2nd Amendment Means nothing to this list

[loveitdou]

I am a conservative and independent voter. I am very much against BOTH parties and really feel that the Whole group in Washington (or Disneyland East as I call it) have betrayed the country. I am not picking on Obama because he's a liberal or Democrat but because he's Totally unqualified to run anything let alone the country. If Obamacare works and I feel that the whole concept will fail- but if it does I can see that it will cause major problems with health care, the deficit and inflation. For example: It will cause my wife's health ins. to go from $416./mo to $730./mo and is causing her old policy to be discontinued, not just her but everyone on that plan- I can live with that but see it going up greatly in price later.


Anyway I am also a believer in the Constitution of the United States. I have heard others say it is out of date, I would ask those do they really believe the present Lawmakers are smarter than the people who wrote the Constitution? HA that's a JOKE and we all know it. Finally on that anyone who is capable of thought knows that the originators of the Constitution were principally interested in the good of the Nation and safeguards for the States vs the Federal Government. Anyone who tells me that the present group in Washington is interested in anything but taking care of themselves is lying to themselves or just sadly uninformed.

Now onto the main subject gun control and the way that they (Washington) is trying to get around the fact that over 70% of the people are against gun control and sneak new laws & in this case treaties onto the American people.............

In a 53-46 vote, the Senate narrowly passed a measure that will stop the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.
The Statement of Purpose from the Bill reads:

"To uphold Second Amendment rights and prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty."

The U.N. Small Arms Treaty, which has been championed by the Obama Administration,
Would have effectively placed a global ban on the import and export of small firearms.
The ban would have affected all private gun owners in the U.S.

And had language that would have implemented an international gun registry on all private guns and ammo. A country can be forced by this treaty to share its list with other countries!


Astonishingly, 46 out of our 100 United States Senators were willing to give away our Constitutional rights to a foreign power.

Here are the 46 senators who voted to give your rights to the U.N.
Baldwin (D-WI)
Baucus (D-MT) - retiring from office in 2014. Romney carried MT by double digits numbers in 2012. Time to kick the DEMS out.
Bennett (D-CO)
Blumenthal (D-CT)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Coons (D-DE)- up for reelection in 2014,
Cowan (D-MA)
Durbin (D-IL) - up for reelection in 2014, will probably win do to Illinois's voter apathy to DEMS.
Feinstein (D-CA)
Franken (D-MN) - up for reelection in 2014 but won by slim margin (less than 1 point) in 2008. So far very low campaign funds.
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Harkin (D-IA) - retiring from office in 2014. Iowa is a purple state so a good chance for pro-gun candidate.
Hirono (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)) - retiring from office in 2014. As in the past, SD can easily go GOP.
Kaine (D-VA)
King (I-ME)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Landrieu (D-LA) - up for reelection in 2014. Has won the last three elections by a total of 3 points!!! 1 of 4 remaining DEM Senators left in the south....time to go!
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI) - retiring from office in 2014. Good pro-gun candidates on the GOP side. If Franken loses it will be very hard for another DEM to win.
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)- up for reelection in 2014.
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murphy (D-CT)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV) - retiring from office in 2014. GOP candidate has a strong polling lead over DEM opponents.
Sanders (I-VT)
Schatz (D-HI)- up for reelection in 2014,
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH) -up for reelection in 2014 no clear cut opponent but New Hampshire is an unpredictable state.
Stabenow (D-MI)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM) -up for reelection in 2014. So far fails to raise a "strong war chest" in a state were Republicans are competitive !!
Warner (D-VA)-up for reelection in 2014. Has a high liberal voting record in a state that often votes conservative.
Warren (D-MA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)
Folks: This needs to go viral. These Senators voted to let the UN take OUR guns. They need to lose their next election. We have been betrayed AGAIN. 46 Senators Voted to Give your 2nd Amendment Constitutional Rights to the U.N.

FINALLY FOR ME THIS IS NOT SO MUCH ABOUT GUN CONTROL AS IT IS ABOUT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IGNORING THE CONSTITUTION AND GO AROUND IT-ILLEGALLY

[IIFFOFRDB]

Originally Posted by loveitdou

I am a conservative and independent voter. I am very much against BOTH parties and really feel that the Whole group in Washington (or Disneyland East as I call it) have betrayed the country. I am not picking on Obama because he's a liberal or Democrat but because he's Totally unqualified to run anything let alone the country. If Obamacare works and I feel that the whole concept will fail- but if it does I can see that it will cause major problems with health care, the deficit and inflation. For example: It will cause my wife's health ins. to go from $416./mo to $730./mo and is causing her old policy to be discontinued, not just her but everyone on that plan- I can live with that but see it going up greatly in price later.


Anyway I am also a believer in the Constitution of the United States. I have heard others say it is out of date, I would ask those do they really believe the present Lawmakers are smarter than the people who wrote the Constitution? HA that's a JOKE and we all know it. Finally on that anyone who is capable of thought knows that the originators of the Constitution were principally interested in the good of the Nation and safeguards for the States vs the Federal Government. Anyone who tells me that the present group in Washington is interested in anything but taking care of themselves is lying to themselves or just sadly uninformed.

Now onto the main subject gun control and the way that they (Washington) is trying to get around the fact that over 70% of the people are against gun control and sneak new laws & in this case treaties onto the American people.............

In a 53-46 vote, the Senate narrowly passed a measure that will stop the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.
The Statement of Purpose from the Bill reads:

"To uphold Second Amendment rights and prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty."

The U.N. Small Arms Treaty, which has been championed by the Obama Administration,
Would have effectively placed a global ban on the import and export of small firearms.
The ban would have affected all private gun owners in the U.S.

And had language that would have implemented an international gun registry on all private guns and ammo. A country can be forced by this treaty to share its list with other countries!


Astonishingly, 46 out of our 100 United States Senators were willing to give away our Constitutional rights to a foreign power.

Here are the 46 senators who voted to give your rights to the U.N.
Baldwin (D-WI)
Baucus (D-MT) - retiring from office in 2014. Romney carried MT by double digits numbers in 2012. Time to kick the DEMS out.
Bennett (D-CO)
Blumenthal (D-CT)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Coons (D-DE)- up for reelection in 2014,
Cowan (D-MA)
Durbin (D-IL) - up for reelection in 2014, will probably win do to Illinois's voter apathy to DEMS.
Feinstein (D-CA)
Franken (D-MN) - up for reelection in 2014 but won by slim margin (less than 1 point) in 2008. So far very low campaign funds.
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Harkin (D-IA) - retiring from office in 2014. Iowa is a purple state so a good chance for pro-gun candidate.
Hirono (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)) - retiring from office in 2014. As in the past, SD can easily go GOP.
Kaine (D-VA)
King (I-ME)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Landrieu (D-LA) - up for reelection in 2014. Has won the last three elections by a total of 3 points!!! 1 of 4 remaining DEM Senators left in the south....time to go!
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI) - retiring from office in 2014. Good pro-gun candidates on the GOP side. If Franken loses it will be very hard for another DEM to win.
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)- up for reelection in 2014.
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murphy (D-CT)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV) - retiring from office in 2014. GOP candidate has a strong polling lead over DEM opponents.
Sanders (I-VT)
Schatz (D-HI)- up for reelection in 2014,
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH) -up for reelection in 2014 no clear cut opponent but New Hampshire is an unpredictable state.
Stabenow (D-MI)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM) -up for reelection in 2014. So far fails to raise a "strong war chest" in a state were Republicans are competitive !!
Warner (D-VA)-up for reelection in 2014. Has a high liberal voting record in a state that often votes conservative.
Warren (D-MA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)
Folks: This needs to go viral. These Senators voted to let the UN take OUR guns. They need to lose their next election. We have been betrayed AGAIN. 46 Senators Voted to Give your 2nd Amendment Constitutional Rights to the U.N.

FINALLY FOR ME THIS IS NOT SO MUCH ABOUT GUN CONTROL AS IT IS ABOUT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IGNORING THE CONSTITUTION AND GO AROUND IT-ILLEGALLY

I will personally make sure this stays on the 1st page till after the 2014 elections...Thank You!

[IIFFOFRDB]

Life is Good...

[JD Barleycorn]

To paraphrase some democrats; the second amendment is the "law of the land". Before the panties bunch up...laws have ways to be changed which the GOP is trying to do and amendments have ways to be changed as well (which the liberals are not doing).

