# How's this for scary



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

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".


By a 53-46 vote - The U.S. Senate voted against the U.N. resolution. HOORAY.



*This is that brief, glorious moment in history 
when everyone stands around...reloading.*



*Now, Which 46 Senators Voted to Destroy Us? Well, let their names become known ! See below . If you vote in one of the states listed with these 46 "legis..traitors"&#8230; vote against them.*



*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 Senate 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, now get this, on all private guns and ammo.*



*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)* ****** (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)*



*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 send this to SOMEONE*


----------



## Spotnstalk (Jun 25, 2014)

Is it all that surprising that the demoRats don't want us to have guns. Even the few that aren't all that for gun control still have their heads so far obummers butt they vote any way he wants


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

Although this gives us all reason to reflect on who we vote for and why, much of the OP information is predicated on false information, from what I can tell. This info came about in mid 2013, and since then, some of the politicians who voted against have been replaced. In addition, 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#2rSbMV12AO2LyOw4.99

Edit: What I do find a bit scary, is the concept behind "The New World Order"...


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

From UN resolution 2117:

"as well as other relevant resolutions of the
Council, including that of 16 September 1998 (S/RES/1196 (1998)) and statements
of its President related to small arms and light weapons,
Emphasizing that the right of individual and collective self-defence recognized
in Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations and the legitimate security
demands of all countries should be fully taken into account, and recognizing that
small arms and light weapons are traded, manufactured and retained by States for
legitimate security, sporting and commercial considerations,
Gravely concerned that the illicit transfer, destabilizing accumulation and
misuse of small arms and light weapons in many regions of the world continue to
pose threats to international peace and security, cause significant loss of life,
contribute to instability and insecurity and continue to undermine the effectiveness
of the Security Council in discharging its primary responsibility for the maintenance
of international peace and security,
Recognizing that threats arising from the illicit transfer, destabilizing
accumulation and misuse of small arms and light weapons may vary according to
national, regional and subregional circumstances and encouraging responses that
address prevailing needs and challenges,"

Arms proliferation of rogue states, is not equitable to the 2nd amendment. To make such a case is to trivialize our rights under the Second Amendment. The UN charter already recognizes the Second Amendment, and the rest of our Constitution, this resolution would not mute that.

ISIS say thanks.


----------



## utahgolf (Sep 8, 2007)

the NRA also thanks you for this repost, and so do their lobbyists/consultants who are no different than the ones on the hill trying to get as much money as possible.


----------



## The Naturalist (Oct 13, 2007)

The above-referenced piece of scarelore about the United States' having already entered into a such a treaty - one which supposedly provides a "legal way around the 2nd Amendment" and will result in a "complete ban on all weapons for US citizens" - is erroneous in all its particulars:


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":

Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp#FW1aIKMcylzzjb3S.99

It is amazing the amount of ridiculous stuff people repost without checking it out. This is propaganda at its highest form designed to strike fear so that you will vote a certain way...it looks like it trapped a few!


----------



## redleg (Dec 5, 2007)

I expected to hear an opposing view from our leftist blog members.-*|*-Chearleading for Reid, Nancy and the Baraq.


----------



## utahgolf (Sep 8, 2007)

redleg said:


> I expected to hear an opposing view from our leftist blog members.-*|*-Chearleading for Reid, Nancy and the Baraq.


never question anything and never ever let the truth get in the way of forwarding an email!!! Lobbyists everywhere thank you for your continued blind support. Now excuse me, I need to guy buy some .22 ammo and forward that Public lands transfer email!


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

redleg said:


> I expected to hear an opposing view from our leftist blog members.-*|*-Chearleading for Reid, Nancy and the Baraq.


"leftist"? I'm a firearms engineer, that actually understands and respects the 2nd amendment, and does not like uninformed fear mongering that only serves to marginalize the right to self defense.

When people start making equivalency arguments about our rights under the 2nd Amendment, with people and groups that would seek to do us harm, which is what this is, it is an attack on those very rights, not support of them.

The resolution seeks to create solutions to nations and groups that would supply small arms to groups such as ISIS. Not that this kind of thing has ever happened, or caused our service members any harm............China, Russia.........North Vietnam!

Edit: I should also ask, that if pointing out falsehoods, and clarifying the truth of a situation, is cheer leading for the left, where do you sit? On the side of propaganda and lies?


----------

