"On behalf of The United States of America..." John Kerry SIGNS UN Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) on Sept. 25th!!!

57  2013-09-26 by strokethekitty

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/09/26/world/arms-treaty-now-signed-by-majority-of-un-members.html

http://www.humanevents.com/2013/09/25/kerry-signs-un-arms-trade-treaty-despite-objections/

"On behalf of The United States if America"?? I was under the impression that there werent many who were for signing it.

Whats next!?

28 comments

12  Balthanos 2013-09-26

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_Clause

You may want to see how many edits these wiki pages get in the coming weeks. I was under the impression that only the president can sign treaties. And only treaties that don't infringe on the constitution are actually valid..

Also congress is supposed to vote on almost all treaties in some form or fashion.

8  strokethekitty 2013-09-26

A two-thirds vote in the senate is required for this to be ratified as well. Though im hearing rumors that it is actually two-thirds of those PRESENT during the vote... Though i dont know if this is true.

regardless, this is an obvious situation where the administration is doing as they please without consent of the people they are supposed to be representing. We used to call that tyranny...

3  GrandpaSkitzo 2013-09-26

It still is tyranny. We are the sheep and they are the wolves.

9  5arge 2013-09-26

Remember what Ben Franklin said about that, "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."

0  no1113 2013-09-26

And liberty in America has turned into that wolf lobbying to take away the lamb's arms.

And we all know what happens in this analogy if the lamb's arms get taken away. It won't be the only thing of the lamb's that gets taken away.

2  no1113 2013-09-26

No. As Swami Vivekananda so eloquently said,

"Come up, O lions, and shake off the delusion that you are sheep."

Most of us have not shaken off the delusion yet, but make very sure: It is in fact a delusion.

5  [deleted] 2013-09-26

American Spring, coming soon. The whole world is watching and waiting.

10  ButtAllTheThings 2013-09-26

The american spring happened twuce already. First they called it tea party and the republicans drank the tea then they called it occupy written off as leftist hippies. If it comes again we have to keep the media from putting it neatly into a box

1  aethelberga 2013-09-26

Ha! You'll be lucky to get the media to report on it.

3  un1ty 2013-09-26

Still dead in the Senate, but I think any political leaders that knowingly defy the constitution like Kerry has done should be held as traitors and tried with treason.

2  patrioticamerican1 2013-09-26

That's right it has to be ratified by the congress and signed by the president so Kerry's actions don't mean shit.

1  just_another_number 2013-09-26

So now that Kerry signed the treaty, are we immediately in violation of this treaty by sending arms to Syria? WTF??

0  leDesespoir 2013-09-26

Well, there goes America.

-1  YouAintGotToLieCraig 2013-09-26

Wouldn't this sub be for this treaty? Aren't you guys supposed to be against countries sending weapons to conflict zones and playing dumb? Aren't you guys constantly railing against the U.S for selling weapons overseas or sending them to rebels?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/03/world/arms-trade-treaty-approved-at-un.html

proponents say the treaty would for the first time force sellers to consider how their customers will use the weapons and to make that information public. The goal is to curb the sale of weapons that kill tens of thousands of people every year — by, for example, making it harder for Russia to argue that its arms deals with Syria are legal under international law.

“It will help reduce the risk that international transfers of conventional arms will be used to carry out the world’s worst crimes, including terrorism, genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes,”

If you are concerned about the 2nd amendment, it will have no effect:

In a bow to American concerns, the preamble states that it is focused on international sales, not traditional domestic use

.

The National Rifle Association and other American gun-rights advocacy groups still object to the treaty, contending it infringes on the Second Amendment. They have vowed that it would never be ratified by the Senate, even though language in the final draft specifies that nothing in the treaty could infringe on any nation’s constitutional rights.

-1  strokethekitty 2013-09-26

even though the language in the final draft specifies that nothing in the treaty could infringe on any nation's constitutional rights

that is true. Our constitution says something similar. It says that no law shall be passed that is counter to the constitution, and such a law would be null and void. Yet, that is not stopping the gun-control advocates from trying to pass legislation that would infringe upon the second amendment.

to avoid confusion or the possibility of diction warfare, i will include the oxford dictionarys definition of "infringe."

verb (infringes, infringing, infringed) [with object] actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.): making an unauthorized copy would infringe copyright act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on: his legal rights were being infringed

The key here is the term "limit."

So, with that said, it seems appropriate to be suspicious of the ATT, and the agenda of those who are for it. The majority of which are the gun-control advocates. Regardless of the few lines in the legislature that says no nations constitutional rights should be infringed upon, those who are for gun control can and most likely will use the ATT as another weapon for their agenda--a segway for another excuse to limit our second amendment rights. Its not farfetched to believe they will use the ATT to state that we need to conform to "international law" and limit our gun rights.

this is where people are having a problem with the ATT. And, as a note, most people who are against the ATT are also against crimes against humanity and the laundering of weapons to tyrants to use against unarmed citizens. Just because they are against one provision in a very large piece of legislature, doesnt mean they are against stopping weapons from getting into the wrong hands. To believe so would be the definitionbof ignorance.

-4  [deleted] 2013-09-26

[deleted]

6  fredman555 2013-09-26

"The anti-government crowd, thinks that not being a nation will create more national power. They just can't explain how. "

The only people who are even saying this are anarchists, whove always been contesting a government.