[timpage]

As usual, you're all half-wits. Make sure this response stays on page one too, dumbass.

• The Arms Trade Treaty has nothing to do with restricting the legal sale or ownership of guns within the United States. The aim of the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty is to combat the illicit international trade of arms by "tightening regulation of, and setting international standards for, the import, export and transfer of conventional weapons" in order to "close gaps in existing regional and national arms export control systems that allow weapons to pass onto the illicit market": The Arms Trade Treaty obligates member states to monitor arms exports and ensure that weapons don't cross existing arms embargoes or end up being used for human-rights abuses, including terrorism. Member states, with the assistance of the U.N., will put into place enforceable, standardized arms import and export regulations (much like those that already exist in the U.S.) and be expected to track the destination of exports to ensure they don't end up in the wrong hands. Ideally, that means limiting the inflow of deadly weapons into places like Syria.
  The text of the proposed treaty specifically "reaffirms the sovereign right and responsibility of any State to regulate and control transfers of conventional arms that take place exclusively within its territory, pursuant to its own legal or constitutional systems," so even if such a treaty came to pass, U.S. rights and laws regarding the sale and ownership of small arms would still apply within the United States.
• The Obama administration has stated that mandatory conditions for U.S. approval of such an arms trade treaty include the following:
  • The Second Amendment to the Constitution must be upheld.
  • There will be no restrictions on civilian possession or trade of firearms otherwise permitted by law or protected by the U.S. Constitution.
  • There will be no dilution or diminishing of sovereign control over issues involving the private acquisition, ownership, or possession of firearms, which must remain matters of domestic law.
  As the Wall Street Journal reported, the U.S. 'voted in favor [of the treaty only] after the Obama Administration secured its key "red line" that the treaty would have no impact on the Second Amendment. The final draft specifies "non-intervention in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction" of signatories.'

No such treaty could "bypass the normal legislative process in Congress," as all treaties to which the U.S. is a signatory must first be approved by a two-thirds vote of the U.S. Senate before they are considered to be ratified and binding.

The President of the United States cannot enact a "complete ban on all weapons for US citizens through the signing of international treaties with foreign nations." The right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed in the Constitution of the United States, and in the 1957 case Reid v. Covert, the U.S. Supreme Court established that the Constitution supersedes international treaties ratified by the U.S. Senate.

As Rachel Stohl, a senior associate with the Managing Across Boundaries initiative at the Stimson Center and co-author of the book The International Arms Trade, noted:
Those opposed to the accord have misrepresented what it does, suggesting that it would somehow infringe on American gun owners’ rights. It would do nothing of the kind.

The treaty applies only to international transfers of conventional arms and, in fact, reaffirms “the sovereign right of any State to regulate and control conventional arms” within its territory. The treaty's preamble also makes specific reference to the legitimate trade, lawful ownership and use of certain conventional arms for recreational, cultural, historical and sporting activities.

Secretary of State John Kerry emphasized these points in his statement welcoming the treaty's adoption, noting that “nothing in this treaty could ever infringe on the rights of American citizens under our domestic law or the Constitution, including the Second Amendment,” a point on which the United States insisted throughout the negotiations. This treaty has no reach into domestic gun policy, nor would it create a United Nations gun registry. There is absolutely nothing in it that violates the Second Amendment.
In short, there is no "legal way around the 2nd Amendment" other than a further amendment to the Constitution that repeals or alters it, or a Supreme Court decision that radically reinterprets how the 2nd Amendment is to be applied.

Updated An item circulated in April 2013 claimed to identify "46 senators that voted to give your rights to the U.N." in reference to a Senate vote on the U.S. Arms Trade Treaty:
WHAT A MESS

Over the weekend, we came four votes away from the United States Senate giving our Constitutional rights over to the United Nations. In a 53-46 vote, the senate narrowly passed a measure that will stop the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.

The Statement of Purpose from the bill read:

To uphold Second Amendment rights and prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.

The U.N. Small Arms Treaty, which has been championed by the Obama Administration, would have effectively placed a global ban on the import and export of small firearms. The ban would have affected all private gun owners in the U.S., and had language that would have implemented an international gun registry on all private guns and ammo.

Astonishingly, 46 of our United States Senators were willing to give away our Constitutional rights to a foreign power.

