Senate votes 53-46 to stop US from joining UN Arms Trade Treaty......And That's All There is to It?

page: 2
13
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 23 2013 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 



Bad ideas never die. They just get renamed and repackaged for another run. We'll see this material again, I predict.



yah like patriot act, patriot act 2, and healthcare bill, WELL YOU HAVE TO PASS IT TO READ IT DUH!!

we'll def. see it again heh, next 9/11




posted on Mar, 23 2013 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by coltcall
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


If you've ever been through a hurricane and the aftermath of a hurricane.....and I've been through a few of them.......you notice how bright the stars are in the sky.

That's cause all the electricity is out.

You notice you hear things better......I mean, besides the gas powered generators.....like footsteps. People lurking around in the dark.


I hear you there. It's something I absolutely LOVED about trucking. One of the true joys of the job. I often parked on exit ramps to sleep for the night and chose the most isolated I could find sometimes. States like Nevada or Wyoming...even parts of Arizona were great for it. Anyway.. On clear nights when I had some time, I'd get out before laying down for the night and walk up the access road or whatever..to get beyond the truck and look up. It was incredible....actually seeing the stars BEHIND the normal stars and fields behind that. Something I'm sad to think so many city people will likely never see.

Ditto on hearing and the noise of the silence can be as enjoyable as the sight of the endless space above. Of all the things I miss about that career..That ranks among the top. I really do miss those nights just being a part of the night and nature..however briefly.



posted on Mar, 23 2013 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Just curious, when you were driving, what was the weapon of choice carried by truck drivers you knew?

How did you handle the situation driving across boundary lines, like, if you had to make a delivery in Chicago?



posted on Mar, 23 2013 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Or if it wasn't a delivery to Chicago...a delivery to Seatlle?

COL.....CHUCKLE OUT LOUD...

Seattle sits in the upper left corner of the left coast of the United States. It leans left politically, as well. It’s so painfully liberal it hurts. So the NRA and other gun-rights advocates shouldn't be surprised that the Emerald City looks likely to soon be the first U.S. city to fund research into gun violence. The city's predicted move would be a direct rebuke of Congress, which for its part banned federally funded research on the topic. Seattle's City Council is expected to approve the measure next month, which would allocate $153,000 to study the causes and effects of gun violence. What, you were expecting Houston? [Source]



posted on Mar, 23 2013 @ 02:02 PM
link   
So there were 46 people in the senate who voted for this?
Perhaps people should get this story along with the list of those who voted for it and make it viral.
They are up for re-election at some point,and the people can make sure that they dont get elected.

Anybody in our gov. who wants to link the countries interests,to that of the U.N's,shouldnt represent our country.
Just my 2 cents.
~Cheers~



posted on Mar, 23 2013 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Even if the bill was defeated, the supreme court will take care of the constitutionality of US vote to join the UN arm treaty, because after all the Constitution of the US do not fall under the jurisdiction of the UN, this is big, only changing the Constitution will make US able to join the UN on this.

Now while I am happy that the bill was passed, to stop the US from joining the UN, I still worry about the 46 anti constitution whores that voted against this bill.



US constiution is well and alive



posted on Mar, 23 2013 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by coltcall
 

I carried a 9mm automatic when I was driving and had it onboard about 50% of the time. Sometimes I broke it down and took the slide off the frame to store in different parts of the truck before entering high risk areas for gun ownership. Most of the time I didn't. For what it's worth, this is what most carried who I knew:



About 1/3rd I saw over the years had guns or would admit to it. The rest carried what you see above, which is marketed in the truck stops as a "Tire Thumper". Ostensibly, it's supposed to let you "thump" the tires to check inflation pressure. Totally unscientific and not the DOT way for a pre-trip inspection, but they make a distinctly different "thunk" sound when higher or lower than the others. Those are usually filled with lead and very heavy for their small size. ...Others (and when I didn't have my gun) just carry high cell count Mag-Lights. The aluminum is as good as any bat and the batteries inside make it heavier than most.


