A list of the 46 U.S. Senator who voted to give away our 2nd amendment rights to the UN.

[Irontree]

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) 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) Cowan (D-MA) Durbin (D-IL) Feinstein (D-CA) Franken (D-MN) Gillibrand (D-NY) Harkin (D-IA) Hirono (D-HI) Johnson (D-SD) Kaine (D-VA) King (I-ME) Klobuchar (D-MN) Landrieu (D-LA) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI) McCaskill (D-MO) Menendez (D-NJ) Merkley (D-OR) Mikulski (D-MD) Murphy (D-CT) Murray (D-WA) Nelson (D-FL) Reed (D-RI) Reid (D-NV) Rockefeller (D-WV) Sanders (I-VT) Schatz (D-HI) Schumer (D-NY) Shaheen (D-NH) Stabenow (D-MI) Udall (D-CO) Udall (D-NM) Warner (D-VA) Warren (D-MA) Whitehouse (D-RI) Wyden (D-OR)

What? No Republicans????

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. 46 Senators Voted to Give your 2nd Amendment Constitutional Rights to the U.N.

Please share this with SOMEONE!

Don't forget THESE names when you vote.

Any doubts? Look at Item 11 of UN RES 2117.

The U.N. Resolution 2117 lists 21 points dealing with firearms control, but perhaps of most interest is point number 11. It: “CALLS FOR MEMBER STATES TO SUPPORT WEAPONS COLLECTION and DISARMAMENT of all UN countries”.

[Apache Hawk 60642]

I personally asked Franken and Klobuchar why they voted that way when they made they only appearance at our State Fair.

 

Their reply...... "THEY WHERE NOT HERE TO DISCUSS WHAT HAS ALREADY BEEN DONE !"

 

That maybe but I know they will not get get back in !

[Irontree]

Along time ago I was visiting my mother in Prescott AZ one of her friends ask me why I was against having mandatory gun registration. As best I remember I answered like this:
"Let's say I came home and found a friend in my bedroom looking in my closet without my permission. I ask him what he's doing and he says that he's just looking to see what I own, but he wasn't planning to take anything." Should I believe him?
She said, "Well, that's not the same thing."
"No, registration is worse." I said, "I don't have to catch the government snooping to know that it's NOT my friend and if I am forced by law to turn over information on what I own they have entered my home without my permission and are searching through my belongings armed with threats."

[Hurricane Deck 100366]

This is interesting reading on this "treaty". While I applaud keeping a very close eye on our elected officials and a tight grip on the nations purse strings, it's important to have the entire story before making a judgement. One of the reasons why your senator wasn't willing to speak to you publicly about their vote is because the actual item 'voted' on was complicated and difficult to explain quickly. our 2nd amendment rights are not in jeopardy from the UN. In short, no international organization can make laws that overrule our nations constitution.

 

http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp

 

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.

Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp#vQqefLKSbIy9dOfv.99

[Dusty Balz, SASS#46599]

Does that "D" after their name mean "DUMBASS?"

[Utah Bob #35998]

Hurricane is correct. Been monitoring this for awhile myself.

[Red Gauntlet , SASS 60619]

Hurricane is correct. Been monitoring this for awhile myself.

 

Comes around again now and then.

[Irontree]

Ok so call me dumb as well, but isn't voting against the measure what we're talking about? I didn't say that the Treaty was voted on.

46 Senators voted against the measure to prevent us entering into the UN arms treaty and I personally regard that as in violation to there oaths to protect the US Constitution.

If there is no intent or ability to implement the UN "Treaty" were it to be voted on and then ratified the "Treaty" itself is a moot point.

Wouldn't a "smart" liberal have abstained from voting in a midterm election year on such a hot topic if it doesn't really matter?

That being said, abiding the rule of law does not appear to be all that important to this administration does it? Following the word of the US Constitution is a bit lax as well.

Remember what happened when the Supreme Court Ruled that Andrew Jackson could not remove the Creek and Cherokee from their lands?

I believe his response was something to the effect of: The court has it's opinion and I have mine. Their opinion is enforced by their position and their words. Mine is enforced by the Army. The Indians will move.

[Utah Bob #35998]

This would probably be better discussed over on the Team SASS forum.

 

As far as the rule of law and this administration. Yeah.

[SlicLee SASS #16638 Life]

NOTHING, NOHOW MAY ABROGATE THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES !

[Charlie Whiskers]

This was posted several months ago. One of the bozo's is no longer a Senator. Max Baucus of Mt resigned earlier this year when he was appointed to be the Ambassador to China....you know...the country the US owes Billions to. He was replaced by John Walsh who is not running again since he was caught plagerizing (sp) a paper he wrote to the War Congress while going for his master's degree. Now if we could get rid of Jon Tester another democrat we'd be doing good. Even the people in his and adjoining counties didn't vote for him. Tells you what an A$$ he really is.

[Rusty Chains]

While the UN Small Arms Treaty would not effect products made here in the USA for use here, it could effect products made here for sale to foreign countries.

 

It also could also have a negative effect on importation of foreign produced items imported here. Any of y'all shoot foreign milsurp guns or buy ammo for them? Anyone here shoot Italian made guns?

 

Always remember a solid test for whether a politician is lying to you is to check to see if his lips are moving and then double check anything you don't already know is a lie!

[Gunner Gatlin, SASS 10274L]

Ok so call me dumb as well, but isn't voting against the measure what we're talking about? I didn't say that the Treaty was voted on.

46 Senators voted against the measure to prevent us entering into the UN arms treaty and I personally regard that as in violation to there oaths to protect the US Constitution.

If there is no intent or ability to implement the UN "Treaty" were it to be voted on and then ratified the "Treaty" itself is a moot point.

Wouldn't a "smart" liberal have abstained from voting in a midterm election year on such a hot topic if it doesn't really matter?

That being said, abiding the rule of law does not appear to be all that important to this administration does it? Following the word of the US Constitution is a bit lax as well.

Remember what happened when the Supreme Court Ruled that Andrew Jackson could not remove the Creek and Cherokee from their lands?

I believe his response was something to the effect of: The court has it's opinion and I have mine. Their opinion is enforced by their position and their words. Mine is enforced by the Army. The Indians will move.

I hear ya. We all need to be reminded of this crap every now and then.

 

GG

[Gunner Gatlin, SASS 10274L]

This would probably be better discussed over on the Team SASS forum.

 

As far as the rule of law and this administration. Yeah.

Sadly... Not to many people venture over there.

 

GG