Kerry: US Will Sign UN Arms Treaty

[Ragnar]

A donors list isn't evidence of much. Whatever any politicians view on any subject there are donors there supporting the cause. That's just politics. It means even less when you have what amounts these days to significant bipartisanship support against this treaty. And that includes a President who has not touched the issue with a ten foot pole for half a year.

Inhofe's sponsorship, which you have yet to prove was in bad faith, can't change the fact that the Senate voted no.

 

[francoHFW]

Of course it won't pass congress. Why should it be any different from all the others? People are getting awful sick of the "no compromise, un-American Tea Party GOP" (TIME)...investigate that, Issa, LOL.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Of course it won't pass congress. Why should it be any different from all the others? People are getting awful sick of the "no compromise, un-American Tea Party GOP" (TIME)...investigate that, Issa, LOL.

I love how you liberals contend you know so much, but provide so very little.

 

[Ragnar]

Of course it won't pass congress. Why should it be any different from all the others? People are getting awful sick of the "no compromise, un-American Tea Party GOP" (TIME)...investigate that, Issa, LOL.

You are mistaken if you believe there are 53 "tea party" Senators. (or that President Obama is ready and willing to take another bitch slap on gun rights from the Democrat controlled Senate)

Maybe sometime down the road this comes back up but my guess is Obama keeps stalling.

 

[francoHFW]

You want facts? I HIGHLY doubt it lol. Well, for starters, this has NOTHING to do with domestic gun regulation... See, you dupes could care less. Assume the position for 2014, assholes lol...investigate that!

 

[francoHFW]

Of course it won't pass congress. Why should it be any different from all the others? People are getting awful sick of the "no compromise, un-American Tea Party GOP" (TIME)...investigate that, Issa, LOL.

You are mistaken if you believe there are 53 "tea party" Senators. (or that President Obama is ready and willing to take another bitch slap on gun rights from the Democrat controlled Senate)

Maybe sometime down the road this comes back up but my guess is Obama keeps stalling.

You're a gd idiot lol. There are 44 Pubs in the Senate now, enough to filibuster everything, and they're ALL terrified of Pub leaders AND RW primary challenges from TP loons. Kiss your stupid asses goodbye next year, ya brainwashed morons....LOL!

 

[Ragnar]

Of course it won't pass congress. Why should it be any different from all the others? People are getting awful sick of the "no compromise, un-American Tea Party GOP" (TIME)...investigate that, Issa, LOL.

You are mistaken if you believe there are 53 "tea party" Senators. (or that President Obama is ready and willing to take another bitch slap on gun rights from the Democrat controlled Senate)

Maybe sometime down the road this comes back up but my guess is Obama keeps stalling.

You're a gd idiot lol. There are 44 Pubs in the Senate now, enough to filibuster everything, and they're ALL terrified of Pub leaders AND RW primary challenges from TP loons. Kiss your stupid asses goodbye next year, ya brainwashed morons....LOL!

Yeah. Nothing is more terrifying for Senators than the sexennial four percent chance of job loss. I hope you have a more mature attitude once you have been through a few more election cycles. Hat tip: utopia is not just around the corner.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

That's right folks, in spite of strong opposition from lawmakers, John Kerry indicated today that the U.S. will sign the UN Small Arms Treaty; citing that this could be the basis for more gun regulations. Yes, indeed, thus begins the systematic destruction of the 2nd Amendment. Kiss your rights goodbye.

Secretary of State John Kerry said Monday that the Obama administration would sign a controversial U.N. treaty on arms regulation, despite bipartisan resistance in Congress from members concerned it could lead to new gun control measures in the U.S.

Kerry, releasing a written statement as the U.N. treaty opened for signature Monday, said the U.S. "welcomes" the next phase for the treaty, which the U.N. General Assembly approved on April 2.

"We look forward to signing it as soon as the process of conforming the official translations is completed satisfactorily," he said. Kerry called the treaty "an important contribution to efforts to stem the illicit trade in conventional weapons, which fuels conflict, empowers violent extremists, and contributes to violations of human rights."

The treaty would require countries that ratify it to establish national regulations to control the transfer of conventional arms and components and to regulate arms brokers, but it will not explicitly control the domestic use of weapons in any country.

Still, gun-rights supporters on Capitol Hill warn the treaty could be used as the basis for additional gun regulations inside the U.S. and have threatened not to ratify.

