HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Senate votes 53-46 to sto...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sat Mar 23, 2013, 05:08 PM

 

Senate votes 53-46 to stop US from joining UN Arms Trade Treaty

Source: The Hill

In the last batch of amendment votes to the budget, the Senate voted on several foreign policy proposals.

Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) introduced an amendment that would prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty in order to uphold the Second Amendment. His amendment passed on a 53-46 vote.

Republicans have been critical of President Obama’s decision to consider the treaty, although Obama has said he would not vote for anything that would violate the Second Amendment.

The U.N. Arms Trade Treaty would regulate international arms sales. Negotiations end on March 28.

“We’re negotiating a treaty that cedes our authority to have trade agreements with our allies in terms of trading arms,” Inhofe said. “This is probably the last time this year that you’ll be able to vote for your Second Amendment rights.”

(Excerpt, more at link)

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/290001-senate-votes-to-stop-us-from-joining-un-arms-treaty

32 replies, 8131 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 32 replies Author Time Post
Reply Senate votes 53-46 to stop US from joining UN Arms Trade Treaty (Original post)
Peter cotton Mar 2013 OP
elleng Mar 2013 #1
tblue Mar 2013 #13
elleng Mar 2013 #14
Duval Mar 2013 #2
gtar100 Mar 2013 #8
pscot Mar 2013 #3
limpyhobbler Mar 2013 #4
alp227 Mar 2013 #6
davidpdx Mar 2013 #17
Arkana Mar 2013 #23
davidpdx Mar 2013 #24
Arkana Mar 2013 #25
davidpdx Mar 2013 #26
Arkana Mar 2013 #27
John2 Mar 2013 #7
DallasNE Mar 2013 #16
bvar22 Mar 2013 #5
John2 Mar 2013 #9
Igel Mar 2013 #10
davidn3600 Mar 2013 #28
Nuclear Unicorn Mar 2013 #29
quadrature Mar 2013 #11
James48 Mar 2013 #12
denvine Mar 2013 #15
patrice Mar 2013 #18
closeupready Mar 2013 #19
fascisthunter Mar 2013 #20
discntnt_irny_srcsm Mar 2013 #21
Turborama Mar 2013 #22
Blue_Tires Mar 2013 #30
slackmaster Mar 2013 #31
Name removed Jun 2013 #32

Response to Peter cotton (Original post)

Sat Mar 23, 2013, 05:21 PM

1. 'our authority to have trade agreements with our allies in terms of trading arms'

has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with our Second Amendment rights!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Reply #1)

Sat Mar 23, 2013, 09:11 PM

13. Oh my gosh. We ARE a Gun Culture.

No wonder we have citizens who shoot each other. It's all of a piece and the ugly goes from the top down. My gosh what a mess. It's an international treaty! And we eff it up for everybody.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tblue (Reply #13)

Sat Mar 23, 2013, 09:13 PM

14. You got it, tblue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peter cotton (Original post)

Sat Mar 23, 2013, 05:30 PM

2. Inhofe is showing his ignorance. Sigh! n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duval (Reply #2)

Sat Mar 23, 2013, 06:53 PM

8. And whose interests he represents.

And it ain't the troglodytes worried about their 2nd Amendment rights.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peter cotton (Original post)

Sat Mar 23, 2013, 05:48 PM

3. Who were the Democrats who voted forit?

There must have been 8 democrats who voted for it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pscot (Reply #3)

Sat Mar 23, 2013, 05:56 PM

4. These ones

All the GOP voted for it plus these 8 Dems to put it over the top.

Begich (D-AK)
Donnelly (D-IN)
Hagan (D-NC)

Heinrich (D-NM)
Heitkamp (D-ND)
Manchin (D-WV)

Pryor (D-AR)
Tester (D-MT)

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=1&vote=00091#position

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to limpyhobbler (Reply #4)

Sat Mar 23, 2013, 06:32 PM

6. No surprise, they are red state democrats.

Anything that annoys the NRA will screw their re election chances and ultimately the party majority.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Reply #6)

Sun Mar 24, 2013, 05:22 AM

17. Yep, they are

Heinrich, Heitkamp, and Donnelly were all elected last year. So much for a progressive Senate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to davidpdx (Reply #17)

Wed Mar 27, 2013, 09:00 AM

23. If anyone thought Heidi Heitkamp was going to be a progressive crusader, they

were fooling themselves. She won a close race against a well-funded Republican in a state that is as red as the setting sun--there was virtually no way she was going to be a liberal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arkana (Reply #23)

Wed Mar 27, 2013, 09:02 AM

24. I don't live in SD and didn't support her

But if she's going to act like a Republican, let her caucus with them. All the blue dogs do is weaken our caucus.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to davidpdx (Reply #24)

Wed Mar 27, 2013, 09:03 AM

25. Well, even if you did live in South Dakota, you wouldn't have been able to vote for her...

...seeing as how she ran in North Dakota.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arkana (Reply #25)

Wed Mar 27, 2013, 09:08 AM

26. Oophs

My bad, I get the two confused. I meant North Dakota.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to davidpdx (Reply #26)

Wed Mar 27, 2013, 10:07 AM

27. That's OK. Pretty sure the people in North Dakota wished they lived in South Dakota

anyway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to limpyhobbler (Reply #4)

Sat Mar 23, 2013, 06:41 PM

7. It appears those

 

Democrats voted that way based on Politics. The Polling in North Carolina done by Elon University shows that over 90 percent of North Carolinians favor Gun control and 56 percent favored a ban on assault weapons. Kay Hagan is scared of a minority in North Carolina unless she really believes that nonsense. Maybe she went along because it was going to pass anyway, just to not create an issue for her opponent in the upcoming election. The amendment was probably a political maneuver by Inhoffe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to John2 (Reply #7)

Sun Mar 24, 2013, 01:02 AM

16. This Is A Budget Bill

So this is pretty much a symbolic vote. This measure does not go to the President's desk for signature.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peter cotton (Original post)

Sat Mar 23, 2013, 06:27 PM

5. Absolutely NOTHING to do with the 2nd Ammendment,

....and EVERYTHING to do with the Big Corporate (and MIC) Exporting of Arms and Munitions.
The US demands the right to PROFIT (immensely) from arming BOTH sides in any dispute ANYWHERE in The World,
not to mention being the provider of BANNED munitions like Land Mines, Cluster Bombs, Napalm, and White Phosphorus.

