Kerry says US will sign UN treaty

Discussion in 'Political/Religious Topics' started by neophyte, Jul 3, 2013.

  1. neophyte

    neophyte Wonderment :) Forum Contributor

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2007
    Messages:
    22,570
    Likes Received:
    1,902
    Be aware Be prepared

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

    "As your review of the treaty continues, we strongly encourage your administration to recognize its textual, inherent and procedural flaws, to uphold our country's constitutional protections of civilian firearms ownership, and to defend the sovereignty of the United States, and thus to decide not to sign this treaty," the lawmakers wrote.
    The chance of adoption by the U.S. is slim, even if Obama goes ahead and signs it -- as early as Monday, or possibly months down the road. A majority of Senate members have come out against the treaty. A two-thirds majority would be needed in the Senate to ratify.


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


     
    #1
  2. SKS NOOB

    SKS NOOB G&G Evangelist

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2007
    Messages:
    4,575
    Likes Received:
    556
    Even if it's signed and goes into effect, it won't be enforced by the U.N.. They aren't good at enforcing anything.
     
    #2
  3. variolamajor

    variolamajor G&G Evangelist

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    2,586
    Likes Received:
    784
    Obama - thru Kerry - is entitled to sign whatever treaty he wants. The Constitution gives him that right. It doesn't mean anything unless it's ratified by 2/3rds of the Senate. It's never going to happen. There have been a number of treaties signed over the years that were never ratified. Some of them we simple withdrew from. All it takes is for us to elect a pro-gun president who then notifies the UN in writing that the US withdrawals it's support from this treaty. Problem solved. Unless it's ratified - it's not enforceable. :24:
     
    #3
  4. shop tom

    shop tom G&G Evangelist Forum Contributor

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2008
    Messages:
    5,354
    Likes Received:
    965
    As I have said before, whether or not the Senate ratifies it, if a US president signs this treaty, he will have given it legitimacy and official standing. It will also be easier for other countries to impose trade restrictions on arms whether or not the US agrees with them.

    tom
     
    #4
  5. Never_Evil

    Never_Evil G&G Evangelist

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2009
    Messages:
    1,818
    Likes Received:
    26
    What do you mean they wont pass it? Kerry will label it the Ice Cream to Ghetto relief act and since Polosi wont read anything, they will all sign it.
     
    #5
  6. Royal Lancer

    Royal Lancer G&G Newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2013
    Messages:
    19
    Likes Received:
    1
    Does this not go against the Constitution? If so anyone in Gov't has violated their oath of office to protect and defend it.
     
    #6
  7. variolamajor

    variolamajor G&G Evangelist

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    2,586
    Likes Received:
    784
    Read your Constitution. Treaty ratification has nothing to do with the House of Representatives. It rests solely with the Senate and it takes 67 votes to ratify.
     
    #7
  8. variolamajor

    variolamajor G&G Evangelist

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    2,586
    Likes Received:
    784
    Not so. As I posted previously - there has been a number of treaties signed over the last 100 years that were never ratified. They hold no legal standing. Clinton signed the Kyoto Accords in the 1990's and nothing became of them. Carter negotiated and signed the SALT II treaty but it was never ratified by the Senate and later Reagan "unsigned" it.
     
    #8
  9. PaleHawkDown

    PaleHawkDown G&G Evangelist

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2010
    Messages:
    7,571
    Likes Received:
    3,478
    I imagine several feather-not-dot Indians would be happy to explain to Mr. President the folly of signing any disarmament related treaty enacted by a non-native governmental body.
     
    #9
  10. sea_chicken1

    sea_chicken1 G&G Evangelist

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2008
    Messages:
    3,525
    Likes Received:
    364
    We all know what is coming eventually, and what it will come to. I just hope it is the U.N. over other agencies. The U.N. is incompetent as hell, which is good for us.
     
