Obama To Ignore Senate, Sign 2nd Amendment-Violating U.N. Gun Treaty (Congressmen, claim)

[HappyTexan]

Originally Posted by HistorianDude

1. To take a moral stand.

2. To demonstrate leadership in the face of opposition.

3. To force the Congress to put their money where their mouth is.

4. Because members of Congress often vote differently than they say they will.

5. To apply pressure on Congress by marshaling public support.

6. Because it is the right thing to do.

I'm certain that's not the inclusive list... but all I could come up with in 30 seconds of simple mental effort.

They advised him NOT to sign it. I read your link.
Upon the advice and consent of Congress.

He has neither.

[Versatile]

Originally Posted by All American NYC

It may not happen today, tomorrow or even next year, but later likely



Read more: Kerry says US will sign UN treaty on arms regulation despite lawmaker opposition | Fox News

You are wrong and TROLLING US.

[HistorianDude]

Originally Posted by HappyTexan

He does NOT have the consent of Congress nor do 2/3 concur.

Actually, you're not quite correct. That's 2/3rds of the Senate, not "Congress."

The House doesn't really have **** to say on the subject.

Originally Posted by HappyTexan

In fact they advised him not to sign it.

Some did, some didn't. Now they will get to make their support or opposition official by voting on it. Or at least the Senate will.

[All American NYC]

Originally Posted by Versatile

This is the part that is made up to scare more people. Did they make it up or did you?

The treaty seems unlikely to ever receive the two-thirds majority necessary to be ratified by the US Senate, but that doesn't mean it still won't have consequences for American

I guess anti gun with Bloomberg ideas.

[All American NYC]

Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA

The article is BS. You're being had, buddy.

So is the IRS scandal

[Versatile]

Originally Posted by HistorianDude

No. I never do that. I leave that to the credulous nincompoops. I check to see if I am being lied to or not.

You quoted the article. You said that the treaty demanded certain things. Are you now admitting that what you said is not true? That you actually have no idea what the treaty really says, but that you were instead pissing yourself over bull**** that you were fed?


I know for a fact that the real intent of this treaty is to reduce the international trafficking of weapons that results in the slaughter of innocent people.

On my planet, that's a worthy aspiration.

I agree.

[HistorianDude]

Originally Posted by HappyTexan

They advised him NOT to sign it.

Some did. Some didn't. Now they get to vote on it and make it official .

Originally Posted by HappyTexan

He has neither.

If so then the treaty will not be ratified. This is not hard stuff, HT. What about it are you struggling with?

[garnetpalmetto]

Originally Posted by HappyTexan

They advised him NOT to sign it. I read your link.
Upon the advice and consent of Congress.

He has neither.

And you're jumping the gun on how the system actually works. Their "advice and consent" is the ratification vote within the Senate. Not a few Senators trying to throw red meat to their base. In order to get the Treaty in front of the Senate for them to give their advice and consent, it has to be signed.

[Dane_in_LA]

Originally Posted by All American NYC

So is the IRS scandal

Ran out of arguments?

[HappyTexan]

Originally Posted by HistorianDude

Some did. Some didn't. Now they get to vote on it and make it official .


If so then the treaty will not be ratified. This is not hard stuff, HT. What about it are you struggling with?

That he's doing it backwards.