@

I just noticed your second note and reference to Seattle. Do you live there? For what it's worth on a side note, I'd mentioned on another thread that during one period I carried my full AR-15 with 6 loaded magazines on the truck. It just so happened I was in Washington and Seattle for that trip, too. It was November of 2008 ...and enough uncertainty to what would happen if the election then went sideways to fraud that I was never becoming the next Reginald Denny. Not this Rabbit.



(In case anyone forgets who he was ..and how he almost died for TV cameras to watch....)
edit on 23-3-2013 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2013 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Black_Fox
 


And that is what it worries me also, that 46 anti constitution whores voted against this bill, we should know their names because they are a danger to the American nation and the constitution, they are also traitors to the nation.




posted on Mar, 23 2013 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 


Senate Roll Call on UN Arms Trade Treaty

You asked . . . you have received . . .

Google can actually get you to most of what you are wondering . . . Copy and paste their names . . . Let them know, who will be pulling a Bloomberg in their states come election time. Notice it is still split down party lines for the most part . . .

What's good for the goose . . .
edit on 3/23/13 by solomons path because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2013 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by solomons path
 


Thanks, my state is a pretty solid pro guns state, so I do not need to worry, but I can see that even when it extend both side of the party lines you pretty much see what side is the one that rather sells our nations constitutional rights for a foreign entity to take over.

Incredible, how many traitors we got in our nation and in position of power.



posted on Mar, 23 2013 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


The Thumper, huh? That and steel toed boots make a fine pair.

When I'd go bike riding, I kept a 1/2 inch Rebar wrapped at the handle end with duct tape, taped to the frame of my bike. When asked, I'd say, 'For bad dogs.' That was code word for people who like to harass bike riders. Cops were usually very amenable to that idea.

No. No Seattle for me. Though I had friends who lived in the Port Townsend area, a ferry ride across the bay from Seattle. Used to go vacation there with them every once in a while. Port Townsend is an artsy town for tourists on their way to Alaska and such. Nice, friendly community with fun taverns.

Fort Walden is there. That's where they filmed the movie 'Officer and a Gentleman.' There are still the bunkers for massive gun emplacements in the cliffs overlooking the Straits of Juan De Fuca. Big artillery used during World War One. Though I never understood what they were aiming at during World War One. All the German subs were in the Atlantic. Or, so I thought. Shrug. Stranger things have happened, heh?

No Seattle. I'm currently in New Mexico. Got digs in Florida and Texas. But I've got more gun ports here in New Mexico. Long story...........

And I like saying 'Straits of Juan De Fuca.."



posted on Mar, 23 2013 @ 03:00 PM
link   
My suspicion is the Democrats who voted against it are the ones up for election in 2014 or have a key seat up for decision in the same State and are trying to protect their party majority.

Once they get that majority in the bag - they will vote again and with "serious reconsideration" they will ratify it.

Our politicians do not make any decision without their job security first and foremost in their mind. The right thing is not even a consideration.



posted on Mar, 23 2013 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
Yup... If they voted no, that is all there is to it.

The President can put his signature to something if he'd like I think....but it carries next to nothing for true impact without the Senate ratifying. It still wouldn't have lived beyond the Super Court if it went sideways to the Constitution. The Supremacy clause is established as coming before and overruling any treaty in conflict. However..if the Senate wouldn't even carry it to this step? It's a dead bird .....for now anyway. It'll be back. Don't worry.

Bad ideas never die. They just get renamed and repackaged for another run. We'll see this material again, I predict.


Where do you get that treaties do not supersede the constitution? From the way I read it, they certainly do. Otherwise most if not all drug laws would be unconstitutional.Do not forget, they needed an amendment to ban alcohol. Other substances have the same protections that alcohol has. We would need an amendment giving the government the power to ban drugs if it were not for a treaty that we signed with like 100 other countries. That is why we have to suffer under drug prohibition. They get to ruin the 4th and 5th amendments in order to maintain the treaty obligations.

Really, the government could pass a treaty with another country that bans all guns and it would be 100% legal to take them away. This has been established for a very long time.



posted on Mar, 23 2013 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by coltcall
 


Thank you Senate.

I'd like to think you did this for the right reasons. So I will leave it at that.

Good job. Well done. You represented your people's voice well.

Thank you.



posted on Mar, 23 2013 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Robonakka
 


Nope.

