The following US Senators Just Committed Treason and Should Be Arrested Immediately!

Originally posted by 12m8keall2c

as the Brits would say ...

"Utter Twaddle

! The LOT of it!

"

Ahhh, the same Brits that gave up pretty much ALL of their gun ownership rights, what, about 16 years ago?

Yeah, I'll trust their opinion on the matter...

reply to post by Argyll


Of course they are.

An opinion is one thing, however, a direct attack on the US Constitution, and its Amendments, well, that's another.

reply to post by Argyll


The job of every elected official in the nation and their first priority is to upheld and protect the US Constitution.

That is why those of us that believe in our Constitution feel outraged when any of politicians elected by the people decides to crap on the same document they swore to protect.

Is nothing wrong with the treaty but congress first have to make sure that the treaty will not infringe the US Constitution now or later down the line.

reply to post by Signals


Doesnt NAY mean no ?

reply to post by jam321


Yes, that's what I read as well. Far from preventing the the rape of the Second Amendment, what this vote did was approve unrestricted discretionary spending by the committee chair for ANYTHING that he can even loosely attribute to the Second Amendment. No justification, no oversight, nothing. So congrats, they just gave the government another blank check!

If the parent bill were to ever pass.

Which it won't.

reply to post by letseeit7


Yes, it does, they voted NO on an amendment to kill the Treaty and uphold the Constitution.

it's all right here on the US Senate website!

So I will send McCaskill (D-MO) another letter expressing my discontent with her "leadership".

Some staffer will send me a "what has Claire done for me lately" form letter about how she respects the 2nd Amendment - I will vomit a little in my mouth as I read it as usual.

Then she will go right on representing herself and disregarding the 75% of Missourians who disagree with her "votes". Did it with the ACA. Will do it with this...

She doesn't really care what we want she represents Claire McCaskill and her beliefs.

I want a representative not a mother, nanny or boss who thinks they know best.

Originally posted by Signals
reply to post by letseeit7

 

Yes, it does, they voted NO on an amendment to kill the Treaty and uphold the Constitution.

it's all right here on the US Senate website!

Why don't you link to what they voted on instead of just a list of names? Is it because there is the odd chance that someone might actually read for themselves?

Second paragraph, folks. Look for SA 139. That's what the vote was on.

Yep Inhoffe just got voted in to be a little tyrant and grab anything that he can argue is to do with the 2nd Amendment.

UN paranoia is hillarious, not that I take them at face value as the venue of world peace they used to be. All they are anymore is a venue for multinationals er I mean governments to collaborate and rob the world blind. That said, this treaty was no threat to the 2nd, people should read the treaty before hopping up and down. More so they should understand that a treaty with the UN is just words, it's voluntary and not legally binding... should they ever actually threaten our sovereignty they'd be squashed like a bug before anyone could blink. The worst they can do to us is cast us out as a member nation which upon so they can pack their bags and gtfo out of New York City.

Originally posted by Montana

Originally posted by Signals
reply to post by letseeit7

 

Yes, it does, they voted NO on an amendment to kill the Treaty and uphold the Constitution.

it's all right here on the US Senate website!

Why don't you link to what they voted on instead of just a list of names? Is it because there is the odd chance that someone might actually read for themselves?

Second paragraph, folks. Look for SA 139. That's what the vote was on.

I encourage all readers to follow the links and read and decide for themselves.

From your link -

SEC. 3__. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND TO UPHOLD SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS AND PREVENT THE UNITED STATES FROM ENTERING INTO THE UNITED NATIONS ARMS TRADE TREATY. The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate may revise the allocations of a committee or committees, aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, motions, or conference reports that relate to upholding Second Amendment rights, which shall include preventing the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty, by the amounts provided in such legislation for those purposes, provided that such legislation would not increase the deficit or revenues over either the period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through 2018 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through 2023.

It is an amendment to a budget bill, thanks for posting, and thanks for the clarification help

reply to post by Signals


Actually it was JAM321 's post way back on the first page. I don't understand why no one read it then?

reply to post by Montana


Yes, we all read it, and it was correct, the fight is not over, and I addressed that...

What is your point besides deflection?

Do you support these traitors?

reply to post by Argyll


I'm certain in your country the politicians also take some form of oath as they enter office, I also am certain than in some instances they actively violate that oath. For instance if you have a constitutional government part of that oath would include the protection of that constitution, that would by default prevent those that swore to protect to actively work to change it (note the actively work wording).

If you are in Europe consider the constitutions that had to be altered to be in line with the EU and the methodology selected to do it and you will get an idea of the same process of politicians ceding national interests to special interests groups. (Note that am for an European constitution as a move toward a world government just not by this methodology, in this mold and with this set of priorities)

boy them democrats sure love the constitution don't they?

not to take away from the severity of the issue but,
actually you need a two thirds vote in the senate to ratify a treaty. that's 67.

i have said it a hundred times, and i'll say it again.
democrats are tyrants.
they only seek power, and to control everything.

People don't forget what happened here. I copied the Senate link and cut and paste the vote information and tally (in the event the link disappears) and emailed in to myself. I set up a "politics'" folder and plan to face plant this information at election time.

Goodnight Democrats! You really need to look and see if you are supporting politicians who voted against this. I agree with Signals, these are the real terrorists.

They are traitors for not supporting unlimited, non accountable, discretionary spending on the part of a committee chair for whatever reason he or she may come up with? Wow, didn't see that definition in the dictionary! I thought fiduciary accountability and spending reduction was what most of us were screaming for. Apparently not.

But continue with your rant....

It's a 'tissue issue' that in NO WAY could or ever will circumvent or supercede the US Constitution, Signals.

what part of 'treaty' will some folks never get. (?) :shk:

they're like 'rules' - meant to be broken - and only adhered to by those who find agreeance in the saame.

a 'tissue issue' for those 'bleeding hearts' wanting or willing to cry at the first sight of opposition to their views and/or pews ... for that matter.


yet another toothless 'barb', if you will. :shk:

Originally posted by Montana
They are traitors for not supporting unlimited, non accountable, discretionary spending on the part of a committee chair for whatever reason he or she may come up with? Wow, didn't see that definition in the dictionary! I thought fiduciary accountability and spending reduction was what most of us were screaming for. Apparently not.

But continue with your rant....

I will give you a "B" for effort here, but really.

It is you, Montana, who is not reading their links.

These Democrats do not want to reduce deficits, they will of course vote NAY on that portion as well...

But that is NOT what this vote was on and is NOT what this thread is about, now please be gone

Originally posted by Signals


These Democrats do not want to reduce deficits, they will of course vote NAY on that portion as well...

But that is NOT what this vote was on and is NOT what this thread is about, now please be gone

NO I WILL NOT BE GONE not as long as there is the slightest chance my posts may reduce the blind partisan BS that has become so rampant on ATS.

If I can help one person think for themselves instead of following the party line, I am willing to put up with ten of your type of posts!

reply to post by Montana


There is no party line here, the facts are the facts.

They all voted NAY on the amendment to uphold the Second Amendment and to reject the UN Small Arms Treaty.

Your posts support this, and the fact that the amendment they voted NAY on happens to be attached to a bill to reduce budget deficits, which, in itself is not traitorous, but is blatant stupidity, as broke as our country is!

Again, I ask, do you support this Treason?

Because your posts suggest you do, you do understand this, correct?

Talk about following "party lines"

I am a registered Independent, BTW, but that has no bearing on the OP....