Thursday, May 30, 2013


46 Senators Voted to Give your 2nd Amendment Constitutional Rights to the UN

This is unbelievable. Look how close this vote was!!!

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:
To uphold Second Amendment rights and prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.

Australian ambassador and president of the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty conference, Peter Woolcott, speaks to the United Nations General Assembly April 2,2013 before an expected vote on what would be the first UN treaty regulating the international arms trade. The UN General Assembly is expected to adopt the first global treaty on the conventional arms trade Tuesday after the 193 member states failed to reach consensus on it last week. (AFP/Getty Images via @daylife)

The UN Small Arms Treaty 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 US, 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 UN:

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



  1. Thank you for publishing the names of the traitors for all to see and categorize. For there will come a time when treason is the call, and out of the mouth of patriots will come demands for trials and justice.

  2. Ye shall know them by their fruits indeed... Thanks for posting their ID's SB. Hey shit head Senators and the like, if you brain trusts keep fucking around and the only thing that'll be registering is muzzle reports.

  3. My take is that means a majority of the Senate isn't ready to start a second Civil War.

    Yes, the 46 are absolutely quislings, and must be removed from office, by elections and recalls, every chance we get.

    But like a three year old holding his hand over a candle flame, one day these knuckleheads are going to screw up, and get exactly what they wish for, and it isn't going to be pretty, not work out anywhere close to how they envision in their fevered imaginings.

  4. SL

    While 46 is concerning it was not close. On treaty votes it requires a 2/3 majority which means 66 Senators would be required for passage.

    1. You are correct regarding the 2/3, but that means that they only need to 'convert' (or would that more properly be 'subvert'?) 20 more to achieve their goal. I suspect that a fair portion of that 20 are facing a contentious re-election campaign next year or else they might very well have sold ALL of us down the river.

  5. You are quite correct regarding treaty votes - what got my attention is that almost half of them openly support moving against the Citizenry's 2d Amendment right to bear arms.


  6. SL

    I agree with you on your observation. When some say there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats. I say look at the above list. There is a difference. United We Stand or Seperate We Shall Hang! Who said that?

  7. This may be a meaningless resolution. It appears the president is going to sign it on 6/3, and afterwards the senate can still bring it up for ratification at any time. From senate rules it appears they can ratify with 2/3 of members present:

    (d) On the final question to advise and consent to the ratification in the form agreed to, the concurrence of two-thirds of the Senators present shall be necessary to determine it in the affirmative; but all other motions and questions upon a treaty shall be decided by a majority vote, except a motion to postpone indefinitely, which shall be decided by a vote of two-thirds.

    ... so in theory despite this weekend it appears the senate can ratify with as few as 34 votes. Are they that arrogant?

  8. "Are they that arrogant?"

    Yes, they are. Look at the health scare passage.

    And, Yippee! both of my senators are on the list. Lucky Me.
    Lazarus Long

  9. Use your voting power and get the SOBS out of office