Last week, 130 members of Congress signed a letter to Obama and Kerry urging them to reject the measure for this and other reasons.

Kerry says US will sign UN treaty on arms regulation despite lawmaker opposition | Fox News

And once signed, and nothing happens to your Second Amendment rights, will you and other hysterical demagogues on the right have the courage to admit you were wrong and the honor to acknowledge your lies.

Didn’t think so.

 

[OriginalShroom]

That's right folks, in spite of strong opposition from lawmakers, John Kerry indicated today that the U.S. will sign the UN Small Arms Treaty; citing that this could be the basis for more gun regulations. Yes, indeed, thus begins the systematic destruction of the 2nd Amendment. Kiss your rights goodbye.

Secretary of State John Kerry said Monday that the Obama administration would sign a controversial U.N. treaty on arms regulation, despite bipartisan resistance in Congress from members concerned it could lead to new gun control measures in the U.S.

Kerry, releasing a written statement as the U.N. treaty opened for signature Monday, said the U.S. "welcomes" the next phase for the treaty, which the U.N. General Assembly approved on April 2.

"We look forward to signing it as soon as the process of conforming the official translations is completed satisfactorily," he said. Kerry called the treaty "an important contribution to efforts to stem the illicit trade in conventional weapons, which fuels conflict, empowers violent extremists, and contributes to violations of human rights."

The treaty would require countries that ratify it to establish national regulations to control the transfer of conventional arms and components and to regulate arms brokers, but it will not explicitly control the domestic use of weapons in any country.

Still, gun-rights supporters on Capitol Hill warn the treaty could be used as the basis for additional gun regulations inside the U.S. and have threatened not to ratify.

Last week, 130 members of Congress signed a letter to Obama and Kerry urging them to reject the measure for this and other reasons.

Kerry says US will sign UN treaty on arms regulation despite lawmaker opposition | Fox News

And once signed, and nothing happens to your Second Amendment rights, will you and other hysterical demagogues on the right have the courage to admit you were wrong and the honor to acknowledge your lies.

Didn’t think so.

It won't be the law of the land until it passes the Senate.

It won't.

 

[dilloduck]

Genghis Khan woulda been really pissed off.

 

[TemplarKormac]

That's right folks, in spite of strong opposition from lawmakers, John Kerry indicated today that the U.S. will sign the UN Small Arms Treaty; citing that this could be the basis for more gun regulations. Yes, indeed, thus begins the systematic destruction of the 2nd Amendment. Kiss your rights goodbye.

Secretary of State John Kerry said Monday that the Obama administration would sign a controversial U.N. treaty on arms regulation, despite bipartisan resistance in Congress from members concerned it could lead to new gun control measures in the U.S.

Kerry, releasing a written statement as the U.N. treaty opened for signature Monday, said the U.S. "welcomes" the next phase for the treaty, which the U.N. General Assembly approved on April 2.

"We look forward to signing it as soon as the process of conforming the official translations is completed satisfactorily," he said. Kerry called the treaty "an important contribution to efforts to stem the illicit trade in conventional weapons, which fuels conflict, empowers violent extremists, and contributes to violations of human rights."

The treaty would require countries that ratify it to establish national regulations to control the transfer of conventional arms and components and to regulate arms brokers, but it will not explicitly control the domestic use of weapons in any country.

Still, gun-rights supporters on Capitol Hill warn the treaty could be used as the basis for additional gun regulations inside the U.S. and have threatened not to ratify.

Last week, 130 members of Congress signed a letter to Obama and Kerry urging them to reject the measure for this and other reasons.

Kerry says US will sign UN treaty on arms regulation despite lawmaker opposition | Fox News

And once signed, and nothing happens to your Second Amendment rights, will you and other hysterical demagogues on the right have the courage to admit you were wrong and the honor to acknowledge your lies.

Didn’t think so.

What was I lying about again?

And you still don't get it do you? Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 says the president may only sign treaties when he has the concurrence of two thirds of the Senate, which at last I checked, HE DIDN'T. That is in violation of the Constitution my friend. Hey, do you smell that? That's your argument going up in smoke.

I like that little "didn't think so" quip, Clayton. Shows how childlike you are. If that's all you had to throw at me, I should be thankful, because that was terrible. You have not the courage to admit that Obama and his friends are violating the Constitution from top to bottom. You liberals and your demagogues have no ability or willingness to admit or acknowledge it.

