search
top

US Refuses to Sign Arms Trade Treaty

So reports John Richardson. So Dick Morris turns out to be wrong, but I’m sure all that exposure he got spreading that rumor helped sales of his book, which was likely his only goal.

5 Responses to “US Refuses to Sign Arms Trade Treaty”

  1. Shawn says:

    There are some people that think obama has already signed it and are losing their minds. You cannot reason with the insane. I have to wonder how long it will take them to figure out what actually happened?

    In any case I went back to that dick morris video and basically mocked all the people who insulted me and threatened to kill me because I explained reality. I suspect they will say hitlery already signed it years ago and other lies.

    While I am pleased with the result that dick probably got some book sales from it. I hope not, or at least it wasn’t a whole lot. I also think it brought out the ugliest part of our side. If one takes a glance at the comments there it’s full of unhinged, mentally deranged voilent individuals lashing out rather aggresivley at everyone and anyone (including pro-gunners in the know) who didn’t share their beliefs and swallow what came out of that dick without question.

  2. Zermoid says:

    “Moreover, putting it off until after the election means a treaty could be approved by a lame duck US Senate. This may seem paranoid but I don’t trust either Obama or his State Department on this issue.”

    This is EXACTLY what I thought when I read it earlier today. Put it off till after the elections then win or lose Obama will sign it and push the senate to pass it.

    Also, I heard that it only requires 2/3 of the Senators ‘present’ at the time of the vote to pass it. What’s to stop them from having a vote in the middle of the night when most senators won’t be there, and they have made sure all their supporters ARE there? Anything?

    This really has me worried guys, after the way they passed Obamacare using questionable tactics I put NOTHING past the Democrats.

    • Alpheus says:

      We could technically challenge the treaty at the Supreme Court level…although it’s difficult to have confidence in that route, as well…

      Ultimately, this means we have to be ready for anything that comes our way!

      But then, we have to be ready for anything anyway.

  3. Andy B. says:

    My paranoia inclines me to accept that analysis, but I am forced to note that I would suspect CCRKBA (or any Gottlieb Enterprise) of having similar motives to Morris’s, for wanting to keep the pot boiling as long as possible.

  4. Harold Lloyd says:

    “The Supremacy Clause only applies if the federal government is acting in pursuit of its constitutionally authorized powers, as noted by the phrase “in pursuance thereof” in the actual text of the Supremacy Clause itself.

    Which is to say, that any treaty that violates the Second amendment is invalid.
    So why are the professional advocates on both sides in such a tizzy? Could it have to do with fund-raising?

top