A sign
Pretty good sign for us pro-gun folks that the Senate voted 81-10 to prevent any funding to foreign organizations that infringe upon the Second Amendment rights of lawful American citizens. That would be the United Nations, in case you wanted to know.
September 11th, 2007 at 11:43 am
We also passed a law against illegal aliens; notice how well that is being enforced?
I wish the US would dump the UN, that bunch of idiots are a waste of time, money, and office space.
September 11th, 2007 at 11:51 am
honest question: how is the UN infringing on anything whatsoever within the borders of the USA? it’s not like they have any legislative or law-enforcement authority here. or anywhere else, really. they’re a lobbying group, in effect, basically; what’s so terrible about that?
September 11th, 2007 at 11:56 am
They’re mostly just making noise about gun control and small arms. They are ineffectual and their efforts are mostly symbolic. Hence, I find the senate’s symbolic response appropriate.
September 11th, 2007 at 12:52 pm
Another useful part of this exercise is that is serves to highlight just who are the treasonous ten that voted against this amendment along with the no-show nine many of whom were ‘to busy’ campaigning for President to bother supporting the Constitution.
‘You will know them by their deeds.’
September 11th, 2007 at 1:30 pm
Except international treaties ratified by the Senate are considered legally binding to the same level as federal law. In additional, while treaties signed by only the President are not binding under US law, they are binding under international law.
While prohibiting the export of firearms to destinations where they are likely to “commit grave violations of human rights” doesn’t sound particularly threatening at first, when it becomes a little problematic when you realize that the texts themselves refer to things like civilian ownership as a violation of human rights, and things like the death penalty or long prison sentences grave violations. It won’t do much in Texas, but give it to a liberal judge or prosecution team and you’re buggered.
September 11th, 2007 at 2:12 pm
seems to me your complaint would be with the U.S. senate, then, not the UN. same as when any other lobbying group manages to push through a bad law, IMHO.
September 11th, 2007 at 2:37 pm
noman, there is a reason your opinion is humble.
September 11th, 2007 at 3:06 pm
Passing a bill is great and all… but are they going to bother enforcing it in the future? What is their definition of “infringe”? Because, I would be willing to wager a fair amount of money that it does not line up too evenly with what you would consider infringement. And what about local/national organizations that infringe upon the Second Amendment? Sure, they should fall under the purview of the American judicial system, but the Brady Bunch has been trying to completely remove everyone’s Second Amendment-guaranteed rights for years, and I certainly do not see anything happening to them.
More meaningless legislation coming out of DC. Color me surprised.
September 11th, 2007 at 4:41 pm
“how is the UN infringing on anything whatsoever within the borders of the USA?”
Indirectly, but their efforts overseas can/are/will affect the availability of mil-surp and commercial arms here. They are attempting to eliminate international trade in small arms. They could severely limit our buying options.
It takes two to trade, and if they can’t quell demand here, they will limit supply elsewhere.
As for the Senate passing pointless legislation…well that’s OK with me:
“Be thankful we’re not getting all the government we’re paying for.”
— Will Rogers
September 11th, 2007 at 6:29 pm
Wow. I’m suprised I only live under 10% of the nay votes – Hillary had better sense than to vote no on this one. That just left Chuckles to do his usual.
September 12th, 2007 at 4:14 pm
“I wish the US would dump the UN, that bunch of idiots are a waste of time, money, and office space”
I hear that! And level that eyesore in NYC while we’re at it and put in a shooting range in it’s place.