 

[idb]

That's right folks, in spite of strong opposition from lawmakers, John Kerry indicated today that the U.S. will sign the UN Small Arms Treaty; citing that this could be the basis for more gun regulations. Yes, indeed, thus begins the systematic destruction of the 2nd Amendment. Kiss your rights goodbye.



Kerry says US will sign UN treaty on arms regulation despite lawmaker opposition | Fox News

And once signed, and nothing happens to your Second Amendment rights, will you and other hysterical demagogues on the right have the courage to admit you were wrong and the honor to acknowledge your lies.

Didn’t think so.

What was I lying about again?

And you still don't get it do you? Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 says the president may only sign treaties when he has the concurrence of two thirds of the Senate, which at last I checked, HE DIDN'T. That is in violation of the Constitution my friend. Hey, do you smell that? That's your argument going up in smoke.

I like that little "didn't think so" quip, Clayton. Shows how childlike you are. If that's all you had to throw at me, I should be thankful, because that was terrible. You have not the courage to admit that Obama and his friends are violating the Constitution from top to bottom. You liberals and your demagogues have no ability or willingness to admit or acknowledge it.

Everyone knows you're right of course, there have been so many violations of the Constitution that Obama must be getting sick of the journey to the Supreme Court and back just to get his arse kicked...yep, must be totally fed up with it all.....

 

[TemplarKormac]

And once signed, and nothing happens to your Second Amendment rights, will you and other hysterical demagogues on the right have the courage to admit you were wrong and the honor to acknowledge your lies.

Didn’t think so.

What was I lying about again?

And you still don't get it do you? Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 says the president may only sign treaties when he has the concurrence of two thirds of the Senate, which at last I checked, HE DIDN'T. That is in violation of the Constitution my friend. Hey, do you smell that? That's your argument going up in smoke.

I like that little "didn't think so" quip, Clayton. Shows how childlike you are. If that's all you had to throw at me, I should be thankful, because that was terrible. You have not the courage to admit that Obama and his friends are violating the Constitution from top to bottom. You liberals and your demagogues have no ability or willingness to admit or acknowledge it.

Everyone knows you're right of course, there have been so many violations of the Constitution that Obama must be getting sick of the journey to the Supreme Court and back just to get his arse kicked...yep, must be totally fed up with it all.....

All sarcasm, no argument. Don't you get tired of bringing the knife to a gun fight? Next.

 

[idb]

What was I lying about again?

And you still don't get it do you? Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 says the president may only sign treaties when he has the concurrence of two thirds of the Senate, which at last I checked, HE DIDN'T. That is in violation of the Constitution my friend. Hey, do you smell that? That's your argument going up in smoke.

I like that little "didn't think so" quip, Clayton. Shows how childlike you are. If that's all you had to throw at me, I should be thankful, because that was terrible. You have not the courage to admit that Obama and his friends are violating the Constitution from top to bottom. You liberals and your demagogues have no ability or willingness to admit or acknowledge it.

Everyone knows you're right of course, there have been so many violations of the Constitution that Obama must be getting sick of the journey to the Supreme Court and back just to get his arse kicked...yep, must be totally fed up with it all.....

All sarcasm, no argument. Don't you get tired of bringing the knife to a gun fight? Next.

I'm wrong you say?
You'll easily be able to cite a few rulings of unconstitutional behaviour against the Obama administration then?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Everyone knows you're right of course, there have been so many violations of the Constitution that Obama must be getting sick of the journey to the Supreme Court and back just to get his arse kicked...yep, must be totally fed up with it all.....

All sarcasm, no argument. Don't you get tired of bringing the knife to a gun fight? Next.

I'm wrong you say?
You'll easily be able to cite a few rulings of unconstitutional behaviour against the Obama administration then?

Easily. I have this saved on my hard drive for people just like you.

