Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There is such a thing as credibility. The OP has posted many threads, citing dubious sources, that end up being discredited. Presuming the thread is false unless proven otherwise should be the default.
What we know is that the UN has been working on an arms trade treaty. And that a bunch of right-wing Americans who seem more concerned with manufacturing controversy decided to mischaracterize that treaty as anti-2nd Amendment. That's a lie. But given the politics of the day, some GOP Congressmen, who actually probably know it's a lie, decide to be cavalierly partisan, and write a letter to the President, because they are courting pro-gun voters and because they depend on the stupidity of those voters not to go and read the treaty, but to take the word of right-wing partisan hacks instead.
You're right. I just read up on it a bit.
The "advice and consent" part.
The consent is the ratification.
The advice can be pre or part of the consent.
And the advice before is allowable but not mandatory.
And current interpretation is "advice and consent" is all post with ratification.
Advice and consent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The notion that pre-nomination advice is optional has developed into the unification of the "advice" portion of the power with the "consent" portion, although several Presidents have consulted informally with Senators over nominations and treaties.
The article said majority so I take that as more than 50%.
And the way I read that is the President would enter into a Treaty with the advice and consent of Congress, not that he would sign the treaty and then Congress says No.
I would think you'd walk into a treaty knowing your approving group approved of you going there to begin with.
And again, that's not how it works. Advice and consent is ratification. Considering it often takes a period of years to negotiate a treaty, going in with pre-approval has little value given the Senate can easily change completely in the time it takes a treaty to be drafted.
Each State Party shall take appropriate measures to enforce national laws and regulations that implement the provisions of this Treaty.”
Why yes. What that means would be there would need to be a law saying that Colt has to go through the US government to OK sales of a firearm to another country so that those sales can be included in the records kept and so the US keeps track of its obligations to not sell where the weapons would likely be used for genocide or that only certain entities can negotiate sales (IE, Happy Texan can't buy up 50 cases of AR-15s on his own, call up the Rwandan consulate, and offer to sell to them).
The fringe right wing will never give this one up. It too close to the ultimate paranoia wet dream of fear and oppression. The United Nations/Democrats want to take away our 2nd amendment. JC himself could come down and tell them it's not true and they would most likely stone him for saying so. They so want to believe this fantasy that nothing can change their mind, least of all the demonstrated, written truth.
Each State Party shall take appropriate measures to enforce national laws and regulations that implement the provisions of this Treaty.”
Yeah, see any laws that a nation passes are national laws. For instance, if during their meetings this week the leader of our country and the leader of China sign a treaty that says they won't try to hack into each others' computer networks, then they go home to their home country and present the treaty to their legislatures. The legislatures (the branch of government that makes laws) then pass laws that will forbid people in that country from hacking into the other country's computer networks, with provisions to punish those people. Those new laws would be national laws, to implement the provisions of the treaty.
So, if the US signs a treaty with the UN, and then that treaty is ratified by the US legislature, then that legislature passes NATIONAL laws to implement that treaty, in this case, they create a registry of American arms exporters, and they regulate to whom those exporters are selling and shipping those arms.
It ain't rocket science, dude.
The UN treaty has zero to do with the 2nd Amendment.
You seem confused regarding "the provisions of the treaty." None of them have anything to do with domestic gun laws.
The devil, as usual, is in the details which you failed to read.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
