The Idiot Signed it....

Kerry is as anti-American as they come!! His signature should be treated as an admission of Treason!!

The Second Amendment protects All Rights!!
 
Not a suprise, they all want to bring us to our knees, from with in. It shall get worse, cant get better, the end is near. But I am old and probably wrong.
 
Send your letters to you Reps.
Time to demand that this crap is taken off the table, getting tired of looking at it every 6 months.
 
Kerry signs it and Canada doesn't because they were not clear on the impact on their lawful gun owners. I wasn't sure we could sink any faster.
 
Kerry is traitor to this country and has proven it on several occasions, including when he testified before Congress on atrocities in VietNam that never happened. So why would anyone be surprised that there was no hesitation to sign away American's Constitutional rights.

It is true that it will not be ratified by the Senate. But that will not stop Obama from instituting several of the provisions by executive order. His first act will be to ban the importation of firearms. Brazil (Taurus) will accept the treaty and follow its provisions. If you like Glock, Taurus, Beretta, etc. you better buy them now. It will also provide democrats, who tend toward treasonous acts anyway, some cover when they demand that the U.S. conform to "international norms" despite our Constitutional rights.

There is nothing in that treaty that secures our rights; and they have refused to add such a provision. Even Canada, that had strict law gun control laws up to the recent repeal, refused to sign it because of the restrictions on their citizens. DO NOT TRUST the disingenuous snakes at the UN or in this Administration. For progressives, UN tyrants, and other criminal thugs lies mean nothing and are a natural part of living and conducting business. According to the brilliant diplomats at the UN the U.S. is a human rights violator simply because private citizens are allowed to own firearms.
 
Nothing to see here folks, just move right along... Of course he signed it. Was anyone anywhere ever in doubt? Kerry is part of the big left wing and they are about to find out that they don't even own their own senate. I am of course contacting my congress and senate reps. but I'm certain of their votes as Utah is pretty far from the big left. Still I'm going to make sure they hear my voice.

PRESSURE! Please apply appropriate pressure to your senators. This should die a quick and convincing death. Honestly, I'm not expecting problems here but my eyes are probably misguided as I'm mostly surrounded by like minded folk. Hopefully some less than wacky Demos join against ratification.
 
Well let's see, a chance to take away more American freedoms. Kerry a progressive socialist democrat, yea that fits.
 
We just need to make sure that the senate doesn't pass a resolution of ratification.

***EDITED***

Remember, just because the senate doesn't pass a resolution on the first attempt means nothing. Ratification of the treaty of Versailles wasn't accomplished until a second attempt. They can vote on it as many times as they want, or they could wait on a second vote for years until they are sure they have the votes necessary to ass it. Once the treaty has been signed, it is a ticking time bomb just waiting for the right senate.

The Constitution provides that the president "shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur" (Link Removed). The Constitution's framers gave the Senate a share of the treaty power in order to give the president the benefit of the Senate's advice and counsel, check presidential power, and safeguard the sovereignty of the states by giving each state an equal vote in the treatymaking process. As Alexander Hamilton explained in Link Removed, “the operation of treaties as laws, plead strongly for the participation of the whole or a portion of the legislative body in the office of making them.” The constitutional requirement that the Senate approve a treaty with a two-thirds vote means that successful treaties must gain support that overcomes partisan division. The two-thirds requirement adds to the burdens of the Senate leadership, and may also encourage opponents of a treaty to engage in a variety of dilatory tactics in hopes of obtaining sufficient votes to ensure its defeat.

The Senate does not ratify treaties—the Senate approves or rejects a resolution of ratification. If the resolution passes, then ratification takes place when the instruments of ratification are formally exchanged between the United States and the foreign power(s).

Most treaties submitted to the Senate have received its advice and consent to ratification. During its first 200 years, the Senate approved more than 1,500 treaties and rejected only 21. A number of these, including the Treaty of Versailles, were rejected twice. Most often, the Senate has simply not voted on treaties that its leadership deemed not to have sufficient support within the Senate for approval, and in general these treaties have eventually been withdrawn. At least 85 treaties were eventually withdrawn because the Senate never took final action on them. Treaties may also remain in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for extended periods, since treaties are not required to be resubmitted at the beginning of each new Congress. There have been instances in which treaties have lain dormant within the committee for years, even decades, without action being taken. http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Treaties.htm
Click to expand...
 
buckey01 said:
Kerry is traitor to this country and has proven it on several occasions, including when he testified before Congress on atrocities in VietNam that never happened. So why would anyone be surprised that there was no hesitation to sign away American's Constitutional rights.

It is true that it will not be ratified by the Senate. But that will not stop Obama from instituting several of the provisions by executive order. His first act will be to ban the importation of firearms. Brazil (Taurus) will accept the treaty and follow its provisions. If you like Glock, Taurus, Beretta, etc. you better buy them now. It will also provide democrats, who tend toward treasonous acts anyway, some cover when they demand that the U.S. conform to "international norms" despite our Constitutional rights.

There is nothing in that treaty that secures our rights; and they have refused to add such a provision. Even Canada, that had strict law gun control laws up to the recent repeal, refused to sign it because of the restrictions on their citizens. DO NOT TRUST the disingenuous snakes at the UN or in this Administration. For progressives, UN tyrants, and other criminal thugs lies mean nothing and are a natural part of living and conducting business. According to the brilliant diplomats at the UN the U.S. is a human rights violator simply because private citizens are allowed to own firearms.
Click to expand...
No problem for Glock lovers. I have one in the store that gets around the import requirements. Made entirely in the USA. Beretta also makes guns in the US but in a Commie state of MD.
 
Our whole government in full of morons from the chief moron on down, it's time for a change, hurry up 2014 & 2016.
 
I'd like to see where it says that Kerry can even tie us to the UN. Constitution say President, with advice and consent of the Senate. Doesn't say the Secretary of State.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New Threads

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 94 (members: 0, guests: 94)

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
49,523
Messages
610,661
Members
74,992
Latest member
RedDotArmsTraining

Share this page

Back
Top