Senate Vote on UN Arms Trade Treaty

Posted in the Grandville Forum

Rob

United States

#1 Apr 6, 2013
With a vote of 53-46 in the pre-dawn hours Saturday, the Senate approved a measure "to uphold
Second Amendment rights and prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations
Arms Trade Treaty."
Here is a list of the 46 traitors that thought our 2nd Amendment isn't worth upholding, and Are
willing to hand it over to the UN. These traitors need to be unemployed come the next election.

Levin and Stabenow are on the list
Mark Luxford

Grand Rapids, MI

#2 Apr 8, 2013
Rob wrote:
With a vote of 53-46 in the pre-dawn hours Saturday, the Senate approved a measure "to uphold
Second Amendment rights and prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations
Arms Trade Treaty."
Here is a list of the 46 traitors that thought our 2nd Amendment isn't worth upholding, and Are
willing to hand it over to the UN. These traitors need to be unemployed come the next election.
Levin and Stabenow are on the list
Paranoid much? The treaty involves international arms trade. It would not affect your 2nd Amendment rights in any way:

www.un.org/disarmament/convarms/ArmsTrade/
Dr X

Byron Center, MI

#3 Apr 8, 2013
Mark Luxford wrote:
<quoted text>
Paranoid much? The treaty involves international arms trade. It would not affect your 2nd Amendment rights in any way:
www.un.org/disarmament/convarms/ArmsTrade/
Maybe, maybe not. How are you so sure?
Batch 37 Pain Is Good

Mount Morris, MI

#4 Apr 8, 2013
Mark Luxford wrote:
<quoted text>
Paranoid much? The treaty involves international arms trade. It would not affect your 2nd Amendment rights in any way:
www.un.org/disarmament/convarms/ArmsTrade/
Ratified treaties do overrule our Constitution....... Chip chip chip....
Mark Luxford

Grand Rapids, MI

#5 Apr 9, 2013
Dr X wrote:
<quoted text>Maybe, maybe not. How are you so sure?
I'm so sure because I did my due diligence and looked up information on the treaty. I didn't base my opinion on the paranoid fears of some people.
Mark Luxford

Grand Rapids, MI

#6 Apr 9, 2013
Batch 37 Pain Is Good wrote:
<quoted text>Ratified treaties do overrule our Constitution....... Chip chip chip....
Oh really? Can you provide an example or two of international treaties that led the government to violate our Constitution?
Batch 37 Pain Is Good

Brighton, MI

#7 Apr 9, 2013
Mark Luxford wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh really? Can you provide an example or two of international treaties that led the government to violate our Constitution?
Look to the Supreme Court.......
Dr X

Byron Center, MI

#8 Apr 9, 2013
Mark Luxford wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm so sure because I did my due diligence and looked up information on the treaty. I didn't base my opinion on the paranoid fears of some people.
I looked at it too and for the moment it doesn't look like it affects the 2nd Amendment. However, my question is, will this treaty ever expand? Will it ever change or will something be added to it in the future that WOULD affect our rights? It's not fear that makes us question the treaty it's (you used the word) "diligence" that we keep our overall sovereignty. Don't want to be caught with your pants down, especially when there's a rattlesnake in the area.
Batch 37 Pain Is Good

Mount Morris, MI

#9 Apr 9, 2013
Dr X wrote:
<quoted text>I looked at it too and for the moment it doesn't look like it affects the 2nd Amendment. However, my question is, will this treaty ever expand? Will it ever change or will something be added to it in the future that WOULD affect our rights? It's not fear that makes us question the treaty it's (you used the word) "diligence" that we keep our overall sovereignty. Don't want to be caught with your pants down, especially when there's a rattlesnake in the area.
I stopped pissing in the wind years ago.......
Batch 37 Pain Is Good

Mount Morris, MI

#10 Apr 9, 2013
Looks like the Libs are on a Union break.....
Mark Luxford

Grand Rapids, MI

#11 Apr 10, 2013
Batch 37 Pain Is Good wrote:
<quoted text>Look to the Supreme Court.......
Got it. You can't come up with any examples to substantiate your claim.
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

#12 Apr 10, 2013
Mark Luxford wrote:
<quoted text>
Got it. You can't come up with any examples to substantiate your claim.
Never has, never will. Just loves making as many as he can look up when calling out the sky is falling.

“lover”

Since: Feb 09

Dorr MI

#14 Apr 10, 2013
This is a blow to Russian arms makers, they thought they would corner the market. I wonder how many countries Russia has sold arms to so as to gain their support? Any way this doesn't follow the NAFTA...
little Jimmy

United States

#15 Apr 10, 2013
Living Large2 wrote:
This is a blow to Russian arms makers, they thought they would corner the market. I wonder how many countries Russia has sold arms to so as to gain their support? Any way this doesn't follow the NAFTA...
At least Russia makes money for it! We just give weapons for free!
Batch 37 Pain Is Good

Southfield, MI

#16 Apr 10, 2013
Mark Luxford wrote:
<quoted text>
Got it. You can't come up with any examples to substantiate your claim.
Really? You need me to come up with your information? It is in the law which is why the Senate slows things down....
Jeff