Name: Barack Hussein Obama

Born: August 4, 1961, Honolulu, Hawaii

Profession: Community Organizer

Obama Administration Position:
44th and 45th President of the United States
Constitutional Transgression(s), Oath Violation(s):

1. Invaded Libya, Yemen, Sudan, Uganda and Pakistan without prior Congressional approval. (Article 1, Section 8)

2. Killed Americans without Due Process rights. (14th Amendment, Section 1)

3. Issued Soviet-style order to Catholic and other faith-based institutions to violate their beliefs and provide insurance covering abortifacients, contraceptives and sterilizations. (1st Amendment)

4. Appointed agency "czars" without approval from the Senate. (Article II, Section 2)

5. Made illegal recess appointments. (Article II, Section 2)

6. Forced Americans into a colossal monstrosity known as Obamacare, insisting it was a tax, and ruled a tax by the Supreme Court. (Article I, Section 8)

7. Refuses to enforce laws faithfully, for lack of will or preference. (Article II, Section 3)

8. Stonewalled Fast and Furious investigation. (Contempt of Congress)

9. Did not prosecute two New Black Panther members for intimidating voters at a Pennsylvania polling place. (14th and 15th Amendments)

10. Allowed the FCC to enact "net neutrality" protocols, later stuck down by lower court. (1st Amendment)

11. Sued Arizona in 2010 for upholding Federal law. (10th Amendment)

12. Upon swearing to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution" he gives a foreign (Felipe Calderon) leader a platform to denounce an American state. Upon swearing that oath, he affirms the the States are part of the United States and no other foreign state by default.

13. Allowed the NLRB to sue Boeing for not setting up it's plant in a Right-to-work state, upon Union objections. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the Federal Government call tell businesses where to operate.

14. Signed Dodd-Frank into law. (5th and 14th Amendment; Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2)

15. 9/11 Responders Relief Fund (Article 1, Section 8)

16. Accepted Chairmanship of the UN Security Council. (Article 1, Section 9)

17. Instituted Cap and Trade (Article 1, Section 8)

18. Cash for Clunkers (Article 1, Sections 2 and 8)

19. TARP funding (Article 1, Section 8)

20. Failed to protect the border. (Article 4, Section 4)

21. Has planned to enter into a treaty with foreign powers without a two thirds vote from the Senate (Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2)

Yes, you're wrong.

 

[Saigon]

A. (from your own link, btw): The treaty would require countries that ratify it to establish national regulations to control the transfer of conventional arms and components and to regulate arms brokers, but it will not explicitly control the domestic use of weapons in any country.

B. Treaties with foreign nations cannot override the constitution. It's in the constitution.

Exactly - the opposition stems from the NRA heirarchy who make millions out of arming child soldiers around the world.

Heaven forbid that people would not be able to make money by arming terrorists!

 

[Saigon]

US conservatives standing beside other nations who oppose the treaty: Iran and North Korea.

That is it in a nutshell.

It's strange that a party that used to talk about 'paling around with terrorists' now find themselves doing exactly that.

 

[idb]

All sarcasm, no argument. Don't you get tired of bringing the knife to a gun fight? Next.

I'm wrong you say?
You'll easily be able to cite a few rulings of unconstitutional behaviour against the Obama administration then?

Easily. I have this saved on my hard drive for people just like you.

Name: Barack Hussein Obama

Born: August 4, 1961, Honolulu, Hawaii

Profession: Community Organizer

Obama Administration Position:
44th and 45th President of the United States
Constitutional Transgression(s), Oath Violation(s):

1. Invaded Libya, Yemen, Sudan, Uganda and Pakistan without prior Congressional approval. (Article 1, Section 8)

2. Killed Americans without Due Process rights. (14th Amendment, Section 1)

3. Issued Soviet-style order to Catholic and other faith-based institutions to violate their beliefs and provide insurance covering abortifacients, contraceptives and sterilizations. (1st Amendment)

4. Appointed agency "czars" without approval from the Senate. (Article II, Section 2)

5. Made illegal recess appointments. (Article II, Section 2)

6. Forced Americans into a colossal monstrosity known as Obamacare, insisting it was a tax, and ruled a tax by the Supreme Court. (Article I, Section 8)

7. Refuses to enforce laws faithfully, for lack of will or preference. (Article II, Section 3)

8. Stonewalled Fast and Furious investigation. (Contempt of Congress)

9. Did not prosecute two New Black Panther members for intimidating voters at a Pennsylvania polling place. (14th and 15th Amendments)

10. Allowed the FCC to enact "net neutrality" protocols, later stuck down by lower court. (1st Amendment)

11. Sued Arizona in 2010 for upholding Federal law. (10th Amendment)

12. Upon swearing to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution" he gives a foreign (Felipe Calderon) leader a platform to denounce an American state. Upon swearing that oath, he affirms the the States are part of the United States and no other foreign state by default.

