Traitors (46 of them)

Over the weekend, we came four votes away from the United States 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 read: 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 of our United States Senators were willing to give away our Constitutional rights to a foreign power. Here are the 46 senators that voted to give your rights to the U.N.
Baldwin (D-WI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bennet (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
People this needs to go viral. These Senators voted to let the UN take our guns. They need to lose the election. We have been betrayed. 46 Senators Voted to Give your 2nd Amendment Constitutional Rights to the U.N. Please take that all but two of these Senators were Democrats. Two were Independents.

So many "D's" and "I's" and no "R's"..... I think I can safely draw some inference from that.

Fallschirmjäger said:

So many "D's" and "I's" and no "R's"..... I think I can safely draw some inference from that.

Click to expand...

What's the difference? The D's wanna give absolute power to a foreign entity, and the R's want to take it for themselves. The only safe vote is for an "L".

I'll certainly agree with the last sentence.

I'd like to see a list of the D Senators who voted against it and call and thank them for upholding their oath to the constitution. It sure won't be my D senator (Reid.)

Fallschirmjäger said:

So many "D's" and "I's" and no "R's"..... I think I can safely draw some inference from that.

Click to expand...

Yeah, but there's not a dime's worth of difference between D and R.

eye95 said:

Yeah, but there's not a dime's worth of difference between D and R.

Click to expand...

I know you're being sarcastic, but when it comes to expanding Govt. there really isn't.

ron73440 said:

I know you're being sarcastic, but when it comes to expanding Govt. there really isn't.

Click to expand...

What I think you mean is that there is not enough difference to suit you. But this vote clearly demonstrates that there is a huge difference--and, in this case, the Republicans (every damned one of them) voted not to expand government, while the overwhelming majority of the Democrats (and those who caucus with them) voted for expansion of governmental power, including international governmental power.

I hate to break it to you, and others with extremist views on the matter, but this vote demonstrates that there is most certainly a difference.

The way to undo what the progressives have done in my lifetime is to do the same thing in reverse. Take over the Republican party, move it to the right, put it in power, and hold its members accountable for not decreasing governmental power in the primaries.

Has everyone lost sight of the fact that this vote was last March and not THIS last weekend?

Trolling at work ...

eye95 said:

I hate to break it to you, and others with extremist views on the matter, but this vote demonstrates that there is most certainly a difference..

Click to expand...

The difference is not a matter of extremest views, anyone who investigates the matter can see that beyond gun rights, and sometimes not even then, republicans basically only push for protecting the constitution when they can use it to bash the democrats.

If it were the other way around and republicans were the heroes of politics, the patriot act wouldn't exist, the NFA/GCA/FOPA ban's wouldn't exist, deficit spending of privately controlled debt based currency wouldn't exist, allodial titles would still be available, unmarked toxic genetically modified garbage wouldn't be subsidized and passed off as "food", and so on. But things aren't this way, and therefor many people would argue that there isn't a very huge difference, because both parties are ******* us.

Michigander said:

The difference is not a matter of extremest views, anyone who investigates the matter can see that beyond gun rights, and sometimes not even then, republicans basically only push for protecting the constitution when they can use it to bash the democrats...

Click to expand...

Why do folks insist on incorrectly stating the post to which they are replying, and then arguing with that restatement?

I did not the that the difference was a matter of extremism. I said that extremists are the ones who can't see a dime's worth of difference. If you don't see a difference, it is possibly because you hold such extremist values. When you are one extreme side of a spectrum, let's say East so we don't get lost in a sub-discussion of who belongs where on a spectrum, everyone else looks like a Westist to you. The problem is not the others; it is your perspective.

If you wish to move politics East, support the Easter of the choices. Don't just wait for a perfect Eastist candidate. Get involved with one of the two major parties, drag it East, and help it achieve power. Or you could just bellyache about how everyone in power is just a Westist without a dime's worth of difference between them.

Quit bellyaching about the darkness, and light the one freakin' candle already.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Ironside said:

Has everyone lost sight of the fact that this vote was last March and not THIS last weekend?

Trolling at work ...

Click to expand...

"Last March" is as deceptive as "this past weekend" is. Many would see "last March" as March 2012. I suspect the OP was taking words out of an article when he used the phrase "last weekend." Instead of "last March," possibly you should write "in March."

The vote was taken on March 23, just about three months ago. It is quite relevant to a discussion today, as earlier this month, this treaty was signed by the US despite the clear rejection of it by the Senate.

The only trolling I see here is your attempt to derail this thread off its topic, which is clearly to identify the Senators who voted for this treaty against our rights and to show the glaring obviousness of which party supports our 2A rights and which does not.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Some folks around here (and you all know who you are) will take every opportunity to take a swipe at any republican.....no good deed shall go unpunished.

Democrats are liberals, democrats are not traitors.

By not signing on we join a pretty impressive group of freedom loving countries:
Iran
North Korea
Syria
Good work republicans. /s

One must wonder why folks who don't really believe in the RKBA (or the Constitution as written) post here.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

One must also wonder why folks intentionally mis-interpret the resolution in order to fear monger about that evil US govt. It has nothing to do with RKBA or your interpretation of what you think the Constitution says (SCOTUS notwithstanding).
Snopes is your friend (unles your ideology says otherwise).
KEY U.S. REDLINES

The Second Amendment to the Constitution must be upheld.
There will be no restrictions on civilian possession or trade of firearms otherwise permitted by law or protected by the U.S. Constitution.
There will be no dilution or diminishing of sovereign control over issues involving the private acquisition, ownership, or possession of firearms, which must remain matters of domestic law.
The U.S. will oppose provisions inconsistent with existing U.S. law or that would unduly interfere with our ability to import, export, or transfer arms in support of our national security and foreign policy interests.
The international arms trade is a legitimate commercial activity, and otherwise lawful commercial trade in arms must not be unduly hindered.
There will be no requirement for reporting on or marking and tracing of ammunition or explosives.
There will be no lowering of current international standards.
Existing nonproliferation and export control regimes must not be undermined.
The ATT negotiations must have consensus decision making to allow us to protect U.S. equities.
There will be no mandate for an international body to enforce an ATT

Fallschirmjäger said:

So many "D's" and "I's" and no "R's"..... I think I can safely draw some inference from that.

Click to expand...

The D stands for DUMBASS ....