46 Senators who voted for U.N. Resolution 2117

Discussion in '2nd Amendment' started by Not2ManyGuns, May 19, 2014.

  1. Not2ManyGuns

    Not2ManyGuns Member

    722
    89
    46 of our 100 senators were willing to give away our constitutional rights to a foreign power.

    http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/l/List-Of-Traitors.htm#.U3o1KHY1Dqw

    Here are the senators that voted to give your rights to the U.N.:

    Baldwin (D-WI)
    Baucus (D-MT)
    Bennet (D-CO)
    Blumenthal (D-CT)
    Boxer (D-CA)
    Brown (D-OH)
    Cantwell (D-WA)
    Cardin (D-MD)
    Carper (D-DE)
    Casey (D-PA)
    Coons (D-DE)
    Cowan (D-MA)
    Durbin (D-IL)
    Feinstein (D-CA)
    Franken (D-MN)
    Gillibrand (D-NY)
    Harkin (D-IA)
    Hirono (D-HI)
    Johnson (D-SD)
    Kaine (D-VA)
    King (I-ME)
    Klobuchar (D-MN)
    Landrieu (D-LA)
    Leahy (D-VT)
    Levin (D-MI)
    McCaskill (D-MO)
    Menendez (D-NJ)
    Merkley (D-OR)
    Mikulski (D-MD)
    Murphy (D-CT)
    Murray (D-WA)
    Nelson (D-FL)
    Reed (D-RI)
    Reid (D-NV)
    Rockefeller (D-WV)
    Sanders (I-VT)
    Schatz (D-HI)
    Schumer (D-NY)
    Shaheen (D-NH)
    Stabenow (D-MI)
    Udall (D-CO)
    Udall (D-NM)
    Warner (D-VA)
    Warren (D-MA)
    Whitehouse (D-RI)
    Wyden (D-OR)
    Please note: None are Republicans!
     
  2. Bull

    Bull Just a Man Supporting Member

    McCaskill will vote nothing but party line.... Ever. She went from a pro-labor local gal, to monster lib lackey
     

  3. Hermitt

    Hermitt Hey! Get Off My Lawn! Member

    None were Idahoans either. ;)
     
  4. undeRGRound

    undeRGRound ROLL wif Da MOLE! Supporting Member

    25,156
    1,408
    INDY

    Or INDIANAnians, Either :D (Hoosiers)

    Prolly in part that I called Donnelly about 2A legislation 2-3 times and voiced
    my serious displeasure with the proposed "infringements". He's a D, and we
    have one R also. We keep them pretty tuned up. Donnelly will get axed in a
    newyork minute if he crosses Hoosier Voters.
     
  5. undeRGRound

    undeRGRound ROLL wif Da MOLE! Supporting Member

    25,156
    1,408
    INDY
    8 democrats voted properly on this one, they are mostly from pro-gun states.
    Good for them,and US... I hope this is not just cuz they are up for reelection.
     
  6. colthrash

    colthrash Member

    600
    36
    I'm shocked!! Harry Reid made the list...
     
  7. geekandwife

    geekandwife Good ole Boy Member

    Voting no for something does not mean you are voting yes for it.
     
  8. undeRGRound

    undeRGRound ROLL wif Da MOLE! Supporting Member

    25,156
    1,408
    INDY


    IN CONTEXT, this means that Voting NO on the amendment does not necessarily mean a YES vote on the legislation or "treaty" in this case.


    The actual vote in question was for the amendment, AFAIK.
     
  9. geekandwife

    geekandwife Good ole Boy Member

    No, the vote in question here the 46 Senators voted against Amendment 139 on the Senate Floor on March 23, 2013. This was not a vote to enter the treaty, this was a vote on preventing the US from being able to enter the treaty. A No vote does not mean they were voting yes to enter the treaty though.
     
  10. Hermitt

    Hermitt Hey! Get Off My Lawn! Member


    http://twg2a.wordpress.com/tag/senate-amendment-139/
     
  11. undeRGRound

    undeRGRound ROLL wif Da MOLE! Supporting Member

    25,156
    1,408
    INDY
  12. ajole

    ajole Supporting Member

    34,521
    10,757
    NE Utah
    The law as it read:

    SEC. 3__. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO ESTABLISHING A BIENNIAL BUDGET AND APPROPRIATIONS PROCESS.

    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 .....(this is where they inserted the amendment later)....relating to establishing a biennial budget and appropriations process, by the amounts provided in such legislation for those purposes, provided that such legislation would not increase the deficit 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.

    The bold part was removed in the first attempt.

    The first change:
    SA 139. Mr. INHOFE submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the concurrent resolution S. Con. Res. 8, setting forth the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2014, revising the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal year 2013, and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2015 through 2023; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

    At the end of title III, add the following:

    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.


    Doesn't say what anyone thought it did, does it? This is the budget, they need to pass a budget, so people stick stuff in hoping the need to pass the budget will just cause their opponents to be forced to swallow the change.
     
    Last edited: May 19, 2014
  13. Hermitt

    Hermitt Hey! Get Off My Lawn! Member

    This is exactly why ALL bills, joint resolutions, amendments, motions or conference reports should be read in their entirety. Things get stuck (and snuck) in that have absolutely no relationship with the originating documents. :mad:
     
  14. Bull

    Bull Just a Man Supporting Member


    No...... Just like Feinstein said about Ocare... You gotta pass it to know what's in it.
     
  15. Rachgier

    Rachgier Administrator Staff Member

    Wasn't it Nancy Pelosi who said that?
     
  16. Casey (D-PA), no surprise there, I tried to tell my in-laws that he's a party hack and does what the DNC tells him to but they voted for him anyway. Now I get to listen to them complain about him. Biggest complaint by most Pennsylvanians is that they can't get through to him, the phone just rings and no one picks up. What do you expect from a career politician who's never fulfilled his oath of office for any position he's ever been elected for?

    I agree with you that all bills should be read in their entirety (if they were Obamacare would never have passed, they'd still be reading), just because it makes sense to know what you're voting for. I also think admitting that you voted for something and didn't know what you were voting for is grounds for immediate recall by your constituents.

    But the other problem as you pointed out is all the crap they add on to legislation, in some cases to sneak it in to get it passes and in other cases to make the original bill so onerous that no one will vote for it. That shouldn't be allowed, legislation should be voted on on a case by case basis, not bundled together with unrelated matters. Oh wait, that would take up too much of their precious time. Time they need to think of new ways to stuff their pockets.
     
    Last edited: May 20, 2014
  17. Bull

    Bull Just a Man Supporting Member


    Yeah...... Wrong hag....
     
  18. bscar

    bscar Supporting Member

    same $hit; different pile
     
  19. Sure it does, they vote however the DNC tells them to vote and the DNC is in favor of the treaty. This might not have been a vote on the treaty itself but if it comes to that they'll vote for it.
     
  20. undeRGRound

    undeRGRound ROLL wif Da MOLE! Supporting Member

    25,156
    1,408
    INDY
    Let them pass it. Then let the blue-hats come and enforce it!
    Here's how they will be met.................................................
     

    Attached Files: