More democrat treason

Discussion in '2nd Amendment' started by freedomfighter, Feb 5, 2016.

  1. freedomfighter

    freedomfighter Member

    33
    0
    Take note if you own a firearm!!!
    A 53-46 vote
    The U.N. Resolution 2117 lists 21 points dealing with firearms control, but perhaps of most interest is point number 11:
    "CALLS FOR MEMBER STATES TO SUPPORT WEAPONS COLLECTION and DISARMAMENT of all UN countries".
    By a 53-46 vote - The U.S. Senate voted against the U.N. resolution.
    This is that brief, glorious moment in history when everyone stands around...reloading.
    Now, which 46 Senators voted to destroy us? Well, let their names become known ! See below . If you vote in one of the states listed with these 46 "legis..traitors". vote against them.
    In a 53-46 vote, the Senate narrowly passed a measure that will stop the Veterans United Network
    States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.
    The Statement of Purpose from the Senate Bill reads: "To uphold Second Amendment rights and prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty." The U.N. Small Arms Treaty, which has been championed by the Obama Administration, would have effectively placed a global ban on the import and export of small firearms. The ban would have affected all private gun owners in the U.S. and had language that would have implemented an international gun registry, now get this, on all private guns and ammo.
    Astonishingly, 46 out of our 100 United States Senators were willing to give away our Constitutional rights to a foreign power.
    Here are the 46 senators who voted to give your rights to the U.N.:
    Baldwin (D-WI)
    Baucus (D-MT)
    Bennett (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)
    Folks, this needs to go viral. These Senators voted to let the UN take OUR guns. They need to lose their next election. We have been betrayed.
    46 Senators Voted to Give your 2nd Amendment Constitutional Rights to the U.N.
    Please share...
     
  2. OldOutlaw

    OldOutlaw Supporting Member

    Really old news. That Iowa Senator Harkin retired from office perhaps 3 years ago now. Plus some others there are gone also.
     

  3. Liberty

    Liberty Shhh! Lifetime Supporter

    And one of those idiots is running for President.
     
  4. *Sigh*
    Here we go again. Alright, here is point 11's text:

    “11. Calls for Member States to support weapons collection, disarmament, demobilization and reintegration of ex-combatants, as well as physical security and stockpile management programmes by United Nations peacekeeping operations where so mandated;"

    Here is the entire text and all points in full:

    http://www.un.org/press/en/2013/sc11131.doc.htm

    Two things:
    1. It would not affect us. The 2nd Amendment overrides all treaties, as ruled upon in Reid v. Covet.
    2. It lays out specifically illicit and criminal arms trade and international criminal sales (i.e. a country giving the Taliban a shipment of weapons). Not Joe Sixpack in Kansas walking in and legally buying a Sig.

    Yes, it is ambiguous, but pretty clear it doesn't (and can't) affect your average citizen in the U.S.
     
  5. SWAGA

    SWAGA No longer broke... Lifetime Supporter

    UNfortunately this UN taking over the country will continue to make the roUNds on the old Interwebz.
    It's just a figment of imagination that refuses to die out.
     
  6. ArmyScout

    ArmyScout Supporting Member

    3,960
    280
    IL
    Yep. The UN International Gun Resolution was introduced in 2012. So it has been around for awhile. It was supposed to become International law last year??
     
  7. undeRGRound

    undeRGRound ROLL wif Da MOLE! Supporting Member

    25,834
    1,915
    INDY
    BESIDES...cuz this part is for fun!
     

    Attached Files:

  8. ajole

    ajole Supporting Member

    35,300
    12,138
    NE Utah
    You are absolutely right.

    But totally wrong.:p

    It doesn't, and it can't...until it does and can, because we let things get onto the slope, and the slope got slippery.;)

    Give the government an inch, they'll take a mile, 600 gallons, and 425 pounds of whatever they want, related or not. And fighting it in court later simply doesn't help those who got screwed in the meantime.:cool:

    See...me and all the other vets are ex-combatants, technically, if you define things in one way. You get a few left wing judges, a few years of media bombardment, and the right congress and senate together with a rabid populace, and they can do anything they darned well want to, including redefining what the words and labels mean, or changing the constitution.:mad:
     
  9. Were you combatants of a U.N. Peacekeeping force (and not part of any branch of the U.S. Armed Forces, which are U.S. combatants, not U.N., even when participating in UN operations) after the passage of the treaty?
    If not, you cannot be affected.
     
  10. ajole

    ajole Supporting Member

    35,300
    12,138
    NE Utah
    Unless they change the definition, or extend its application.

    Just like they can't infringe my right to keep and bear arms...unless they feel like it, or the arms are scary, or the arms don't fit their concept of what was intended, or the arms are concealed, or silenced, or too large in caliber, or whatever other asinine thing they can persuade people to buy into....:rolleyes:

    Come on Flyboy, you know they can, and will, do whatever they want if they think they can get away with it.

    Our job as patriotic Americans is to ensure that they know not only that they can't, but that efforts to do so will have repercussions, and then IF they try, to ensure they do not succeed.
     
  11. Bamaboy

    Bamaboy Member

    1,071
    0
    Good thing ammo comes 50 rounds in a box!
    So we're down to only 53 Elected American's who know the LAW and Freedoms vs third world rule!
     
    Last edited: Feb 5, 2016
  12. undeRGRound

    undeRGRound ROLL wif Da MOLE! Supporting Member

    25,834
    1,915
    INDY
    Looks to me like the current wording already defines what they want to do
    if a militia movement gets going against the F'ed Govt.
    Most likely by deliberate intent. :(
     
  13. A federal court just ruled Americans have a fundamental right to "assault" weapons.
    I think we're pretty safe. :p

    Both sides are guilty of this anyways. One side will try to ban all firearms because they kill, the other will try to ban all drugs because they kill. In the end there's too much resistance against both sides to make any kind of difference. Philosophically you're right, but realistically, humans are lazy.