Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12

Thread: John Kerry to Sign UN Arms Trade Treaty

  1. #1

    John Kerry to Sign UN Arms Trade Treaty

    According to Dick Morris, John Kerry will sign the UN Arms Trade Treaty today. That treaty will give the UN the right to regulate our firearms laws in the USA.

    According to Dick Morris, if ratified by the Senate, it supersedes out Second Amendment. The Congress plays no role in treaties and cannot stop it. It can still take effect without a Senate vote if Harry Reid never allows it to come up for a vote, which is what is expected to happen.

    Dick Morris explains the situation in a video posted on his web site.

    Defeat UN Arms Trade Treaty - Dick Morris TV: Lunch Alert! - DickMorris.com at DickMorris.com

    According to Dick Morris, the UN Arms Trade Treaty only affects the private sale of firearms and does not affect government sales of firearms, so it actually does nothing to resolve arms trade issues with rogue nations.

    Senator Warns Obama Not to Implement UN Arms Treaty
    Last edited by TopDogger; 26 September, 2013 at 01:20 AM.
    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." -- Benjamin Franklin


  2. #2
    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." -- Benjamin Franklin


  3. #3
    You know, after you take off the criminals and the wackos who don't give a damn about laws and treaties, the only people left are the law abiding citizen and the 2A.
    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.

    Voltaire


  4. #4
    Unfortunately, most of the criminals and the wackos who do not give a damn about our laws are currently residing in Washington DC.
    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." -- Benjamin Franklin


  5. #5
    As for what i see it, this shifts the responsibility so the US citizens will blame UN, not the government.

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by TopDogger View Post
    Unfortunately, most of the criminals and the wackos who do not give a damn about our laws are currently residing in Washington DC.
    They give the illusion to resolve the problems, unfortunately they don't do anything against these issues.

    Quote Originally Posted by Web View Post
    As for what i see it, this shifts the responsibility so the US citizens will blame UN, not the government.
    The funny thing about UN treaties and embargoes is that all governments voting use their dirty tricks to bypass them to deliver weapons, for more information, see: Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Libya, Mali, Nigeria, Syria, Africa, etc

    This treaty is a total mockery.
    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.

    Voltaire


  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Morgan Hill, California
    Posts
    41
    Quote Originally Posted by TopDogger View Post
    According to Dick Morris, John Kerry will sign the UN Arms Trade Treaty today. That treaty will give the UN the right to regulate our firearms laws in the USA.

    According to Dick Morris, if ratified by the Senate, it supersedes out Second Amendment. The Congress plays no role in treaties and cannot stop it. It can still take effect
    without a Senate vote if Harry Reid never allows it to come up for a vote, which is what is expected to happen.
    While the House of Representatives plays no role in ratifying treaties, the Senate certainly does.

    If the Senate doesn't ratify the treaty, it does not go into effect. Ratification requires a 2/3 majority. (If Reid never allows it to come to a vote, it doesn't get ratified and doesn't go into effect.)

  8. #8
    That is the part that people do not understand. The rules are a bit strange. It requires a 2/3 vote to ratify it and turn it into binding law. A UN treaty does go into effect even if it is not voted on by the Senate, but it can be rejected by a future president if it never comes to a Senate vote. If not voted and ratified, it is not a binding law. That essentially means it can be ignored.

    If it gets a vote and does not make the 2/3 majority, it is rejected. Clinton did sign the Kyoto Treaty and there was a Senate vote where was rejected 96:0. John Kerry criticized Bush for not renewing the Kyoto Treaty efforts, but John Kerry was one of the Senators who rejected it. It wasn't a Bush issue. It was a Senate issue, but that did not stop Horse Face from trying to use it against Bush. Bush had no obligation to raise the Kyoto Treaty issue because it had been officially and very soundly rejected by the Senate.

    If it comes to the Senate floor and gets the 2/3 majority vote, it is then "ratified" when signed by the president and becomes binding US law.

    There isn't any chance that it will get a 2/3 vote, especially with the upcoming mid-term election that could swing the Senate to the Republicans. The speculation is that Harry Reid will refuse to allow it to come to a vote. That does not reject the treaty.

    The UN Arms Trade Treaty requires all countries to register all firearms in personal possession and it is in direct conflict with our 2nd Amendment. I'm not sure if Dick Morris is correct about it overruling the 2nd Amendment. I don't think anything is allowed to overrule The Constitution. The Constitution is the basis for the validity of all of our rights and laws.

    We do not ratify very many UN treaties because, like Kyoto, they place the overwhelming burden of costs on the USA. The UN does NOT believe in cost sharing. In fact, most members do not pay anything for membership or support for the UN.
    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." -- Benjamin Franklin


  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Morgan Hill, California
    Posts
    41
    Even if it were to get ratified (God forbid), who's going to enforce it? The UN??

    A few hundred years ago, the most powerful military in the world, for its time, tried to disarm Americans and it didn't work out too well for them. Red coats or blue helmets -- it makes no difference to me. Both make excellent target identification devices.

  10. #10
    I found the anti-gun propaganda a great lie for dummies! What about uranium depleted shells, white phosphorus shells, chemical weapons, nuclear weapons, and all the weapons that kill indiscriminately?

    And how they are going to fight corrupt armies or corrupt governments selling and trafficking weapons to rogue groups?

    The great lies:

    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.

    Voltaire


Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •