Posted on 12/02/2014 7:29:03 AM PST by SisterK
Fairfax, Va. – Today, Secretary of State John Kerry signed the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty on behalf of the Obama administration. The National Rifle Association strongly opposes this treaty, which is a clear violation of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
(Excerpt) Read more at nraila.org ...
Sorry, that was outdated info, it has been ratified by 54 nations.
http://www.un.org/disarmament/ATT/
But it still requires our congressional approval.
sweet
thanks
I understand and you should rightly be concerned because this man is an American-hating Muslim.
On my part, I am deadly serious about anyone coming to my home under aegis of this “UN whatever”. They will not abridge my rights in this. I’ll die first.
It requires 2/3 of the Senate....
oops
premature jubilation
54 nations. That only tells us there are at least 54 countries controlled by zealots and slavers (of the mind and/or body). Tyrants, despots, religious zealots, panderers, pimps and madmen.
Isn't it 2/3 of Senators "present" after a quorum call? 13 isn't it? Dirty Harry Ried could fly Schumer, Feinstein, Durbin, and 10 other commies in on Christmas Eve on his private jet to call a quorum and quickly vote this in with ALOT fewer than 67 Senators IIRC.
Please correct me if wrong.
He does this sort of crap to placate his far left supporters and to keep his commie handlers happy. He knows this “treaty” doesn’t have a prayer of Senate ratification. Totally predictable.
I really don’t know but I would suspect our founding fathers would have drafted such wording to mean “a quorum”...the very 2/3 stipulations tells me they were concerned about a substantial majority and that would not infer they were just willing to accept a “quorum”. Liberals and others might try to fancy out some argument about “quorum” but it’s just a diversion from the real point.
is it not 2/3 of those present in the senate when ratification is brought to the floor?
I believe it is based entirely on how many members of the senate are present at the time it is brought to the floor, not total count regardless of attendance.
See #29. It just does not follow “quorum”
Has no more meaning as the Kyoto that A.Gore signed Senate will not ratify and any competent court would find it unconstitutional (I know the word competent is a big one)
That’s what I’m talkin’ bout!
Glad I could help.
Come get ‘em...just don’t forget that whole “behind every blade of grass” thing.
Can it be long before we hear “if you like your guns, you can keep your guns”?
The thread which SisterK references in #10, is about whether the Vienna Convention treaty, which the US ratified a while back, covers subsequent UN agreements. In other words whether, by ratifying the Vienna treaty, the US bound ourselves to treaties formed by the UN afterwards. In my opinion, this would be unconstitutional.
Maybe...but I already have my guns....enough for every member of my family...several times over.
They won’t get them unless they kill me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.