The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Politics & RKBA => Topic started by: twyacht on May 30, 2013, 05:06:27 PM
-
Of course he is.....
Obama To Sign International Gun Control Treaty On June 3rd
by AWR Hawkins 30 May 2013, 5:18 AM PDT post a comment
On June 3, President Barack Obama will sign the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty (ATT).
The ATT passed in the U.N. General Assembly by a vote of 153-4 on April 2.
This treaty is ostensibly aimed at putting an end to gun trafficking across international boundaries, and both Breitbart News and the NRA have argued that it will eventually require an international gun registry in order to be enforceable.
The ATT also provides the executive branch of our government with broad powers for controlling which guns do and don't come into the country, and includes ambiguous language that a gun-control-friendly administration can use to its advantage.
Even though Obama will sign this treaty, it is not enforceable in the U.S. until the Senate ratifies it by a two-thirds majority.
For the time being, Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) has pushed through an amendment opposing the treaty. However, Obama's signature will open the door for the Senate to reconsider a resolution of ratification at a future date.
****
BHO never met a gun control regulation/treaty/ban/registration/law/mandate/executive order/ he didn't like.
Inch by inch, step by step,....the anti's won't stop.
-
They'll stop if you hang enough of them.
It just takes them longer to take a hint.
What part of "shall not be infringed" don't they get ?
-
I apologize, I thought I posted the link:
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/05/29/Obama-To-Sign-International-Gun-Control-Treaty-On-June-3rd
My bad. I always cite a reference.
-
I saw the same article.
I'm leery of it though since I have seen absolutely nothing in any of the other news services I get such as Fire wire, Cowboy byte, or Hot Air .
-
Just sis some "Google-Fu" and a bazillion hits came up. Most were the small blogs, Alex Jones, Gun Forums, Patriot Blogs etc,..
However, on the 18th, The Daily Caller posted this:
http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/18/obama-administration-to-sign-u-n-arms-trade-treaty-in-the-very-near-future/
Heritage Foundation posted Apr. 2, with the sign date as June 3.
http://blog.heritage.org/2013/04/02/u-n-general-assembly-adopts-the-arms-trade-treaty/
This morning, by a vote of 154 nations in favor (including the United States), 23 abstentions, and three against (Syria, North Korea, and Iran), the U.N. General Assembly adopted the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT). The treaty will be open for national signature on June 3, 2013, and will enter into force for its signatories when it has been signed and ratified by 50 nations.
****
What concerns me is even if BHO signs it, it can "float" in the Senate in perpituity until Harry Reid thinks he can squeak 67 Senators, OR change the rules to a simple majority, and than slip it in for a vote.
It's a long road to 2016. Unless the Republicans can win back the Senate in 2014.
-
What concerns me is even if BHO signs it, it can "float" in the Senate in perpituity until Harry Reid thinks he can squeak 67 Senators, OR change the rules to a simple majority, and than slip it in for a vote.
It's a long road to 2016. Unless the Republicans can win back the Senate in 2014.
Changing that rule would require a Constitutional amendment... Article II Section 2 specifies the 2/3 threshold.
-
Changing that rule would require a Constitutional amendment... Article II Section 2 specifies the 2/3 threshold.
That old thing ? It's just some paper written by old dead white guys, no one pays attention to that any more .
Dems sure as hell don't .
-
Tom, over all you may be right. What I do know is my two Dem. Senators' will vote No.
-
Tom, over all you may be right. What I do know is my two Dem. Senators' will vote No.
Mine will split, the Republican will vote no, the Dem will vote with Obama.
-
The R here will vote against of course. The D will only vote yes after he dries his spittle from Obama's zipper.
-
This thing will never be ratified, and it has zero to do with the 2A. We are the world's leading arms supplier. Its both big business AND a major tool of diplomacy (support us and get a free trip to the candy store). Signing it gives us feel good points abroad for free, ratifying it costs us serious money. Which do you think will prevail in DC?
-
Dc has to get thier cut...
-
This thing will never be ratified, and it has zero to do with the 2A. We are the world's leading arms supplier. Its both big business AND a major tool of diplomacy (support us and get a free trip to the candy store). Signing it gives us feel good points abroad for free, ratifying it costs us serious money. Which do you think will prevail in DC?
FQ has fallen into a sense of complacency on this due to a long held liberal distortion of fact .
During the Cold war accusations of the Soviet's supply arms to various "bad guys" (PLO, IRA, etc ) were answered with the pseudo fact that the US exported far more $ worth of arms .
This was true, the difference was that the US supplied established Govt's with high priced technology, aircraft, ships, etc, while the Soviet's supplied AK's RPG's, and ammo to pretty much any body who asked for them .
So if you base it on overall cash value what FQ says is true, but if you look at actual volume of material the US was not even close .
-
FQ,
When you read this and see what it has to do with tracking of imports and exports of both arms and ammunition, how can you say that it is not a Second Amendment issue?
Our two are both so Democrat that Pres. BHO actually worships them. I count on the rest of you to protect this nation from the United Nations.
-
FQ,
When you read this and see what it has to do with tracking of imports and exports of both arms and ammunition, how can you say that it is not a Second Amendment issue?
Our two are both so Democrat that Pres. BHO actually worships them. I count on the rest of you to protect this nation from the United Nations.
What I meant was that it won't be a debate about the 2A. It will be about the military industrial complex and their lobbyists (our new best friends in this case) telling the Senate that they can't ratify this treaty as it will cost the economy billions. It will fail not over principle, but over money. And you know what? I'm ok with that. I don't care why it fails, as long as it fails.
-
What I meant was that it won't be a debate about the 2A. It will be about the military industrial complex and their lobbyists (our new best friends in this case) telling the Senate that they can't ratify this treaty as it will cost the economy billions. It will fail not over principle, but over money. And you know what? I'm ok with that. I don't care why it fails, as long as it fails.
While I won't argue the premise of your argument, it is sad that our Nation's standard has moved from what is right and wrong to money.
-
While I won't argue the premise of your argument, it is sad that our Nation's standard has moved from what is right and wrong to money.
Right there with you, but we live in the real world.
-
The two Republican Senators from the People's Republic of Maryland will vote no. Let's see if anyone is paying attention here!
-
According to Bloomberg the United States (Pres. BHO) will not be signing today:
U.S. Fails to Join Allies in Signing UN Weapons Treaty
By Flavia Krause-Jackson - Jun 2, 2013 11:00 PM CT
The U.S. won’t join the U.K., France and other major Western allies at the United Nations today to sign the first international treaty regulating the $85 billion a year global arms trade.
The absence of the world’s top arms dealer at the 10:30 a.m. ceremony in New York drawing some 60 nations casts a shadow over a decades-long push to stop illegal cross-border shipments of conventional weapons. By contrast, some of the world’s most violent nations, from drug-plagued Mexico to the war-torn Democratic Republic of Congo, will be among the signatories.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-03/u-s-fails-to-join-allies-in-signing-un-weapons-treaty.html (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-03/u-s-fails-to-join-allies-in-signing-un-weapons-treaty.html)
-
"the $85 billion a year global arms trade."
Pretty much says it all right there .
Now I have gotten the exact facts .
The Treaty was opened for signatures today, (saw this on GMA this AM )
Apparently some other national leaders signed today .
Whether BO will do so at any point remains to be seen.
I doubt it though since he used a lot of his political juice to try to get "Background checks" and was basically told to pound sand.
He can sign if he wants, but the current Congress will reject it.
With the various scandals he is fending off he lacks the political capital to get his way while more and more Dems try to distance themselves from an election killing association with him.
-
The article mentions that he can sign in the future, but today was the day to make political hay off the big show. Of course Bloomberg is unhappy, but I still think it is 50/50 as to what BHO does with it in the next six months (I think that is the open period). Our biggest promise is that we are within a year of the major campaigns of 2014.
-
i hontestly can't see him signing it until after the election.
-
That TAB is the hope we have. The window to sign ends a year before the election. Either he takes his chances and signs it, or it goes through without the US.
-
Well BHO is faced with yet another Executive decision, another event to make His agenda move forward, another slogan from his campaign that he is forced to actually make a clear and concise DECISION!!!!!
So when is his tee-time?
Harry Reid, as Dem Majority Leader, does not need a Constitutional Amend. to change the vote to a simple majority. It is a "procedural rule" that Dem leaders cry about when they don't have the Majority. However the number of Senators up for re-election is 2014 matters too much....Dems in Red States are in jeopardy, and Reid knows it.
So it may very well be "tabled" until after 2014....Holding the Senate means everything to Dems right now...I doubt in light of recent events, we'll see ol' Nancy Pelosi back as SOTH. She cannot get that gavel back.
-
Wrong TW. A 2/3 majority for approval of a treaty is a Constitutional requirement. And thank God and James Madison for that.
-
C'mon FQ, don't you remember the "nuclear option" it only works one way,...unless the Dems really need it...
Senate Republicans are charging Democrats with embracing the “nuclear option” in their move to alter the filibuster.
Stepping up their defense of the parliamentary maneuver and looking to claim the political high ground, Republicans are attempting to brand Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-Nev.) effort with the same rhetoric Democrats used in 2005, when the then-majority GOP Conference threatened to change the rules. It was an attempt to prevent Democrats from filibustering President George W. Bush’s judicial nominees, and at the time, Republicans defended the effort by calling it the “constitutional option.”
“It’s exactly the same move,” said a senior Republican Senate aide, who added that the “nuclear option is a radical” departure from regular order.
Reid has vowed to do away with filibusters on procedural votes if Democrats hold the majority in the November elections. Senate Republicans oppose the idea, and in particular they take issue with Reid’s threat to change the rule through a majority vote of just 51 Senators. Changes to the Senate rules typically occur on a two-thirds, or 67-vote, threshold, but the chamber’s rules allow for changes to be made with the consent of 51 Members if those changes are voted on at the beginning of the Congressional session.
http://www.rollcall.com/issues/58_9/Harry-Reid-Ready-to-Alter-Filibuster-Rules-216330-1.html
******
For every "rule", there is an "exception" don't you get it yet? This is the United States Gov't......Don't sound like Juan Williams...
Dirty Harry has a tremendous amount of power, that both Rep's and Dems have "tweaked" depending on the majority...
OBTW, it was Bush's fault....Oh wait it was Clinton's fault,....oh wait it was Nixon,...yeah he's a rat bastard,.....oh wait perhaps the Carter admin did the same....
-
TW the filibuster is a rule. We're not talking about that. Article Two of the US Constitution specifies that the President may enter into treaties with the "advice and consent of 2/3 of the Senate". Period, full stop. There is no way of getting around that without amending the Constitution. So Harry Reid's opinion, or for that matter yours or mine means nothing. You have a 2/3 vote or you don't. If you don't its dead.
-
UPDATE:
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/06/03/Obama-sneaks-arms-trade-treaty
In an attempt to avoid public scrutiny, President Obama plans to sign the controversial United Nations gun treaty in August, when Congress is in summer recess. According to White House press secretary Jay Carney, Obama will sign the treaty “before the end of August,” even though legally he could have done so next week.
Now, it appears that the White House wants the benefit of being on the record with regard to the treaty, but does not want the fallout of a public battle over the treaty before the 2014 elections, especially given the fact that the treaty will not be ratified in the Senate.
“We believe it’s in the interest of the United States,” Carney said of signing the treaty. “While we look forward to signing the treaty, there are remaining translation issues that need to be resolved.”
While President Obama wants to delay the treaty for political reasons, Secretary of State John Kerry reportedly wants it signed as soon as possible. “The United States welcomes the opening of the Arms Trade Treaty for signature and we look forward to signing it as soon as the process of conforming the official translations is completed satisfactorily.”
*****
Your right FQ, I was confuzed :P. Art. 2 Sec 2, Seems Hamilton was the presiding voice, as conveyed in Federalist Papers 75
But given Harry Reid's shuck & jive history as Majority Leader,,,,, put it this way, if Harry Reid was playing a high stakes poker game in the Old West, he'd be dragged out of town on his own horse.