Seattle, WA

#17 Apr 21, 2013
Actually, it is illegal and would mandate a US firearms registry system be put in place. Look it up, we have laws against that. It also "allows" firearm ownership for sporting, collecting, historical and culteral reasons. No where does it state self protection. The UN is a joke. Mark, do your homework...
Mark Luxford

Grand Rapids, MI

#18 Apr 24, 2013
Jeff wrote:
Actually, it is illegal and would mandate a US firearms registry system be put in place. Look it up, we have laws against that. It also "allows" firearm ownership for sporting, collecting, historical and culteral reasons. No where does it state self protection. The UN is a joke. Mark, do your homework...
Actually, Jeff, I got my information from what the UN said about the treaty and what fact-checkers had to say about the claim that it would affect our 2nd Amendment rights. I did follow your suggestion, though, and looked up the text of the treaty. I'd like to quote some of the relevant parts of the treaty. From the Preamble:

"Reaffirming the sovereign right of any State to regulate and control conventional arms exclusively within its territory, pursuant to its own legal or constitutional system."

"Mindful of the legitimate trade and lawful ownership, and use of certain conventional arms for recreational, cultural, historical, and sporting activities, where such trade, ownership and use are permitted or protected by law."

So, I can see why you put the word "allow" in quotes. That word is not a part of the statement you were referring to. I read that statement to mean that the UN is recognizing the 2nd Amendment rights, not allowing them.

Now, referring to the weapons covered in the treaty. Those are tanks, armored combat vehicles, artillery systems, combat aircraft, attack helicopters, warships, missiles and missile launchers, and small arms and light weapons. Clearly, the purpose of the treaty is its stated purpose, to fight the illegal weapons trade. Small arms and light weapons is just one small part of what they're trying to get a handle on.

That firearms registry you claim it would require is just a figment of your imagination. The treaty doesn't call for the implementation of a firearms registry, what it calls for is a "National control system controlling the international trade of weapons, including a national control list in order to implement the provisions of the treaty."

What does that national control list cover? All of the weapons I mentioned above, plus the manufacturers of party for the weapons. That control list is not a registery of who owns guns, it involves the manufacturers of the weapons so that if they turn up in the possession of those who obtained them illegally, investigators will have a way of tracking how those weapons got in the hands of those peoples.

The bottom line, Jeff, is that this treaty is all about international weapons trade and not a gun-grabbing effort. It recognizes our laws and is not illegal in any way.
Mark Luxford

Grand Rapids, MI

#19 Apr 24, 2013
Batch 37 Pain Is Good wrote:
<quoted text>Really? You need me to come up with your information? It is in the law which is why the Senate slows things down....
No, I don't need you to come up with my information. I'm just not going to tilt at the windmills you want me to go after. I guess you've forgotten that it's impossible to prove a negative. You made a positive statement, that there have been treaties which have overruled our Constitution. It's simply an expectation in discussions that if you make a claim like that, you ought to be able to provide evidence to support your claim. You seem to be unwilling to provide that evidence. Apparently you want to just pull stuff out of some part of your anatomy and claim that is a fact without providing any evidence.
Sharon

Caledonia, MI

#20 Apr 25, 2013
Mark Luxford wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I don't need you to come up with my information. I'm just not going to tilt at the windmills you want me to go after. I guess you've forgotten that it's impossible to prove a negative. You made a positive statement, that there have been treaties which have overruled our Constitution. It's simply an expectation in discussions that if you make a claim like that, you ought to be able to provide evidence to support your claim. You seem to be unwilling to provide that evidence. Apparently you want to just pull stuff out of some part of your anatomy and claim that is a fact without providing any evidence.
Evidence? Your post contains plenty of evidence that you are arrogant and ignorant.

You are a buffoon.
Mark Luxford

Grand Rapids, MI

#21 Apr 25, 2013
Sharon wrote:
<quoted text>
Evidence? Your post contains plenty of evidence that you are arrogant and ignorant.
You are a buffoon.
Got it Sharon. You seem to be another one of those who believes they can say any damn thing they like without providing any evidence to support their contention. Having said that, I won't sink to your level and call you names. Have a nice day!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Grandville Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Grand Rapids; a good place to live? (Mar '12) 4 hr elenaounis 186
Mana s arrest is linked to deadly barbershop sh... 7 hr Gville Jim 2
Al Sharpton's Marchers in New York City Chant "... 7 hr Gville Jim 16
Jesus Steals Christmas Back From Satan 9 hr DrX 13
College football roundup: Ohio State starts the... (Sep '13) 14 hr Go Blue Forever 1,494
pope-a-dope Sat Really 3
welcome to the new black america Sat Really 6
Grandville Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Grandville People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Grandville News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Grandville

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 5:42 pm PST

Bleacher Report 5:42PM
Carroll: Rodgers Should Be Near 100% for First Playoff Game
Bleacher Report 6:27 PM
Stafford, Lions' Struggles on Road Spell Disaster for Playoffs
Bleacher Report 6:56 PM
Lions Come Back To Earth in Disappointing Loss to Packers
NBC Sports 8:48 PM
Crisis averted: No AT&T Stadium scheduling conflict for CFP championship
Bleacher Report 9:35 PM
5 Takeaways from Lions' Loss in Green Bay