
    How may I help you? Press '1' for English. Press '2' to disconnect until you learn to speak English.


    Wolf

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Who was it here last year who said this wouldn't come to this? Come on, now -- fess up...

    ETA: Write Congressman... Check!
    Last edited by since9; 10-24-2011 at 01:07 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.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Prince William Co, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    105
    Congressmen (representatives) have no say on the matter. Senators only.

    Treaties need a 2/3 majority in the Senate for ratification. Certainly not every Dem would vote yes (many are gun owners), and no Repub who wanted to keep his day job would vote yes.

    The administration can "want" all they want - the votes don't exist to pass it and never will. It's dead on arrival. I'm not losing sleep over it.

  4. #4
    Regular Member MilProGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Mississippi
    Posts
    1,228
    Quote Originally Posted by AIC869 View Post
    Congressmen (representatives) have no say on the matter. Senators only.

    The administration can "want" all they want - the votes don't exist to pass it and never will. It's dead on arrival. I'm not losing sleep over it.
    I agree.

    It just goes to show Barack Hussein Obama's propensity towards socialism, and "disarming the American people", a statement he made a while back.
    Last edited by MilProGuy; 11-08-2011 at 11:11 AM. Reason: edited to change font color to conform to forum standards
    Proud Veteran ~ U.S. Army / Army Reserve

    Mississippi State Guard ~ Honorably Retired


  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran Schlitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,567
    Quote Originally Posted by MilProGuy View Post
    I agree.

    It just goes to show Barack Hussein Obama's propensity towards socialism, and "disarming the American people", a statement he made a while back.
    But MilProGuy....bro...they want to do this for our safety. The government has been keeping us safe since 2001, why not let them do this to keep you safe?
    Last edited by Schlitz; 10-26-2011 at 08:30 AM.
    “The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.”
    [Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. Supp. 486, 489 (1956)]
    “There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of constitutional rights.”
    [Sherar vs. Cullen, 481 F2d. 946 (1973)]

  6. #6
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    He cannot enter into a treaty that goes against any part of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights and the senate cannot ratify such a treaty. To do so would be a criminal act on the order of high crimes and treason. Now am I so foolish or naive to believe that not only would they try but if the senate approved, do this? Heck no. I would bet in a heartbeat that they would violate their oath of office and do so with a firmly willing and supportive press.

    The Constitution and the BOR.... who needs it anyway. Just a few pieces of parchment, relics really, of another time written by a bunch of dead white men.
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran Schlitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,567
    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernBoy View Post
    He cannot enter into a treaty that goes against any part of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights and the senate cannot ratify such a treaty. To do so would be a criminal act on the order of high crimes and treason. Now am I so foolish or naive to believe that not only would they try but if the senate approved, do this? Heck no. I would bet in a heartbeat that they would violate their oath of office and do so with a firmly willing and supportive press.

    The Constitution and the BOR.... who needs it anyway. Just a few pieces of parchment, relics really, of another time written by a bunch of dead white men.
    You also can't make a law that infringes on the right of the people to keep and bear arms...but here we are. If they want to do it, they will do it.
    “The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.”
    [Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. Supp. 486, 489 (1956)]
    “There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of constitutional rights.”
    [Sherar vs. Cullen, 481 F2d. 946 (1973)]

  8. #8
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    Quote Originally Posted by Schlitz View Post
    You also can't make a law that infringes on the right of the people to keep and bear arms...but here we are. If they want to do it, they will do it.
    You're right and that is the shame of it. These despots, bastards actually, take an oath to support and defend the Constitution and then go about finding all manner of ways to do just the opposite. To me, any elected or appointed official who even so much as considers violating any part of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights is less than scum. They're traitors to the American way and should be dealt with accordingly.
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  9. #9
    Regular Member Faithless Zealot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Pullman, Washington
    Posts
    2

    Read it yet?

    Has anyone actually read this supposed treaty? Or have a link?

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Faithless Zealot View Post
    Has anyone actually read this supposed treaty? Or have a link?
    The most accurate mainstream news article I've found discussing it in details was published in Forbes: U.N. Agreement Should Have All Gun Owners Up In Arms.

    From the article:


    "In short, overriding our national sovereignty, and in the process, providing license for the federal government to assert preemptive powers over state regulatory powers guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment in addition to our Second Amendment rights."

    "Have no doubt that this plan is very real, with strong Obama administration support. In January 2010 the U.S. joined 152 other countries in endorsing a U.N. Arms Treaty Resolution that will establish a 2012 conference to draft a blueprint for enactment. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has pledged to push for Senate ratification.

    "Former U.N. ambassador John Bolton has cautioned gun owners to take this initiative seriously, stating that the U.N. “is trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about international arms trade between nation states, but there is no doubt that the real agenda here is domestic firearms control.


    These quotes are ominous, at best.

    In our defense, the third page of the online article includes this gem:


    "There are many like me, and fewer of them would be alive today were it not for exercise of their gun rights. In fact law-abiding citizens in America used guns in self-defense 2.5 million times during 1993 (about 6,850 times per day), and actually shot and killed 2 1/2 times as many criminals as police did (1,527 to 606). Those civilian self-defense shootings resulted in less than 1/5th as many incidents as police where an innocent person was mistakenly identified as a criminal (2% versus 11%)."


