• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Obama Wants Senate To Ratify Arms Treaty

Wolfgang1952

Regular Member
Joined
May 31, 2010
Messages
169
Location
Mt Hermon / Franklinton,La ,
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
 

AIC869

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2010
Messages
105
Location
Prince William Co, Virginia, USA
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. :)
 

MilProGuy

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2011
Messages
1,226
Location
Mississippi
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:

RetiredOC

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Dec 21, 2009
Messages
1,567
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:

SouthernBoy

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2007
Messages
5,835
Location
Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
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.
 

RetiredOC

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Dec 21, 2009
Messages
1,567
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.
 

SouthernBoy

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2007
Messages
5,835
Location
Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
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.
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
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:

okboomer

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2009
Messages
1,164
Location
Oklahoma, USA
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" :cool:
 

4armed Architect

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2008
Messages
149
Location
L.A. County, California, USA
"We can't wait for Congress to act"

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/u...led-obama-to-try-new-economic-drive.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.
 

Faithless Zealot

New member
Joined
Oct 26, 2011
Messages
2
Location
Pullman, Washington
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.
 

Daylen

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
2,224
Location
America
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.
 

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,337
Location
Nevada
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.
 

Redbaron007

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2011
Messages
1,613
Location
SW MO
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).
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
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:

Redbaron007

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2011
Messages
1,613
Location
SW MO
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).

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.
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
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.
 
Top