Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: drypowder

No one should be shocked by this. It has always been Obama’s plan.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/61942.html

Barack Obama’s gun control is ‘under the radar’

For an administration with a secretive itch for gun control, the situation is ideal. They can let the United Nations do the dirty work of drafting onerous new restrictions on civilian firearms, then package them inside a treaty with legitimate measures to control true military armaments.

The U.N. has scheduled the treaty to be finished in July of next year — just in time to go to the Obama White House for ratification.

That’s “under the radar” for you.

But one risk of operating under the radar is that you can’t see the moves of your opponents. This is not the first U.N. gun-control rodeo for my friends at the National Rifle Association. They know treaty ratification requires a two-thirds vote in the Senate. Thirty-four senators would have to vote no to block the treaty.

While the rest of Washington was fixated on the debt ceiling debate, the NRA quietly marshaled opposition to the treaty among pro-gun senators.

Fifty-eight senators have now called out the president on his plan. Led by Sens. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) and Jon Tester (D-Mont.), 45 Republicans and 13 Democrats have written two strong letters —one from members of each party — to President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. All the senators have vowed to oppose any treaty that restricts civilian firearm ownership.

What’s ironic is that the United States already has the world’s pre-eminent system for regulation of true military arms sales. If the rest of the world merely adopted the U.S. regulatory regime, there would be no need for an Arms Trade Treaty.

Except from the article.


27 posted on 11/21/2012 4:58:57 AM PST by ilovesarah2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]


To: ilovesarah2012; itsahoot
Your assessment of Obama is correct. However...

They (the NRA - CO) know treaty ratification requires a two-thirds vote in the Senate. Thirty-four senators would have to vote no to block the treaty.

I'll bet you a $1000 donation to FReerepublic that this is dead wrong. You have no idea how dangerous promulgating this error really is, at which you went on about it at unreasonable length. Nor did you even read the thread where that fact is explained before offering your inestimable opinion.

Either that or you can go and read what Article II Section 2 Clause 2 of the Constitution actually says. Given the language of that clause, a treaty can be ratified legally by as few as 34 Senators and (given the precedent of what constitutes a filibuster) conceivably as few as TWO (2) . If you want to understand how it got that way read this.

Harry Reid is a master of underhanded procedure. He knows how to get this treaty to the floor without a committee vote. He may know how to get it to a vote without a filibuster. And there you sit, confident in your comfort, because the NRA has your back. Oh, and I'm sure the NRA explained all of that to you, right?

One last thing, despite your blandishments about the United States' wonderful system for tracking military weapons sales, how does that explain Fast & Furious? Iran Contra?? Arms sales to the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria???

This treaty would end the practice of arming oppressed peoples to take down their tyrannical governments. How do you think we armed the resistance to fascism in Europe? How the hell do you think the colonists of this country got their weapons???? Is that what you want?

28 posted on 11/21/2012 8:34:56 AM PST by Carry_Okie (The Slave Party: advancing indenture since 1787.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson