• You are using the old Black Responsive theme. We have installed a new dark theme for you, called UI.X. This will work better with the new upgrade of our software. You can select it at the bottom of any page.

Senator Kerry signs U.N. ARMS Treaty

Status
Not open for further replies.
Frank, you find it interesting, but do you agree with the concept? I would think that if the SC intervened now and then, they could save the country a whole lot of money and time.
 
It's the hypocrisy that bugs me. For 100 years the US has supported rebel groups all over the world. Sometime soon another shipment of arms and ammo for the Syrian rebels will arrive in that country in violation of that new treaty. Never mind that some weaponry will reach supporters of al Queda.

Feel good stuff like the UN treaty gets the party faithfuls minds off the crushing debt, the budget impasse and the sagging economy.
 
Last edited:
Oh, so a thread about a UN arms treaty that finally doesn't get locked? No longer a tinfoil hat issue now, is it? Not to take the low road, only noting that had further discussion been allowed prior to it getting inked something proactive could've taken place on a larger scale. Maybe. Regardless, more than a few here need to break out the fork and knife and slice off a big piece of crow.:cuss:
 
RedAlert said:
OP, John Kerry, is no longer a Senator. He is the Secretary of State now and should be referred to as such.

Interesting bit of news though and I don't see any impact on the average US Citizen as a result.
Click to expand...
I know, and appreciate you pointing that out. I called him Senator out of old habit.
I will take the High Road here and not call him by some other titles that come to mind.
 
It is interesting that it is news worthy that Kerry signed it or that Obama would sign it. Without China and Russia this treaty is DOA; with or without the US Senate. Unless I missed a news article where they changed their vote.
 
Oh, so a thread about a UN arms treaty that finally doesn't get locked?
Click to expand...
Well, it's early yet! :)

No longer a tinfoil hat issue now, is it?
Click to expand...
Well, still at least a strong "probably." Again, this has little to do with American citizens. ... IF we were going to ratify it, which we're not, and IF it would get past the other stumbling blocks.

only noting that had further discussion been allowed prior to it getting inked something proactive could've taken place on a larger scale. Maybe.
Click to expand...
Oh, there was enough flack tossed around about this treaty to rile up just about every gun owner in the country. Remember, Congress had already made very bold statements condemning this treaty months before Kerry got his turn at the pen.

Regardless, more than a few here need to break out the fork and knife and slice off a big piece of crow
Click to expand...
Oh, I don't think any crow will be served. The picture actually HASN'T changed from what cooler heads were stating all along.
 
So, what do you think of the signing of the Treaty?

A- it was a non event ( forget about it )

B- A major step in the taking away of our gun rights ( take it seriously )
 
A little history on the SALT II agreement -

http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/acda/treaties/salt2-1.htm

The completed SALT II agreement was signed by President Carter and General Secretary Brezhnev in Vienna on June 18, 1979. President Carter transmitted it to the Senate on June 22 for its advice and consent to ratification.

On January 3, 1980, however, President Carter requested the Senate majority leader to delay consideration of the Treaty on the Senate floor in view of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Although the Treaty remained unratified, each Party was individually bound under the terms of international law to refrain from acts which would defeat the object and purpose of the Treaty, until it had made its intentions clear not to become a party to the Treaty.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Once it is signed, a treaty will have teeth even if the Senate never gets around to ratifying it. If there are not enough votes to ratify it, Harry Reid could prevent the Senate from ever voting on ratification.
 
It's nothing more than political posturing to have the Sec'y of State sign a treaty that has no chance of being cleared for ratification.

The President has seen increased gun control at the federal level fail. He has seen Colorado legislators fired over it. He's radically dedicated to taking control of our guns, but I don't think he's stupid.

What can he be planning to do when he's told he can't have his silly treaty? Does he plan to simply lie to the American people again when the Senate declines to give him what he wants? Does he plan to blame the Republicans as usual?

This treaty, though presumably DOA in the Senate, is another example of what we get when we let our elected officials forget that they work for us and when we let them do things they are legally bound by the Constitution to NOT do.
 
but I don't think he's stupid.
Click to expand...
I don't think he's stupid, either. Just because what it looks like you're trying to do didn't work -- and wasn't ever going to work in the first place -- doesn't mean you didn't have a goal in mind when you did it. Theater. Show. Appearances. Blame. Deflection.

What can he be planning to do when he's told he can't have his silly treaty?
Click to expand...
Same thing as always -- press conference, mention it a few times in somber speeches, blame the NRA and "clingers."

Does he plan to simply lie to the American people again when the Senate declines to give him what he wants?
Click to expand...
Of course.

Does he plan to blame the Republicans as usual?
Click to expand...
That's what politicians do. Always and forever. There is VERY little that happens in national politics that is exactly what it appears to be on the face. Probably nothing. Feints and counter-feints. Energizing the base and keeping in office.

This treaty, though presumably DOA in the Senate, is another example of what we get when we let our elected officials forget that they work for us and when we let them do things they are legally bound by the Constitution to NOT do.
Click to expand...
Eh.... see, I'm not 100% sure this treaty is not Constitutional. I don't see anything in it that would violate the rights of Americans directly, and matters of international trade have always been separate from the rights of the citizen. We have trade policies about all sorts of things that are perfectly legal for US citizens to do or have. To a degree this isn't all that different from a trade policy preventing (just as an example) corn to be imported from New Zealand. Now the American citizen isn't prohibited from having corn, but we're making a trade agreement (or treaty) that we won't get any from there. The rights of Americans aren't being infringed by that treaty or agreement.