Your whole comment is moot and doesnt even apply

-2  TodaysIllusion 2013-09-26

Somehow you have missed the entire conservative/Republican message of the last 40 years, eliminate government, grant states rights to not accept certain parts of the U. S. Constitution, religion for example, voting rights for another example, labor laws, and much more.

2  fredman555 2013-09-26

Somehow you have missed the entire conservative/Republican message of the last 40 years, eliminate government,

Somehow you completely missed the definition of conservatism and are severely misguided. Pop open a dictionary and look up "conservatism". Elimination of government is an anarchical idea, NOT of that of a conservative

Secondly, show me 1 senator, congressman or representative from the past 40 years that said they are for the elimination of government. Clearly someone like yourself should have no problem finding a plethora of examples.

grant states rights to not accept certain parts of the U. S. Constitution

You do understand how the Constitution works, dont you?

religion for example

Religion isnt even the Constitution.

Youre clearly trolling or were dropped on your head as an infant and am not going to even use a single braincell to further respond to your comment and give it validity. every word dripped from your lips is completely incorrect. I dont have the time to have some child with a 3rd grade understanding of the Constitution and politics actually dictate to me about history

-1  TodaysIllusion 2013-09-26

It is a little early for this rewriting of the conservative/Republican agenda for the last 35 years.

2  fredman555 2013-09-26

didnt respond to a single one of my points, thanks for proving mine. Good day

1  strokethekitty 2013-09-26

you dont have to be conservative/republican to be against the ATT.

and please, woukd you give some examples of states wanting to rid of parts of the constitution concerning voting rivhgs, religion, and labor laws? Which articles, for example, and which states?

1  TodaysIllusion 2013-09-26

You can begin with Texas.

1  strokethekitty 2013-09-26

Good job. Thats a state. Now which article are they trying to rid?

-10  [deleted] 2013-09-26

The rest of the world wanted your country to sign it, though

9  strokethekitty 2013-09-26

The rest of the world have no sovereignty over america. So that point is irrelevant.

7  natemoto 2013-09-26

Well said.

-10  [deleted] 2013-09-26

You're irrelevant

1  Entry_Point 2013-09-26

Nu uh. You are...bitch

8  strokethekitty 2013-09-26

A two-thirds vote in the senate is required for this to be ratified as well. Though im hearing rumors that it is actually two-thirds of those PRESENT during the vote... Though i dont know if this is true.

regardless, this is an obvious situation where the administration is doing as they please without consent of the people they are supposed to be representing. We used to call that tyranny...

1  strokethekitty 2013-09-26

you dont have to be conservative/republican to be against the ATT.

and please, woukd you give some examples of states wanting to rid of parts of the constitution concerning voting rivhgs, religion, and labor laws? Which articles, for example, and which states?

2  fredman555 2013-09-26

Somehow you have missed the entire conservative/Republican message of the last 40 years, eliminate government,

Somehow you completely missed the definition of conservatism and are severely misguided. Pop open a dictionary and look up "conservatism". Elimination of government is an anarchical idea, NOT of that of a conservative

Secondly, show me 1 senator, congressman or representative from the past 40 years that said they are for the elimination of government. Clearly someone like yourself should have no problem finding a plethora of examples.

grant states rights to not accept certain parts of the U. S. Constitution

You do understand how the Constitution works, dont you?

religion for example

Religion isnt even the Constitution.

Youre clearly trolling or were dropped on your head as an infant and am not going to even use a single braincell to further respond to your comment and give it validity. every word dripped from your lips is completely incorrect. I dont have the time to have some child with a 3rd grade understanding of the Constitution and politics actually dictate to me about history

10  ButtAllTheThings 2013-09-26

The american spring happened twuce already. First they called it tea party and the republicans drank the tea then they called it occupy written off as leftist hippies. If it comes again we have to keep the media from putting it neatly into a box

-1  strokethekitty 2013-09-26

even though the language in the final draft specifies that nothing in the treaty could infringe on any nation's constitutional rights

that is true. Our constitution says something similar. It says that no law shall be passed that is counter to the constitution, and such a law would be null and void. Yet, that is not stopping the gun-control advocates from trying to pass legislation that would infringe upon the second amendment.

to avoid confusion or the possibility of diction warfare, i will include the oxford dictionarys definition of "infringe."

verb (infringes, infringing, infringed) [with object] actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.): making an unauthorized copy would infringe copyright act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on: his legal rights were being infringed

The key here is the term "limit."

So, with that said, it seems appropriate to be suspicious of the ATT, and the agenda of those who are for it. The majority of which are the gun-control advocates. Regardless of the few lines in the legislature that says no nations constitutional rights should be infringed upon, those who are for gun control can and most likely will use the ATT as another weapon for their agenda--a segway for another excuse to limit our second amendment rights. Its not farfetched to believe they will use the ATT to state that we need to conform to "international law" and limit our gun rights.

this is where people are having a problem with the ATT. And, as a note, most people who are against the ATT are also against crimes against humanity and the laundering of weapons to tyrants to use against unarmed citizens. Just because they are against one provision in a very large piece of legislature, doesnt mean they are against stopping weapons from getting into the wrong hands. To believe so would be the definitionbof ignorance.