http://defund.com/united-nations-122...edium=facebook
That's cute of them.
Wrong thread?
Belongs in Joke of the day or WTF were they thinking?
NVM
You and what army?
Need a sign in my driveway warning not to wear blue helmets past this point... [Sarcasm2]
actually, might be worth the entertainment anyway...
If you start making them, I'll buy one.Quote:
Originally Posted by 68Charger
The UN better stock up on body bags for their troops if they try to disarm America.
Any US soldier drafted to do this better have the smarts to dis-obey this assigned duty, and turn against the foreign occupiers known as the UN.
I second this.Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperiorDG
Ha...good luck UN
This article is on a site that appears untrustworthy, so I call B.S.
I LOL'd
Interesting, even though the US Congress has not "ratified" the treaty has reached ratification because it has 54 UN "states" that have ratified it.
Curious what our new House and Senate will think of it.
The treaty itself can call itself ratified all it wants. The United States is not bound until the Senate ratifies, which it never will.
This is the real question. The more that we see the pendulum swing to the extremes, the more likely that this statement will not hold. Because "A" president has signed it, means that the president at the time of a Senate ratifing it is not needed for this to become law unless the next "R" takes the Ok back (not even sure if he can). If this is true, it is a big threat to our future with guns.
Quote:
Originally Posted by spqrzilla
I'm going have more guns when they leave then I started with.
I love to see the next R president take the treaty, hang it on a target, and open fire on it full auto.
Not ratified, no problem.
Watch, Obama won't even bother to submit it to the Senate for ratification.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hound
The problem is that the treaty has been signed. If the bad guys get control of the senate and the WH again, ratification could happen in an eye blink before anyone knows what happened. Don't forget that the bad guys do not operate in the light of day.
This is my concern, is this treaty going to be a Sword of Damocles hanging over our head forever? Or is there a time limit by which the president's signature is void if its not ratified in a certain amount of time? Or is the treaty null and void if the Senate rejects it (note it hasn't rejected it, its just never been brought to them).Quote:
Originally Posted by wctriumph
How many votes does it take. Can Harry have a lame duck vote so most forget about it in 2 years?
There are enough pro-gun Democrats that the treaty is not going to be ratified in a lame duck session.
This really makes little sense. That combination has the same dangers to us it always had.Quote:
Originally Posted by wctriumph
So on the 1st day of the new Senate, would a negative vote kill the treaty forever as far as the US is concerned. Or can a subsequent Senate confirm a previously rejected treaty?
I don't know if there is any precendent for it. I think a treaty could theoretically be voted on an infinite number of times.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric P
Can the next pro gun president unsign or withdraw the US from a treaty?
Sorry, I'm an engineer not a civics major.
They already voted to kill it- this is SO last year...
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-actio...un-arms-treaty
Oh, and the number of votes to ratify the treaty would be 67. (2/3 majority)
The Senate vote is a ratification; failure to ratify isn't the same as rejection and withdrawal from the treaty. The scum suckers can resubmit for ratification until a new President formally withdraws from the treaty. That was one of the dangers of the Kyoto Protocol.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric P
Love this quote in the comments:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mtn.man
Quote:
I keep waiting for 0bama to tell the muslims,“Stop clinging to your Guns and religion”
Guess the UN will do it for him……….