Meh, so what? Just mentioning this singles you out as part of the black helicopter crowd.
I’m sure Obama — who likes to shoot him so clay pigeons! — isn’t going to be pressing the Senate to try to go along with a surrender of national sovereignty to a far-flung collection of international bureaucrats.
After all, he loves his country — and respects its sovereignty — just as much as we do. He merely disagrees on policy.
I know this, because assurances were made to me on these points by very thoughtful GOP realists. You know, the good kind of us.
The United Nations General Assembly on Tuesday signed off on a sweeping, first-of-its-kind treaty to regulate the international arms trade, brushing aside worries from U.S. gun rights advocates that the pact could lead to a national firearms registry and disrupt the American gun market.
The long-debated U.N. Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) requires countries to regulate and control the export of weaponry such as battle tanks, combat vehicles and aircraft and attack helicopters, as well as parts and ammunition for such weapons. It also provides that signatories will not violate arms embargoes, international treaties regarding illicit trafficking, or sell weaponry to countries for genocide, crimes against humanity or other war crimes.
With the Obama administration supporting the final treaty draft, the General Assembly vote was 154 to 3, with 23 abstentions. Iran, Syria and North Korea voted against it.American gun rights activists, though, insist the treaty is riddled with loopholes and is unworkable in part because it includes “small arms and light weapons” in its list of weaponry subject to international regulations. They do not trust U.N. assertions that the pact is meant to regulate only cross-border trade and would have no impact on domestic U.S. laws and markets.
Critics of the treaty were heartened by the U.S. Senate’s resistance to ratifying the document, assuming President Obama sent it to the chamber for ratification. In its budget debate late last month, the Senate approved a non-binding amendment opposing the treaty offered by Sen. James M. Inhofe, Oklahoma Republican, with eight Democrats joining all 45 Republicans backing the amendment.
White House spokesman Jay Carney said Tuesday that “we are pleased to join with the consensus” on the treaty, adding that before the White House gets to planning on how to get it through the Senate, it will first review and assess the language of the treaty itself.
Despite the Senate vote, numerous groups have pressured Mr. Obama to support the treaty, and Amnesty International hailed Tuesday’s vote.
“The voices of reason triumphed over skeptics, treaty opponents and dealers in death to establish a revolutionary treaty that constitutes a major step toward keeping assault rifles, rocket-propelled grenades and other weapons out of the hands of despots and warlords who use them to kill and maim civilians, recruit child soldiers and commit other serious abuses,” said Frank Jannuzi, deputy executive director of Amnesty International USA.
Right. Because arms dealers obey treaties to the letter, and despots who deal in genocide or slavery or “other serious abuses” are routinely rehabilitated by signed documents demanding that they not be who they are.
More public masturbation.
Keep a close watch on how the Obama Administration begins pressing this treaty. Eight Democrats is hardly a stunning display of resistance to an assault on our 2nd Amendment protections. And as Obama has shown with respect to his push to get state Democrats to do his “gun violence” work for him, he is not above applying all manner of pressures to make sure the treaty comes up for a ratification vote. Two-thirds of the Senate, howver, is a big obstacle, and Obama doesn’t like to be seen so evidently failing. So I hold out hope no vote will be forthcoming.
People have asked, what will be the spark that launches the next resistance movement?
I’d say that ratification of any such treaty is one early contender.
Ratification would take 67 yea votes. While we’re a hot mess, we’re not that far gone yet.
21 short
Sunday, 24 March 2013 07:00
Senate Votes to Keep U.S. Out of UN Arms Trade Treaty
Don’t forget that Senators, especially Democrats tend to “evolve” and always toward the Party’s far left. It’s that self fulfilling arrow thing you know.
that’s a super gay treaty I think
I wonder if David Sherfinski typed that with a straight face. Why the hell does he think those U.N. countries supply weapons?
“Under the treaty, countries must also consider whether weapons would be used to violate international humanitarian or human rights laws, facilitate acts of terrorism or organized crime.”
Like, say, Fast and Furious?
Dying to hear someone ask Jay Carney that one, SBP.
a little harry reid for you hobbits
Beware the gun tax
I think it’s sweet that you all still assume that laws, traditions, and the Constitution have anything to do with what this administration wants and how it gets what it wants.
I think I got something in my eye.
Texas AG Abbott Throws ‘Red Flag Alert’ After UN Passes Arms Treaty
levin doing some bush crowd bashing tonite
It’s about time Perino got some sting-smarting slaps across her perky cheeks. She’s a moron, yet gets away with it all day every day.
You shouldn’t feel particularly safe if they get to 66 or maybe even 65. They can bring enormous oressure and huge amounts of dollars to bear to flip a couple of votes if they ever get that close. The fact that you have even 20 senators willing to consider this at all shows just how far we have fallen. Imagine any Senate during the ’70s or 80’s giving this more than a handful of votes.
[…] resistance movement? I’d say that ratification of any such treaty is one early contender. https://proteinwisdom.com/?p=48452 Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than […]
If we don’t ratify the treaty, it will be all Bush’s fault. Much like Kyoto was all his fault, I guess because he didn’t force Clinton to submit the treaty to a Senate that had voted 95-0 against the idea.
Damn you, Dubya!