Now we may really, really disagree with a treaty, and may lobby our "leaders" to not make such an agreement for our own interests, but saying it isn't Constitutional, or not within the powers of the President to do what he's done probably isn't true.

(Having said that, yes I oppose the treaty for many reasons...)
 
I understand that we have to be realistic about things and can't start yelling the sky is falling at every anti-gun piece of news that comes up. many of these issues have been brought up over and over for years with no hope of success.

However there are a few things that bother me with this.

First the 2/3rds majority. We thought Obamacare had no chance of passing. Until it did. So saying it doesn't have enough support to pass doesn't comfort me much at this point.

Second, even if the president ratifies it against the Senate's will, they still have to make the laws to implement it. Again, there was all this talk of "If Obamacare passes, we just won't fund it or implement it" Yet the likelihood of that happening is also quite real now. If the really want to fund it, they'll slip that in some piece of legislation that we really want.

Thirdly, if Obama ratifies it against the Senate's will, he will be impeached. Really?! Just like he was impeached for Fast and Furious, or Obamacare, or Benghazi, or the countless other things he should have been impeached for? I REALLY wouldn't count on that one.

And fourth, that no treaty can supersede the Constitution. Well for now atleast, the 2A seems to be pretty narrowly applied as to what it protects. So this may not outright ban guns or create registration but it will still seriously affect how we enjoy our rights. It will impact the import of firearms. And many of the guns we love and use are imported. AKs, Glocks, pretty much all of the nicer shotguns. Not to mention cheap ammo. Sure not a violation of the 2A (in it's current narrow definition) but certainly not a step in the right direction. It woul;d certainly have enough of an industry-wide impact to make gun ownership much more difficult and expensive for many people.
 
Even if the Senate does ratify the treaty, Article 22 requires 50 countries to ratify before it takes effect. This morning NPR reported that 6 had done so.
 
Is there any reason we can't un-sign the treaty at some (*cough* 3 years *cough*) later date?

If the really want to fund it, they'll slip that in some piece of legislation that we really want.
Click to expand...
Do you really think they'll open the Machine Gun Registry in exchange for us allowing them blanket registration of all guns? ;) What could they possibly be willing to offer that we wouldn't say "meh, that's a drop in the restrictions bucket" in response? Short of allowing the NRA/US Gunowners to replace/rewrite every existing gun regulation as part of the deal, there's not much we'd be willing to "trade" in exchange for implementing the treaty accords.

"they'll slip that in some piece of legislation that they really want."
THIS is what we have to look out for; some arrangement in which supporting the implementation of additional arms controls to further restrict civilian gun commerce benefits large swaths of Congress (could be via lobbying, could be via harassment, could be via kicky-backy) who can then be counted on to pass it regardless what is desired back home ;)

TCB
 
Last edited:
The treaty contains this phrase:

Quote:

Mindful of the legitimate trade and lawful ownership, and use of certain
conventional arms for recreational, cultural, historical, and sporting activities, where
such trade, ownership and use are permitted or protected by law:

Please define the following: 1)legitimate trade 2) conventional arms

Why limit it to recreational, cultural, historical, and sporting activities? What about self defense and the right to bear (CCW) arms?

I don't trust Kerry, Obama, or most of the others in DC.
 
Why limit it to recreational, cultural, historical, and sporting activities? What about self defense and the right to bear (CCW) arms?
Click to expand...
:) Because this is a treaty intended to be signed by hundreds of countries, only a very few of which recognize a right of their citizens to armed self-defense and almost none of which recognize a RIGHT to keep and bear arms.

But this treaty doesn't actually purport to control what the citizens of a country do or own within their own borders, so that might not be terribly relevant.
 
Yes, Clinton learned his lesson so well he even got re-elected.
 
Sol said:
Yes, Clinton learned his lesson so well he even got re-elected.
Click to expand...
He got re-elected but it hurt his party. It's pretty revealing that he tells his party not to push the issue too much... This is the backlash that many of us here discussed a few times. After the AWB, there was a increase in the amount of states passing concealed carry laws. Kentucky got concealed carry in 1996. There is a thread here on THR about conceal carry after 1994. This is really more firearm related than political.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/bill-clinton-warns-Democrats-against-overreaching-on-gun-debate/


"If there’s any Democrat in the United States who has experience in taking on America’s gun owners and the Second Amendment, it’s Bill Clinton. Mere weeks before the 1994 Presidential Election, the United States Congress passed, and Clinton signed, a controversial Assault Weapons Ban. ...... many political observers have contended for years that it was the Administration’s push on the Assault Weapons Ban, and the political backlash that it unleashed from the National Rifle Association and other groups, that played the most significant role in the tidal wave that handed control of both Houses of Congress to the Republican Party. Given that, it’s significant that President Clinton is now warning his fellow Democrats about overplaying their hand in the upcoming debate about gun control"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

3
  • Locked
U.N. Treaty banning firearms?????
2
Replies
32
Views
2K
geekWithA.45
G
S
  • Locked
Senate letter to Potus against UN treaty
Replies
10
Views
1K
Yo Mama
Yo Mama
C
  • Locked
that mr lugar is at it again,,,,
Replies
9
Views
741
Brett Bellmore
B
C
  • Locked
U.N. OKs Weapons Trade Treaty Resolution
Replies
7
Views
565
migoi
M
T
  • Locked
U.S. Senate Stands with NRA in Strongly Opposing U.N Gun Control Efforts
Replies
5
Views
605
Art Eatman
A
Back
Top