from our senator kay hagan

[misunderstood]

I emailed office of Senator Kay Hagan about UN gun treaty. Where she stood on subject. It took a few days to get a response but at least I got a response. Either way this it the email i got back.

Dear Friend,

Thank you for contacting me regarding Second Amendment rights. I greatly appreciate your thoughts on this important matter.

As you know, in 2006 the United Nations (UN) began discussions regarding an Arms Trade Treaty. While the United States originally opposed these discussions, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has more recently stated that the United States would support and participate in these talks. In October 2009, the UN adopted, by a vote of 153-1 with the United States in support, a resolution laying out a timetable for negotiations. However, even should a treaty be signed, it would require the approval of two-thirds of the Senate before it would be considered ratified and in effect.

I understand your concerns regarding the protection of Second Amendment rights and I oppose allowing international law to override our constitutional rights. Like you, I support the Second Amendment. My family, like the great state of North Carolina, has a long tradition of hunting and gun ownership, and I take great pride in that heritage. Already during my time in Congress, I have voted on various pieces of legislation that protect Second Amendment rights, including to correct the District of Columbia's overly-strict firearm regulations in order to protect Second Amendment rights in our nation's capital.

President Obama has not sent any treaty regarding gun control to the Senate; however, I can assure you I will take your opinions and comments into account as I consider this important issue.
Again, thank you for contacting my office. It is truly an honor to represent North Carolina in the United States Senate, and I hope you will not hesitate to contact me in the future should you have any further questions or concerns. If you would like to stay informed on my work in the Senate, you can sign up for my e-newsletter, follow me on Twitter at @SenatorHagan, or visit my Facebook page.

Sincerely,



Kay R. Hagan

 

[JPG55]

This is kind of garbage replys I get from my Senators.


Dear Mr. Gollin:

Thank you for contacting me concerning the United Nations (U.N.) Convention on the Law of the Sea (Treaty Doc.103-39). I support ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty.

This Convention, drafted by the Third U.N. Conference on the Law of the Sea, which met between 1973 and 1982, established an international legal framework governing activities on, over, and under the world’s oceans. Such a framework would serve to protect the environment and would address pollution problems from a range of sources. The Convention was open for signature between 1982 and 1984. Although the United States supported most of the provisions of the Convention, the U.S., along with several other industrialized nations, did not sign the agreement because of disagreements with certain provisions regarding deep seabed mining beyond national jurisdiction. Nonetheless, President Reagan, in a March 1983 Oceans Policy Statement, announced that the United States would accept and act in accordance with the provisions of the Convention with respect to “traditional uses of the oceans,” generally consisting of all the Convention’s substantive provisions except those relating to deep seabed mining. This policy remains in effect.

In the early 1990s, negotiations resumed within the United Nations on reforming the Law of the Sea Convention to address the concerns of the United States and other industrialized countries. These negotiations resulted in the 1994 Implementing Agreement, which amended the deep seabed mining provisions contained in the original Convention. President Clinton signed the Agreement on July 29, 1994, and subsequently submitted it on October 7, 1994, along with the 1982 Convention to the U.S. Senate for its advice and consent.

Last Congress, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held hearings on this treaty. Witnesses at these hearings argued that the Convention is important to national security because it protects navigation and overflight rights; it offers economic benefits to the United States and protects our ability to explore and utilize the natural resources within an economic zone extending 200 miles from our shore; it is an important step in protecting the marine environment; and the United States will be more able to exercise its influence over international oceanic issues. In addition, the U.S. Navy testified that it supports ratification of this treaty. However, the Convention was not brought before the full Senate for consideration during the 110th Congress.

I believe it is important for the United States to demonstrate leadership on this issue. If we do not accede to this Convention, which is already in force, we are less able to participate in its implementation and possible modification. By ratifying the Law of the Sea Convention, the United States has an opportunity to advance U.S. national security interests, to assume a prominent role in implementing the Convention commensurate with our status as the world’s largest maritime power, and to enhance our ability to work with other nations to influence the direction of international maritime law. On January 13, 2009, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton acknowledged that accession to this Convention would be a priority for the Obama administration.

Again, thank you for contacting me.

Sincerely,
Carl Levin
levin.senate.gov
--------------------
Dear James,

Thank you for contacting me about your opposition to the Law of the Sea Treaty. I appreciate you taking the time to share your views with me.

The Law of the Sea Treaty establishes guidelines and principles to resolve maritime disputes. Since 1983, the United States has adhered to many of the provisions in the treaty. The Department of Defense, the Department of State, the Department of Commerce, and the U.S. Navy have all stated that the Law of the Sea Treaty will benefit the United States' national security interests and will not undermine American sovereignty. Should this treaty come before me for a vote, I will be sure to keep your strong views in mind.

Again, thank you for taking the time to contact me. Please feel free to do so whenever I may be of assistance to you or your family.

Sincerely,

Debbie Stabenow
United States Senator
--------------------

I EXPECT THAT MY SENATORS WILL BLINDLY FOLLOW WHAT OBAMA WANTS, AND WILL RATIFY THIS GARBAGE RESOLUTION. ANYTHING TO CONTROL GUNS FROM LAWFUL CITIZENS. THE U.S. IS A SOVEREIGN NATION, NOT SUBJECT TO GLOBAL CONTROL. THESE SENATORS NEED TO BE VOTED OUT, AND THE U.N. NEEDS TO BE DISBANDED.

 

[eagleeyes]

if nations leaders were smart they wouldn't joined the united nations in the first place and if nations didn't join there would be no stinkin 'united nations' to dictate what nations leaders do
but so long we have corporate and crown arse kissers the united nations will continue to corrupt as they gain more power over more nations.....any all capitalized lettered entity UN NAFTA CAFTA CFR NATO AIPAC ......... ect ect are NOT our friends or any friend of ones sovereignty liberty freedom ......

 

[dcselby1]

This is kind of garbage replys I get from my Senators.



I EXPECT THAT MY SENATORS WILL BLINDLY FOLLOW WHAT OBAMA WANTS, AND WILL RATIFY THIS GARBAGE RESOLUTION. ANYTHING TO CONTROL GUNS FROM LAWFUL CITIZENS. THE U.S. IS A SOVEREIGN NATION, NOT SUBJECT TO GLOBAL CONTROL. THESE SENATORS NEED TO BE VOTED OUT, AND THE U.N. NEEDS TO BE DISBANDED.

Part way through the second graph of the first reply, I thought that this sounded just like that ********e Levin. Guess I was right. Also, the reply from Debbie Stabmenow is EXACTLY the reply I received from her.

 

[dcselby1]

if nations leaders were smart they wouldn't joined the united nations in the first place and if nations didn't join there would be no stinkin 'united nations' to dictate what nations leaders do
but so long we have corporate and crown arse kissers the united nations will continue to corrupt as they gain more power over more nations.....any all capitalized lettered entity UN NAFTA CAFTA CFR NATO AIPAC ......... ect ect are NOT our friends or any friend of ones sovereignty liberty freedom ......

One World. One Government. It's coming to our country soon. Glad I won't be around.