Have Depleted Uranium Munitions been Banned yet?
They surely SHOULD be,
as well as ARMED, Unmanned Killing/Surveillance Vehicles (Drones).

ANYONE who profits from the manufacture or distribution, or enables the manufacture or distribution of these materials should BURN forever in the hottest circle of HELL.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Reply #5)

Sat Mar 23, 2013, 07:01 PM

9. Yeah, you are

 

right. the Second Amendment refers to the rights of Americans to own Arms anyway and says nothing about other countries, rights to own arms. It says nothing about Americans' rights to sell arms to other countries either, especially if they are enemies to this country. It just show us some of our Politicians on the Democratic side vote out of fear or they must think the public is dumb. I wonder how much time Hagan spends among the people in her State? Most are not gun nuts. Especially in the urban areas where we need to curtail gangs. North Carolina's cities are no different than those in the North. Curtailing their ability to get guns will go a long way in reducing violence in some of these poor neighborhoods. Sometimes you get the impression police don't care about violence in poor neighborhoods as long as it stays out of wealthier areas in the South. I wonder if anybodyelse living in the South gets that impression from police departments in the South?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Reply #5)

Sat Mar 23, 2013, 08:17 PM

10. No text, no treaty, no way of knowing what it says.

It may just regulate international trade.

It may limit the trade, in which case some guns would become more expensive or rare or banned from trade.

It may require that records be kept on who weapons are sold to and make that information available to inspection. How detailed the records may be is anybody's guess. "Exported 23,493 model # _______ to Europe" or "Of the 23, 493 that were exported to Europe, Francois Duchene purchased serial # _______ and serial # ______ on 30 April 2014".

It may do a lot of things. And ultimately what the treaty does depends less on the language of the treaty than on the language of the court cases that interpret the treaty--although typically such things aren't adjudicated in a court but by hordes of activists on each side claiming what "international law" on some point or another "says."

In any event, Obama can and will ignore this because he'll claim unitary authority in determining foreign policy; if and when he signs and submits the treaty to the Senate then there'll be a binding vote (although this seems to be a binding vote only if it's "yes"--"no" votes can, it's claimed, be revisited over and over and over).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Igel (Reply #10)

Wed Mar 27, 2013, 10:59 AM

28. 2/3rds majority required to ratify a treaty

This ain't happening. It's a lost cause.

Just like the International Criminal Court and Kyoto. The president can sign it all he wants but its meaningless without ratification.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Reply #5)

Wed Mar 27, 2013, 04:16 PM

29. Didn't V build a really big bomb?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peter cotton (Original post)

Sat Mar 23, 2013, 08:27 PM

11. what does the treaty do,

that can't be done with statute law?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peter cotton (Original post)

Sat Mar 23, 2013, 09:06 PM

12. Republicans think "Snopes" is a left-wing site too.

Snopes did a good writeup of the issue last fall. (R)'s think it's something that it is not.

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

The actual language of the first draft of that treaty is here:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/info/att.pdf

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peter cotton (Original post)

Sat Mar 23, 2013, 11:05 PM

15. To be honest, I'm getting pretty damn sick of the 2nd amendment.

Reason be damned. It gives the the crazies reason to be unreasonable. Many refuse to accept the correlation of more gun deaths in our country than any other Westernized country and the second amendment. Now they are even using it for regulating arms deals with other countries. Another time that we don't want to play with the rest of the world. I can hardly believe that our forefathers ever had these nut cases in mind. I'm also pretty sick of the Democratic Senators who keep crossing over. The same ones that voted for the Keystone Pipeline voted yes on this amendment. This same Senate, that Democrats control had to abandon the ban on assault weapons. WTF!!! OK, let me have it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peter cotton (Original post)

Sun Mar 24, 2013, 02:19 PM

18. Thank you NRA for a vote in favor of Shock and Awe 2.0 and 3.0 and 4.0 and . . . .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peter cotton (Original post)

Sun Mar 24, 2013, 02:46 PM

19. Without looking, I'll bet Dianne Feinstein voted against.

Let me post this, then check.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peter cotton (Original post)

Sun Mar 24, 2013, 09:28 PM

20. good bye democracy... USA is no longer a righteous country

just a leach on the world who wants to take what doesn't belong to them... at a cheap price of course. We just want guns, and we want to use them the way we want and for whatever purpose...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fascisthunter (Reply #20)

Mon Mar 25, 2013, 09:13 PM

21. not only that but we want to protect our right to do some name calling now and then n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peter cotton (Original post)

Wed Mar 27, 2013, 08:00 AM

22. Gun lobby helps block US from signing UN arms treaty

MSNBC article about it here: http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/03/25/gun-lobby-helps-block-us-from-signing-un-arms-treaty/

I posted an OP in GD about a petition The White House campaign that's going on: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022573106

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Turborama (Reply #22)

Wed Mar 27, 2013, 04:23 PM

30. ugh...I wish all lobbies would just vanish...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Turborama (Reply #22)

Wed Mar 27, 2013, 04:30 PM

31. The conspiracy theories really cut both ways on this story

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peter cotton (Original post)

Reply to this thread