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

page: 3
76
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 11:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Signals
 



The following Senators voted (NAY), in other words, to accept the treaty, therefore surrendering your Second Amendment right -

...

...

...

Rockefeller (D-WV)



I am jacks Complete lack of surprise.




posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 11:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Signals
 


I am starting to wonder whether you have even read what you are talking about. This amendment did not defend the Second Amendment. It did not oppose the UN treaty. To say it did is not being truthful.

This amendment allows the committee chair to allocate however many billions of our dollars for any action he can even loosely say is somehow related to that subject.

No oversight, no seeking support or approval from anyone else, no accountability.

And you think this is a good idea? WHY in the lord's name would you think that?

Oh, and I vote Libertarian. My state has political freedom and we are not required to register in a political party. What difference does that make?



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 12:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Montana
 


You are posting blatant falsehoods...

One can only speculate as to your reason, but it has been noted.



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 01:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Signals
 


So why isn't law enforcement doing it's job? Why aren't these senators being arrested? This is obviously textbook treason.



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 02:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Signals
 


The usual suspects
All Democrat but one Indy.

Oh and ads in Montana try to pretend that Baucus is pro 2nd Amendment. I knew that was a lie, but this just confirms it for me.
edit on 25-3-2013 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 02:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Montana
 


Hey Jon Tester voted with the Republicans. I didn't see that one coming.



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 06:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by jacktherer
At this point in u.s history i think itd be much quicker and easier to make a list of senators that arent traitorous scum.


While it is very sad, this is the truth. Our governmental system is designed around checks and balances, and those balances, if altered in even a small way, become very gaping holes of imbalance. This is what has happened in the US. Senators are in a special position when compared to the members of the House, and the whole point of senators is to allow them much time to talk things out. That is why their terms are longer, and they are not all up for reelection at the same time.

It was supposed to be a more relaxed atmosphere, and the decisions they made were supposed to well thought out and in the interest of the people and the Constitution. The House always votes on things hastily, although I blame the members themselves for not educating themselves. They usually do not even know what is in a bill, and simply vote based on the way their party tells them to. So very sad, for us, not them. They will leave congress with plenty of money, and will live a relatively decent life afterwards if they do not screw it up. Most of them do not care about what is best for the people.



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 07:34 AM
link   
Does anyone have the text to this arms treaty? Failed treaties aren't published on the UN website.

From my understanding, the treaty basically related to curbing small arms transfers to developing countries. It was more-so aimed at making illegal activities, such as non-state sanctioned weapons smuggling, and unethical activities, such as the sale of small arms to despotic leaders using them on their own people, more difficult.

I don't think it was aimed at curbing the internal sale of arms in countries such as the US. If this is the case, there is nothing wrong with this treaty, in fact, I support it.

Secondly, as stated, international obligations and treaties do not have authority over domestic laws. Therefore, even if it were to attempt to ban small arms sales domestically in the US, it does not have the legal status or enforcement abilities to do so.

In other words. (putting it cynically), this post is stupid and you have misinterpreted the text of the treaty to fit some kind of paranoid conspiracy anti-UN agenda.

EDIT: Yes, what I believed seems to be correct www.amnesty.org...


The current draft treaty would ban arms from going to countries known to use them for war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity


NOTE: The UN is concerned with broader international issues, rarely is it concerned with domestic and isolated issues unless it relates to violations of the UN charter, its treaties or human rights abuses.

If anything, the senators that did not support the treaty are in the pockets of gun companies and are supporting murder around the world.
edit on 25-3-2013 by SpeachM1litant because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 08:02 AM
link   
reply to post by retirednature
 



I don't think that they can be charged for treason based on this...

No, but they should definitely NOT be re-elected.




posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 08:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by inverslyproportional
reply to post by Signals
 

Some of us want them to try, just so we can go ahead and end this stupidity once and for all.


I agree completely. Enough of this BS. Bring it on over here! Let's get this finished.



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 08:22 AM
link   
reply to post by SpeachM1litant
 


UN Arms Treaty Draft


Taking note of the legitimate trade and use of certain conventional arms, inter
alia, for recreational, cultural, historical and sporting activities and lawful
ownership where such ownership and use are permitted and protected by law,
Recognizing the active role that non-governmental organizations and civil
society can play in furthering the object and purpose of this Treaty, and
Acknowledging that regulation of the international trade in conventional arms
should not hamper international cooperation and legitimate trade in materiel,
equipment and technology for peaceful purposes,



Principles
Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations,
States Parties, in promoting the object and purpose of this Treaty and implementing
its provisions, shall act in accordance with the following principles:

1. The inherent right of all States to individual or collective self-defence;

2. The settlement of international disputes by peaceful means in such a
manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered;

3. To refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force
against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other
manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations;

4. Non-intervention in matters which are essentially within the domestic
jurisdiction of any State;

5. The duty to respect and ensure respect for international humanitarian law
and to respect and ensure human rights;

6. The responsibility of all States, in accordance with their respective
international obligations, to effectively regulate and control international transfers
of conventional arms, as well as the primary responsibility of all States in
establishing and implementing their respective national export control systems;

7. States Parties should respect the legitimate interests of States to acquire
conventional weapons for legitimate self-defence and peacekeeping operations and
to produce, export, import and transfer conventional arms; and

8. The necessity to implement this Treaty consistently and effectively and in
a universal, objective and non-discriminatory manner.



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 08:25 AM
link   
I like the straw man arguments presented in this thread that conclude that this treaty and the UN are no big deal.

Especially the ones that argue that the treaty is no threat because if the UN ever tried to actually enforce it and take away our sovereignty we would crush them like a bug.

Or the one that says that treaties are only rules, and if we ever saw fit, rules are meant to be broken.

For the love of god!
edit on 25-3-2013 by METACOMET because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 08:26 AM
link   
The Arms Treaty doesn't take away an Americans right to bear arms. It does however deal with information. If you buy a foreign made weapon then the Fed Gov would have to report that purchase to the government of the weapons origin. Seeing how we export 55 billion dollars worth of small arm weapons a year it is a small wonder who is screaming about their weapons ending up in the hands of criminals.
edit on 25-3-2013 by buster2010 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 08:31 AM
link   
Thue UN coming in to disarm us is interesting considering the WE, the US, are the UN. Other countries wouldn't want to come here an try disarming us, so I wonder where the UN would find the manpower to do it.



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 09:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by METACOMET
I like the straw man arguments presented in this thread that conclude that this treaty and the UN are no big deal.


The only logical fallacy here is the presumption or belief that the UN has any actual power on it's own.


Especially the ones that argue that the treaty is no threat because if the UN ever tried to actually enforce it and take away our sovereignty we would crush them like a bug.


Perhaps you should read the treaty, I linked it above. I'm neither for or against it because I don't believe it matters one little bit.


Or the one that says that treaties are only rules, and if we ever saw fit, rules are meant to be broken.


They aren't laws. Any UN Treaty is a set of guidelines member states agree or don't agree to abide by in relation to each other. It's like the rules to a board game, each player agrees to follow them for purpose of playing a game, agreeing to the rules doesn't bind you to finish the game if you decide you don't like it.

Furthermore signing a treaty with the UN doesn't make that treaty automatically US law. US lawmakers still have to do that. Signing the treaty means that the UN can look at the pertaining laws and decide whether we are or aren't abiding by the treaty.

From that point we can either say okay and look at making or reforming the laws that would bring us in compliance or we can say okay but our laws are going to stand as is and thus we get up from that particular game. From there the UN can stomp it's feet and declare that we comply or we're out of the club. It would be pretty foolish of them to do that though, don't you think? Considering we are the UN's military might...

Did you think much about how the UN works before you got all upset?


For the love of god!


Indeed!

Inhofe is a disinfo genius! He got everyone all upset about a perceived bully, a perceived threat to our sovereignty, a perceived threat to the 2nd. He manipulated and controlled an entire political faction. Now he's got the keys to the treasury... good going.



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Signals
 


?



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by SpeachM1litant
 


You are right is nothing wrong with the treaty, but the US as a sovereign country with an unique constitution can not enter any treaties before making sure that the Constitution is and will be protected in case loopholes can be used to undermine the constitution.

People you understand that the UN is the US as the US is the primary monetary funder of that entity.



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 12:26 PM
link   
The UN treaty has no power over the 2nd amendment.....

Sensationalist BS.



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 01:10 PM
link   
OP or someone where's the actual treaty? All I see are links to treason and Senator names.
edit on 25-3-2013 by recorrit because: typo



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Signals
 



Yes, we digress...but didn't our President promise to shut that place down


Promised to defend the Constitution also...how did'd that work out?


Typing up my letter to Mr. Nelson today....



Furthermore signing a treaty with the UN doesn't make that treaty automatically US law. US lawmakers still have to do that. Signing the treaty means that the UN can look at the pertaining laws and decide whether we are or aren't abiding by the treaty.


True, but it is the perception that they will use this piece of crap to further push the banning of guns in America...it's the PRINCIPLE of this that is objectionable.
edit on 25-3-2013 by Gazrok because: (no reason given)





 
76
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join