13. Allowed the NLRB to sue Boeing for not setting up it's plant in a Right-to-work state, upon Union objections. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the Federal Government call tell businesses where to operate.

14. Signed Dodd-Frank into law. (5th and 14th Amendment; Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2)

15. 9/11 Responders Relief Fund (Article 1, Section 8)

16. Accepted Chairmanship of the UN Security Council. (Article 1, Section 9)

17. Instituted Cap and Trade (Article 1, Section 8)

18. Cash for Clunkers (Article 1, Sections 2 and 8)

19. TARP funding (Article 1, Section 8)

20. Failed to protect the border. (Article 4, Section 4)

21. Has planned to enter into a treaty with a foreign power without a two thirds vote from the Senate (Article II, Section 2, Clause 2)

Yes, you're wrong.

Crikey, that is quite a list!
Do you have the Supreme Court decision numbers for any of those?
It would be interesting to understand how their opinions were formulated.

 

[S.J.]

That's what traitors do, sell their country down the river. Why would anyone be surprised Kerry would do this?

 

[TemplarKormac]

I'm wrong you say?
You'll easily be able to cite a few rulings of unconstitutional behaviour against the Obama administration then?

Easily. I have this saved on my hard drive for people just like you.

Name: Barack Hussein Obama

Born: August 4, 1961, Honolulu, Hawaii

Profession: Community Organizer

Obama Administration Position:
44th and 45th President of the United States
Constitutional Transgression(s), Oath Violation(s):

1. Invaded Libya, Yemen, Sudan, Uganda and Pakistan without prior Congressional approval. (Article 1, Section 8)

2. Killed Americans without Due Process rights. (14th Amendment, Section 1)

3. Issued Soviet-style order to Catholic and other faith-based institutions to violate their beliefs and provide insurance covering abortifacients, contraceptives and sterilizations. (1st Amendment)

4. Appointed agency "czars" without approval from the Senate. (Article II, Section 2)

5. Made illegal recess appointments. (Article II, Section 2)

6. Forced Americans into a colossal monstrosity known as Obamacare, insisting it was a tax, and ruled a tax by the Supreme Court. (Article I, Section 8)

7. Refuses to enforce laws faithfully, for lack of will or preference. (Article II, Section 3)

8. Stonewalled Fast and Furious investigation. (Contempt of Congress)

9. Did not prosecute two New Black Panther members for intimidating voters at a Pennsylvania polling place. (14th and 15th Amendments)

10. Allowed the FCC to enact "net neutrality" protocols, later stuck down by lower court. (1st Amendment)

11. Sued Arizona in 2010 for upholding Federal law. (10th Amendment)

12. Upon swearing to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution" he gives a foreign (Felipe Calderon) leader a platform to denounce an American state. Upon swearing that oath, he affirms the the States are part of the United States and no other foreign state by default.

13. Allowed the NLRB to sue Boeing for not setting up it's plant in a Right-to-work state, upon Union objections. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the Federal Government call tell businesses where to operate.

14. Signed Dodd-Frank into law. (5th and 14th Amendment; Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2)

15. 9/11 Responders Relief Fund (Article 1, Section 8)

16. Accepted Chairmanship of the UN Security Council. (Article 1, Section 9)

17. Instituted Cap and Trade (Article 1, Section 8)

18. Cash for Clunkers (Article 1, Sections 2 and 8)

19. TARP funding (Article 1, Section 8)

20. Failed to protect the border. (Article 4, Section 4)

21. Has planned to enter into a treaty with a foreign power without a two thirds vote from the Senate (Article II, Section 2, Clause 2)

Yes, you're wrong.

Crikey, that is quite a list!
Do you have the Supreme Court decision numbers for any of those?
It would be interesting to understand how their opinions were formulated.

It would be, if you could bring a case against him. But our government has grown so big, so oppressive, and so corrupt, it makes it quite hard to bring a case, or hold him accountable for his actions. You just don't bring up a Supreme Court case each and every time the president violates the Constitution. You know hes done it, he has made no effort to hide his behavior on all but a few issues.

The list is a compilation of many hours of due diligent research. Studying to be a paralegal will have that effect.