    This tells me two things:

    1. We far more prevalent than law enforcement in terms of sheer numbers.

    2. We are much more careful than law enforcement when it comes to showing restraint in the use of our firearms.
    Last edited by since9; 11-03-2011 at 01:54 AM. Reason: grammar
    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.

  11. #11
    Regular Member okboomer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Oklahoma, USA
    Posts
    1,164
    Quote Originally Posted by Schlitz View Post
    But MilProGuy....bro...they want to do this for our safety. The government has been keeping us safe since 2001, why not let them do this to keep you safe?
    NOOOOO IT'S FOR THE CHILDREN!!! Gawd, you folks just never get the right "push button"
    cheers - okboomer
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Lead, follow, or get out of the way

    Exercising my 2A Rights does NOT make me a CRIMINAL! Infringing on the exercise of those rights makes YOU one!

  12. #12
    Regular Member XDFDE45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    823
    Bill Clinton tried this while he was in office and we see how far it got then.
    Wisconsin Carry Member
    My Castle Doctrine Law

    Don't wish ill upon your enemy......plan it.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    L.A. County, California, USA
    Posts
    149

    "We can't wait for Congress to act"

    Quote Originally Posted by Schlitz View Post
    You also can't make a law that infringes on the right of the people to keep and bear arms...but here we are. If they want to do it, they will do it.
    Schlitz, I believe you have stated it quite simply and correctly.

    Obama's new strategy is to just sign Executive Orders (whether or not Constitutional or lawful) to do the things he wants to do, bypassing Congress. Until someone stops those, they can create a lot of trouble and bother. I can visualize him signing an Executive Order banning importation of foreign ammo, for example. He just needs a little cover story, say, like having Hillary sign the Treaty on behalf of the U.S., then issuing Executive Orders based on that. Many will scream "THEY CAN'T LEGALLY/LAWFULLY DO THAT!" Probably true, but when has that stopped him?

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/24/us...rive.html?_r=1

    If he issues hundreds of Executive Orders, and lawsuits are generated, how many will SCOTUS eventually take? Certainly not all of them. Obama likes to ignore court rulings until SCOTUS rules, and even then he may choose to simply ignore the ruling. There is no will to impeach him. The only viable solution is to vote him out and hopefully the next Pres. will rescind all his Exec. Orders.

  14. #14
    Regular Member Faithless Zealot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Pullman, Washington
    Posts
    2
    Yeah... If this is the same treaty that they have been talking about for a few years then I have read it, and it is nothing to be afraid of. All it says is "Everyone should work together to prevent illegal arms trafficking." It does not define anything. It essentially is like passing a law saying "let's follow the law." Really rather redundant and crap. If it does pass most likely all it would happen is various navies and coast guards helping each other out in stuff.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    Quote Originally Posted by Faithless Zealot View Post
    Yeah... If this is the same treaty that they have been talking about for a few years then I have read it, and it is nothing to be afraid of. All it says is "Everyone should work together to prevent illegal arms trafficking." It does not define anything. It essentially is like passing a law saying "let's follow the law." Really rather redundant and crap. If it does pass most likely all it would happen is various navies and coast guards helping each other out in stuff.
    It would be far worse than you suggest. However should it pass, it will be time. It will not pass without hook or crook however since it would take 2/3 majority of the senate.
    Don't believe any facts that I say! This is the internet and it is filled with lies and untruth. I invite you to look up for yourself the basic facts that my arguments might be based upon. This way we can have a discussion where logic and hints on where to find information are what is brought to the forum and people look up and verify facts for themselves.

  16. #16
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    Quote Originally Posted by AIC869 View Post
    Congressmen (representatives) have no say on the matter. Senators only.

    Treaties need a 2/3 majority in the Senate for ratification. Certainly not every Dem would vote yes (many are gun owners), and no Repub who wanted to keep his day job would vote yes.

    The administration can "want" all they want - the votes don't exist to pass it and never will. It's dead on arrival. I'm not losing sleep over it.
    You can hate his socialism all you want, but you can actually count on Majority Leader Harry Reid (D)-NV to vote against it and probably actively campaign against it.

  17. #17
    Regular Member Redbaron007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    1,637
    This is an old fearmail that was sent out by ccrkba.org last year. Notice there are no dates in the email. It mentions the 66th UN General Assembly; the 67th session started in September 2011. That should tell you enough.

    This group preys on the fear of folks and does nothing but aggitate the situation. This is very old news! They are just trying to pluck money from the pockets of those who......well lets just say.... that don't have all their french fries in the Happy Meal.

    As many have said, this UN Treaty violates our constitution and won't stand through the courts, even if King Obama did it by Executive Order, which it still has to be ratified by the Senate (67 votes).

  18. #18
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Apparently, Redbaron007, you've missed Hillary Clinton's comments in the news over the last week. This threat is quite real.

    Minimizing the issue only plays into their hands.
    Last edited by since9; 11-03-2011 at 01:57 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.

