46 senators that voted to give your gun rights to the U.N.

[hanleyfan]

Over the weekend, we came four votes away from the United States Senate giving our Constitutional rights over to the United Nations. In a 53-46 vote, the senate narrowly passed a measure that will stop the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.
The Statement of Purpose from the bill read:
To uphold Second Amendment rights and prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.
The U.N. Small Arms Treaty, which has been championed by the Obama Administration, would have effectively placed a global ban on the import and export of small firearms. The ban would have affected all private gun owners in the U.S. , and had language that would have implemented an international gun registry on all private guns and ammo.
Astonishingly, 46 of our United States Senators were willing to give away our Constitutional rights to a foreign power.
Here are the 46 senators that voted to give your rights to the U.N.
Baldwin (D-WI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bennet (D-CO)
Blumenthal (D-CT)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Coons (D-DE)
Cowan (D-MA)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY) Harkin (D-IA)
Hirono (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kaine (D-VA)
King (I-ME)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murphy (D-CT)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL) Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schatz (D-HI)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Warner (D-VA)
Warren (D-MA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)


People this needs to go viral. These Senators voted to let the UN take our guns. They need to lose the election. We have been betrayed.
46 Senators Voted to Give your 2nd Amendment Constitutional Rights to the U.N.

[Tom Servo]

Astonishingly, 46 of our United States Senators were willing to give away our Constitutional rights to a foreign power.

If you read back through the innumerable threads we've had on the issue, you'll find that statement to be exaggerating a bit.

As it is, that list reads like a who's-who of gun-control supporters, and there are no surprises in it. Those are people who are proud to vote for the abrogation of the 2A, and a few emails or letters aren't going to change their minds.

[csmsss]

I think it also worth pointing out that approval of a treaty requires 67 votes, not a simple majority or even the 60 votes needed to invoke cloture. It's going to be an impassable hurdle with this particular Senate.

That being said, there are any number of agendas at play here that will be well-served by Obama's siggy on this treaty, even if it's never ratified. And, one day down the road, there may well be an election so disastrous that there might be enough votes.

[Dr Big Bird PhD]

Just look at all those R's! I can't even count that high

[BarryLee]

Just look at all those R's! I can't even count that high

Just curious has gun control always been this partisan? It seems at one time there were people in both parties who supported or opposed gun control, but now it really seems to be more along party lines. So, is there some type of philosophical issue at work here or maybe just a misplaced sense of party loyalty?

[Tom Servo]

Just look at all those R's! I can't even count that high

Let's bear in mind two factors:

First, the gun issue is big news right now. Lawmakers on one side of the aisle are under a great deal of pressure from their constituents to oppose new legislation.

Second, that party is hell-bent on not giving the current administration anything they want. Part of this is not so much opposition to the treaty; it's about being obstructive in general.

If circumstances were different, many of those "R's" would happily vote for new gun controls. They did it in 1968, and they did it in 1994. Several did it earlier this year.

That said, let's avoid drifting into straight red-v-blue politics.

[Dr Big Bird PhD]

Let's bear in mind two factors:

First, the gun issue is big news right now. Lawmakers on one side of the aisle are under a great deal of pressure from their constituents to oppose new legislation.

Second, that party is hell-bent on not giving the current administration anything they want. Part of this is not so much opposition to the treaty; it's about being obstructive in general.

If circumstances were different, many of those "R's" would happily vote for new gun controls. They did it in 1968, and they did it in 1994. Several did it earlier this year.

That said, let's avoid drifting into straight red-v-blue politics.

Great points and I agree.

I would venture to say that a lot of the moderate democrats and moderate republicans who voted "no," did it moreso because the genesis of this form of gun control was from outside the Legislative branch rather than inside.

[Punisher_1]

Wouldn't it be nice instead of party lines it actually was determined by what the citizens wanted. What ever happened to the public voting on issues that actually effect us.

[BarryLee]

Wouldn't it be nice instead of party lines it actually was determined by what the citizens wanted.

While I share your desire for bipartisanship I believe the Congress should make decisions based on research they do on specific issues and not necessarily public opinion. Obviously they should listen and consider input from the public, but at the end of the day they should make rational decision based on the facts. Remember much of the recent gun control debate was driven by emotion and not the actual facts.

[Dr Big Bird PhD]

Wouldn't it be nice instead of party lines it actually was determined by what the citizens wanted.

No.

The original framers of the constitution didn't want everyone in the country deciding on policy and have the resultant laws be a reflection of populism. Populism is too easily swayed by misinformation and emotional fallout.

[fragtagninja]

Afraid Mr Servo is right on this one. I live in MI giving me Stabanow, and Levin. Both do a poor job of representing a pretty rural state that enjoys hunting. This is however nothing new. They both need to go in the next election.

[cobra81]

The original framers of the constitution didn't want everyone in the country deciding on policy and have the resultant laws be a reflection of populism.

Then why did the framers establish the House of Representatives? We have a representative Republic.
My opinion is that the Senate, with its longer terms and fewer members, was intended to be the check and balance for the House, which was purposely meant to be closer to the citizenry, from becoming too powerful and enacting laws driven by populism.