    #10
    Last edited: Jul 3, 2013
  11. PaleHawkDown

    PaleHawkDown G&G Evangelist

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2010
    Messages:
    7,571
    Likes Received:
    3,478
    For that matter it didn't work out too well for the dot-not-feather Indians during imperialism
     
    #11
  12. TheLastMountain

    TheLastMountain G&G Evangelist

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2008
    Messages:
    3,164
    Likes Received:
    141
    So. Are the blue helmets going to be target practice or what? I need the range time. :)
     
    #12
  13. DWFan

    DWFan G&G Evangelist

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2008
    Messages:
    7,852
    Likes Received:
    1,832
    Don't be too sure this thing won't get ratified. The Republicans swore no immigration reform without increased border security, didn't they? And how did that turn out?
    Republican or Democrat, except for a very few, the politicians don't care one little bit about what is best for this country or what the citizens want. The political elite have taken control.
     
    #13
  14. variolamajor

    variolamajor G&G Evangelist

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    2,586
    Likes Received:
    784

    Because of the current split in the senate - there are lots of bills in the senate that will not come to light because they can't get the 60 votes to override a filibuster. If they can't get 60 votes - then getting 67 would be like reaching for the moon. It won't happen and this will end up in the circular file like all the rest. If you take to time to actually read the treaty draft - there are no "enforcement" measures per say. It leaves it to each nation to enforce themselves and states that nations "should encourage" cooperation between each other. Nothing is "mandated" so if a signatory decides they're not going to enforce it - nothing will happen.
     
    #14
  15. DWFan

    DWFan G&G Evangelist

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2008
    Messages:
    7,852
    Likes Received:
    1,832
    Exactly. To paraphrase the supporters: "It doesn't do any harm. Gun owners are just paranoid."
    If that's really the case, then why the push to sign and ratify it?
    We know what the answer to that is.
     
    #15
    Last edited: Jul 3, 2013
  16. neophyte

    neophyte Wonderment :) Forum Contributor

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2007
    Messages:
    22,570
    Likes Received:
    1,902
    Grumble

    As we grumble. We need to focus on issues!

    Obama to Ignore Senate, Sign 2nd Amendment-Violating UN Gun Treaty

    Although the treaty is being touted as a way to prevent “illicit trade in conventional weapons,” it actually does far more than that. Among other outrages, it demands that every nation create a registry of gun owners, manufacturers and traders within its borders. And also that each country establish mechanisms that could prevent private individuals from purchasing ammunition for any weapons they do own.

    In other words, this UN treaty would mean the end of our 2nd Amendment rights. And Kerry says Obama will sign it. What kind of madness is this?

    Resolutions condemning the treaty were promptly introduced in both branches of Congress. The measures submitted to the Senate by Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) and to the House of Representatives by Mike Kelly (R-Pa.) declare that the UN Small Arms Treaty “poses significant risks to the national security, foreign policy, and economic interests of the United States, as well as to the constitutional rights of United States citizens and United States sovereignty.”

    Then in March, Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) submitted an amendment to the budget bill that urged the Obama Administration “to uphold Second Amendment rights and prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations Small Arms Treaty.” Inhofe’s amendment was approved by a vote of 53 to 46.
     
    #16
  17. variolamajor

    variolamajor G&G Evangelist

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    2,586
    Likes Received:
    784
    To mobilize his base of course. It's not rock science here. Anyone who has watched Obama for the past 5 years can figure out his entire M.O. consists of "running against something". First - he ran against Bush. Then he ran against the "do nothing republicans". Now when he signs the treaty - knowing full well it won't be ratified - he can go into the mid-term elections next years blaming the republicans for that in hopes that by 2016 the dems will gain seats and again have a filibuster proof senate.
     
    #17
  18. chesterwin

    chesterwin Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2009
    Messages:
    13,375
    Likes Received:
    2,061
    It signed, it will be by the resident, not by the US.
     
    #18
  19. my1871colt45

    my1871colt45 G&G Evangelist

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2011
    Messages:
    1,656
    Likes Received:
    1,056

    If more states had Politicians like Oklahoma,no one would be having this argument!!!
     
    #19
  20. DWFan

    DWFan G&G Evangelist

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2008
    Messages:
    7,852
    Likes Received:
    1,832
    Both US Senators, every Representative to the US House, in fact, every single elected official holding state or federal office in Oklahoma is a Republican.
     
    #20
Verification:
Draft saved Draft deleted