  19. #19
    Regular Member Redbaron007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    1,637
    Quote Originally Posted by Redbaron007 View Post
    This is an old fearmail that was sent out by ccrkba.org last year. Notice there are no dates in the email. It mentions the 66th UN General Assembly; the 67th session started in September 2011. That should tell you enough.

    This group preys on the fear of folks and does nothing but aggitate the situation. This is very old news! They are just trying to pluck money from the pockets of those who......well lets just say.... that don't have all their french fries in the Happy Meal.

    As many have said, this UN Treaty violates our constitution and won't stand through the courts, even if King Obama did it by Executive Order, which it still has to be ratified by the Senate (67 votes).
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    Apparently, Redbaron007, you've missed Hillary Clinton's comments in the news over the last week. This threat is quite real.

    Minimizing the issue only plays into their hands.
    No, I didn't hear what Queen Hillary stated. What did she say?

    With regards to the fearmail, it still doesn't change anything. It's old news. This email has been out for nearly a year. My point was, ccrkba.org is a electronic organization that tries to siphon money off of the pro-gun crowd and really not do anything, except collect $$$$. If you are aware of what they have acomplished, please edjucate me.

    Queen Hillary and King Obama have not minced any words on how they would like to have more gun control, again nothing new. But the fact is, if KO & QH signed the treaty today, it wouldn't get ratified by the Senate & if by some freak fluke it did get ratified, there is the whole constitutional issue that is glaring.

  20. #20
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by JTHunter View Post
    If they vote FOR this piece of garbage, they will have violated their oaths and should be considered a traitor and treated accordingly.[/size][/font]
    If by "traitor" you're referring to treasonous behavior, please tell me how violating an oath meets the definition of treason according to the U.S. Constitution:


    Article III, Section 3: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
    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.

  21. #21
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by JTHunter View Post
    I meant "traitor" in that they have "betrayed" their oaths.
    Definition of TRAITOR

    1: one who betrays another's trust or is false to an obligation or duty
    2: one who commits treason

    So, you're referring to the first definition, not the second. Ok. Usually, use of the world "traitor" used in conjunction with government service refers to treason.
    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.

  22. #22
    Founder's Club Member Jim675's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Bellevue, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,037
    Quote Originally Posted by AIC869 View Post
    Congressmen (representatives) have no say on the matter. Senators only. SNIP...
    Just a friendly note for future reference: The Congress of the US consists of the Senate and the House of Reps. Both are indeed congress-critters.

    Quote Originally Posted by Redbaron007 View Post
    This is an old fearmail that was sent out by ccrkba.org last year. SNIP...
    The CCRKBA is run by the same gentleman that runs the Second Amendment Foundation. Of McDonald fame. Works with Alan Gura. That SAF. If their leadership uses a wide audience to fund such fantastic work it is with my full blessing.

    Also, ccrkba's web site seems quite current. It shows this notice was sent Oct 19, 2011.

    Carry on.
    Last edited by Jim675; 11-13-2011 at 02:46 AM.

  23. #23
    Regular Member Redbaron007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    1,637
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim675 View Post
    snip...

    The CCRKBA is run by the same gentleman that runs the Second Amendment Foundation. Of McDonald fame. Works with Alan Gura. That SAF. If their leadership uses a wide audience to fund such fantastic work it is with my full blessing.

    Also, ccrkba's web site seems quite current. It shows this notice was sent Oct 19, 2011.

    Carry on.
    The email has been resent since the last post. I got it again, but it is still the same one from last year.

    What did the SAF do? Everyone was in on McDonald. I haven't seen any leadership out of them; subsequently I don't support them. I see them as a paper group that only sends emails, faxes and Friend of the Court briefs (with many other groups). Aside from this, what do they do? I'm not bashing them, I just haven't seen THEM do anything on their own. I'm open for any information on them, but please don't quote their website.

  24. #24
    Founder's Club Member Jim675's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Bellevue, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,037
    The McDonald suit was brought by SAF.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_...ent_Foundation

  25. #25
    Regular Member Redbaron007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    1,637
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim675 View Post
    The McDonald suit was brought by SAF.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_...ent_Foundation

    Actually Alan Gura filed the petition; the SAF and Ill State Rifle Assocaition supported the suit. The NRA had a suit in the mix as well, NRA v Chicago. The McDonald v Chicago and NRA v Chicago were combined by the courts. Many conversations have suggested these two should have never been combined, they were appealed seperately but remained combined. The debate going is the NRA v Chicago should have been the one to go to the SCOTUS. It had a narrow approach that would have had the greatest impact.

    I guess the only claim SAF has is to have helped finance McD v Chicago. I applaud any organization that supports the 2A. SAF has done this. However, the appearance is they just do press releases and tag along on other suits. Their political clout seems to be non-existant. They may file after the horrible legislation is signed, I support any organization that is proactive in protecting the 2A, not reactive, waiting to file a lawsuit. I know this happens, but if they can prevent encroachment at the beginning on the 2A, that is better.

    Also, please make the connection with Alan Gura and SAF/CCRKBA.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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