Here are the 46 senators that voted to give your rights to the U.N. Notice that ALL are either Democrat or "Independent."
However, the measure voted upon was not the treaty itself, but a non-binding test amendment expressing opposition to the ATT which was tacked onto an unrelated congressional budget resolution. The record of the U.S. Senate Roll Call Vote confirms that all the senators who voted against the amendment were Democrats or independents.

Last updated: 26 September 2013

Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp#1RQHY53KhSoMvxvG. 99

[loveitdou]

Agreed BC but in this presidency we have witnessed over 900 executive orders- that's 8 times the number of executive orders by ALL previous Presidents.

I my opinion,and I know I'll catch flack over this, I see it as overtly subverting the law of the land and I believe many Dems in Congress agree.

You know I don't believe that name calling is appropriate in this forum or most any other, I prefer to take the high road and discuss the matter rationally. I that light I do agree with what you said timpage.

[CuteOldGuy]

Well, at least we know we can trust Obama.

[chefnerd]

Originally Posted by loveitdou

Agreed BC but in this presidency we have witnessed over 900 executive orders- that's 8 times the number of executive orders by ALL previous Presidents.

Don't know where you are getting your information, but you definitely need to get from somewhere else, like somewhere actually reputable. Obama has issued, as of July this year, all of 161. That's less than any president since Benjamin Harrison.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/...#axzz2jXjXI2w9

http://www.forbes.com/sites/richards...-a-mere-piker/

[CuteOldGuy]

You're being awfully picky, loveitdou. They don't care about any of the other amendments in the Bill of Rights, either.

[Munchmasterman]

Originally Posted by loveitdou

I am a conservative and independent voter. I am very much against BOTH parties and really feel that the Whole group in Washington (or Disneyland East as I call it) have betrayed the country. I am not picking on Obama because he's a liberal or Democrat but because he's Totally unqualified to run anything let alone the country. If Obamacare works and I feel that the whole concept will fail- but if it does I can see that it will cause major problems with health care, the deficit and inflation. For example: It will cause my wife's health ins. to go from $416./mo to $730./mo and is causing her old policy to be discontinued, not just her but everyone on that plan- I can live with that but see it going up greatly in price later.


Anyway I am also a believer in the Constitution of the United States. I have heard others say it is out of date, I would ask those do they really believe the present Lawmakers are smarter than the people who wrote the Constitution? HA that's a JOKE and we all know it. Finally on that anyone who is capable of thought knows that the originators of the Constitution were principally interested in the good of the Nation and safeguards for the States vs the Federal Government. Anyone who tells me that the present group in Washington is interested in anything but taking care of themselves is lying to themselves or just sadly uninformed.

Now onto the main subject gun control and the way that they (Washington) is trying to get around the fact that over 70% of the people are against gun control and sneak new laws & in this case treaties onto the American people.............

In a 53-46 vote, the Senate narrowly passed a measure that will stop the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.
The Statement of Purpose from the Bill reads:

"To uphold Second Amendment rights and prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty."

The U.N. Small Arms Treaty, which has been championed by the Obama Administration,
Would have effectively placed a global ban on the import and export of small firearms.
The ban would have affected all private gun owners in the U.S.

And had language that would have implemented an international gun registry on all private guns and ammo. A country can be forced by this treaty to share its list with other countries!


Astonishingly, 46 out of our 100 United States Senators were willing to give away our Constitutional rights to a foreign power.