Besides, pick your poison. Do you really think it is better to have laws influenced by PACs, special interest groups, and lobbies with the deepest pockets, rather than by the will of the majority? It's pretty tough to deny that this has been what has evolved in our political system.

[fragtagninja]

I would like to point out the framers also warned about political factions as they called them. We know them as parties.

[patriotic]

What I see here is 46 Senators attempting to violate their oath of office.

[dakota.potts]

If I remember correctly, this vote was not actually a vote on ratifying the treaty, but on a bill blocking it from happening. This means that 46 voted not to block the treaty immediately. That does not necessarily mean all 46 would ratify it as passed.

But I haven't been keeping up with this so I could be wrong.

[44 AMP]

Then why did the framers establish the House of Representatives? We have a representative Republic.
My opinion is that the Senate, with its longer terms and fewer members, was intended to be the check and balance for the House, which was purposely meant to be closer to the citizenry, from becoming too powerful and enacting laws driven by populism.

Study what the founders created a bit more, and you wil find that as originally created, the Senate was elected by, and served to represent the STATES, not the people directly.

And as such acted as a partial check on the House of Representatives, which, from the beginning was intended, and still is directly elected by the people.

The original intent of our representative Republic was the House represented the people, directly, the Senate represented the interests of the "several states", the Executive to manage the day to day business of the govt, and the Supreme Court to ensure things stayed inside the Constitutional framework, and address other points of law.

The Founders knew that obeying only the will of the people, which is mercurial, and influenced by a great deal more than just fact and logic, is the fast route to mob rule. And today, it is even worse as instant communication technology allows for "instant" decisions and "instant" actions. The Founders also knew that by forcing any and (virtually) all govt actions go through the will of the people, and the interests of the states, expressed through their elected representatives, allowed for tempers to cool and passions to abate, so that, hopefully, govt actions would me more tempered with logic and reason.

It almost worked.

One major blow to this system came with the change to direct election of the Senators by the people. Today, elected by the same people, and therefore in practical terms, if not legal ones, Senators are no more than just another represetative of the people.

[Dr Big Bird PhD]

One major blow to this system came with the change to direct election of the Senators by the people. Today, elected by the same people, and therefore in practical terms, if not legal ones, Senators are no more than just another represetative of the people.

Yes. I'd actually say that Senators tend to represent the large city interests while the representatives represent the "people" outside those cities.

This is why governors and representatives tend to be R, while the Senators and electoral votes may go D. (I'm not making a value judgement on either R's or D's, but rather explaining a little dissonance in the election of gov't officials depending on how the voting process allocates representatives to the position)

Also, one thing people often forget is that the founding fathers did NOT want everyone in the country voting. Remember who could vote at first? Rich, land owning males.

[cobra81]

The citizens of our great republic DO have a voice. In the bicameral system as it was originally framed, the House of Representatives was seen as the People's House, intended to be close to the people, and to allow for citizens to directly influence outcomes by the pressure they brought to bear upon their elected Representatives. It is not hard to imagine they expected; even demanded their representatives vote the will of the majority of their constituents.

Until ratification of the 17th Amendment in 1913, Senators were chosen by their respective state legislatures, because as 44AMP pointed out, the intent was to ensure the Federal Gov't contained representatives of the states, not dependent on popular support.

Not surprisingly, intimidation, bribery and deadlock in the selection process led to support for popular election of Senators, and ultimately, passage of the 17th. Additionally, the 17th Amendment gave governors the authority to appoint a Senator in the event of a vacancy. Shades of Rod Blajogevich, over 100 years ago. But I digress.

I contend that the US Senate lost much of its original purpose and function, as envisioned by the founders, when the popular election of Senators was enacted.
Now, everything is for sale to the highest bidder, as senators have become just another 100 representatives, only with longer terms.

[44 AMP]

Also, one thing people often forget is that the founding fathers did NOT want everyone in the country voting. Remember who could vote at first? Rich, land owning males.

And at the time, it was not an entirely flawed concept. It predates the Revolution, in fact.

Males only, of course (anything else in those times would have been thought..foolish, at best), white males, mostly, but the actual rule was "free men", and while there were not many non white "free men" it was possible under the rule of the day.

And "rich, landowning..." was not the specific rule, either, but rather what it tended to support. The rule was that one had to prove worth a certain amount (originally in Pounds Sterling), either in cash, land, or chattel goods.

I no longer remember the amount (and it probably varied a bit in different localities), but it was not a paltry sum. The poor had great difficulty making it, which is not surprising, as they were poor. But it was something successful farmers and businessmen could usually manage. Particularly since it didn't have to be in cash, but in worth, which could be figured several ways.

The underlying idea was that theh people who had the greatest stake in matters that the govt might decide on had the vote. This was NOT an era of general sufference. It was also not an era of government's constant, daily presence in the miniutia of everyone's daily life.

In those days, people who were successful, and independent were thought worth listening to. People who weren't, weren't.

Today, that hasn't been the case for quite some time. Everyone gets a say, we call it democracy. Of course, that's what they called it back then, too...