The supremacy clause is only valid for CONSTITUTIONALLY legal laws and treaties.

Everything else IS illegal. Thanks for pointing that out.

Anything NOT described in the constitution falls to state sovereignty and right of choice.



posted on Mar, 23 2013 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by tadaman
reply to post by coltcall
 


Thank you Senate.

I'd like to think you did this for the right reasons. So I will leave it at that.

Good job. Well done. You represented your people's voice well.

Thank you.


Oh, I'm so happy to see the UN Blue Hats told to sit still I could crap...

But I do want to give some kudos to the guys in uniform:

Kosovo soldiers sing / perform the Beach Boys Kokomo
www.youtube.com...



posted on Mar, 23 2013 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Robonakka
 

Well, you made me go hunting a little bit on this one as I assume you meant that as a legitimate question. I got your answers on it though, and it's as clear as can be. It just takes real patience to read through painfully boring legalese in the Super Court Decisions that clarify and make practical the Constitutional basis it's formed from.

First the precedents, which are what matter most, as all legal cases afterward are decided in line to or at least, with consideration of these precedents. If it's reversed, as occsainally (though very rarely) happens, it's with explanation they usually need to do it. Especially for a precedent so clearly set.

De Geofroy Vs. Riggs (1890)


The treaty power, as expressed in the constitution, is in terms unlimited, except by those restraints which are found in that instrument against the action of the government, or of its departments, and those arising from the nature of the government itself, and of that of the states. It would not be contended that it extends so far as to authorize what the constitution forbids, or a change in the character of the government, or in that of one of the states, or a cession of any portion of the territory of the latter, without its consent.
(Source: Cornell Law)


Reid Vs. Covert (1957)


This Court has also repeatedly taken the position that an Act of Congress, which must comply with the Constitution, is on a full parity with a treaty, and that, when a statute which is subsequent in time is inconsistent with a treaty, the statute to the extent of conflict renders the treaty null. [n34] It would be completely anomalous to say that a treaty need not comply with the Constitution when such an agreement can be overridden by a statute that must conform to that instrument.
(Source: Cornell Law)


There are more, but those hit the most important core issue as it's been decided and settled to this point. The part of the Constitution they are interpreting to make those decisions is Article VI.


Article VI: Legal Status of the Constitution


This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
(Source: Cornell Law)

I hope that helps a bit. The Power of the Presidency and even that of Congress along with him....still don't overpower that document. The only way that happens is if the PEOPLE allow it to happen and don't take it to the 3rd branch whose original sole purpose was this very type of problem.

This is why I've not been terribly worried about this matter, no matter what the final text of the treaty came out to say. It could have said all firearms owners have to wear purple polka dotted leotards. Well.... I hope those who would misunderstand the Supremacy Clause have fun looking funny because the rest of us would be laughing at those who signed it.



posted on Mar, 23 2013 @ 05:31 PM
link   
They wont to ban guns!
then they should have pass't this.

But then they would not be able to shoot citizens with hollow point bullets...
edit on 23-3-2013 by buddha because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2013 @ 07:56 PM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 




Even if the bill was defeated, the supreme court will take care of the constitutionality of US vote to join the UN arm treaty, because after all the Constitution of the US do not fall under the jurisdiction of the UN, this is big, only changing the Constitution will make US able to join the UN on this.


There is nothing in the Treaty that affects internal arms trade in the US in any way what-so-ever. It is about INTERNATIONAL arms trade.

Even if there was something about it, if a provision is unconstitutional, it is void in the US. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and all legislation and international agreements are SUBJECT TO THE CONSTITUTION.

The Constitution trumps a treaty. Every time. No exceptions. End of story.

Please learn to respect the U.S. Constitution, it is a marvelous document, and understanding it better would enhance the reception on your BS meter so you wouldn't fall prey to charlatan fear mongers quite so much.



posted on Mar, 23 2013 @ 08:14 PM
link   
Maybe this will be enough for the panic buyers to calm down. Then the rest of us can find some freaking ammo.

Ammo scalping is getting ridiculous these days. I've seen some scalpers selling .22lr for 50 cents per round. I won't pay that, but someone is.





top topics
 
13
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join