Here are the 46 senators who voted to give your rights to the U.N.
Baldwin (D-WI)
Baucus (D-MT) - retiring from office in 2014. Romney carried MT by double digits numbers in 2012. Time to kick the DEMS out.
Bennett (D-CO)
Blumenthal (D-CT)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Coons (D-DE)- up for reelection in 2014,
Cowan (D-MA)
Durbin (D-IL) - up for reelection in 2014, will probably win do to Illinois's voter apathy to DEMS.
Feinstein (D-CA)
Franken (D-MN) - up for reelection in 2014 but won by slim margin (less than 1 point) in 2008. So far very low campaign funds.
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Harkin (D-IA) - retiring from office in 2014. Iowa is a purple state so a good chance for pro-gun candidate.
Hirono (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)) - retiring from office in 2014. As in the past, SD can easily go GOP.
Kaine (D-VA)
King (I-ME)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Landrieu (D-LA) - up for reelection in 2014. Has won the last three elections by a total of 3 points!!! 1 of 4 remaining DEM Senators left in the south....time to go!
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI) - retiring from office in 2014. Good pro-gun candidates on the GOP side. If Franken loses it will be very hard for another DEM to win.
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)- up for reelection in 2014.
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murphy (D-CT)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV) - retiring from office in 2014. GOP candidate has a strong polling lead over DEM opponents.
Sanders (I-VT)
Schatz (D-HI)- up for reelection in 2014,
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH) -up for reelection in 2014 no clear cut opponent but New Hampshire is an unpredictable state.
Stabenow (D-MI)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM) -up for reelection in 2014. So far fails to raise a "strong war chest" in a state were Republicans are competitive !!
Warner (D-VA)-up for reelection in 2014. Has a high liberal voting record in a state that often votes conservative.
Warren (D-MA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)
Folks: This needs to go viral. These Senators voted to let the UN take OUR guns. They need to lose their next election. We have been betrayed AGAIN. 46 Senators Voted to Give your 2nd Amendment Constitutional Rights to the U.N.

FINALLY FOR ME THIS IS NOT SO MUCH ABOUT GUN CONTROL AS IT IS ABOUT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IGNORING THE CONSTITUTION AND GO AROUND IT-ILLEGALLY

The perfect thread to keep on the front page. One question.
What heath plan at which provider with the number of enrollees are you referring to? Every part of your post with exception of your health care example is anecdotal and incorrect. I think that is bogus also. Since only you have the specifics of your plan, let's hear them. Where do your numbers come from?

Here is the gun control poll link. Poll is at the end.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...cal-slam-dunk/

Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

I will personally make sure this stays on the 1st page till after the 2014 elections...Thank You!

You make sure you do that.

Originally Posted by loveitdou

Agreed BC but in this presidency we have witnessed over 900 executive orders- that's 8 times the number of executive orders by ALL previous Presidents.

I my opinion,and I know I'll catch flack over this, I see it as overtly subverting the law of the land and I believe many Dems in Congress agree.

You know I don't believe that name calling is appropriate in this forum or most any other, I prefer to take the high road and discuss the matter rationally. I that light I do agree with what you said timpage.

Another incorrect fact. Still waiting on those numbers from your health plan.

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

You're being awfully picky, loveitdou. They don't care about any of the other amendments in the Bill of Rights, either.

You don't concern yourself with the content or facts contained in these posts much anymore. What's the problem? Medication? Massive loss of brain cells? Regression back to infancy? Don't make me guess. Or is it you telling it like it is and we're just name callers?

[Yssup Rider]

Here we go again.

There is no spoon...

[Doove]

Originally Posted by loveitdou

Agreed BC but in this presidency we have witnessed over 900 executive orders- that's 8 times the number of executive orders by ALL previous Presidents.

If there isn't already an award for the most factually inaccurate claim ever, we need to start one.

Originally Posted by chefnerd

Don't know where you are getting your information, but you definitely need to get from somewhere else, like somewhere actually reputable. Obama has issued, as of July this year, all of 161. That's less than any president since Benjamin Harrison.

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

You're being awfully picky, loveitdou. They don't care about any of the other amendments in the Bill of Rights, either.

What we care about is facts. You, not so much apparently.

[IIFFOFRDB]

Originally Posted by loveitdou

Agreed BC but in this presidency we have witnessed over 900 executive orders- that's 8 times the number of executive orders by ALL previous Presidents.

I my opinion,and I know I'll catch flack over this, I see it as overtly subverting the law of the land and I believe many Dems in Congress agree.

You know I don't believe that name calling is appropriate in this forum or most any other, I prefer to take the high road and discuss the matter rationally. I that light I do agree with what you said timpage.

139 EO's would be the true number.

[Doove]

Originally Posted by loveitdou

You know I don't believe that name calling is appropriate in this forum or most any other, I prefer to take the high road and discuss the matter rationally.

What's your stance on calling someone a liar?

[IIFFOFRDB]

Originally Posted by Doove

What's your stance on calling someone a liar?

your avatar still appears to have a bad case of the CLAP...LOL