Maybe... just maybe the Dems are getting a clue.

Joined
Mar 4, 2006
Messages
18,157
Likes
9,229
Feedback: 1 / 0 / 0
I'll remain skeptical and cautious as always, but I'm beginning to believe that it's finally sinking in to some that gun control is a losing issue (hell, even Kerry voted in favor of it)...


Senate Votes To Address U.N. Gun Ban Crusade

Friday, September 07, 2007


With the United Nations continuing its efforts to enact draconian, transnational gun control laws in countries around the world, yesterday the U.S. Senate passed the Foreign Operations appropriations bill, which included an amendment by Senator David Vitter (R-LA) that seeks to address the U.N.’s ongoing international gun ban efforts.

Senator VitterBy an overwhelming 81-10 vote, the Senate passed Sen. Vitter’s amendment to prevent any funding to foreign organizations that infringe upon the Second Amendment rights of lawful American citizens. Any organization that adopts a policy anathema to the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment would no longer be eligible for U.S. financial assistance—including the U.N.

The gun ban issue in the U.N. has been percolating for more than a decade, and while NRA has been successful to date in precluding the U.N. from enacting its anti-freedom agenda, the bureaucrats at Turtle Bay remain committed in their zeal to push for additional restrictions on the rights of free gun owners in the United States and around the globe.
Global registration and tracking of firearms would inevitably lead to the global disarmament of free citizens everywhere; something that we cannot and will not let happen. NRA will remain vigilant in monitoring the U.N.’s anti-gun actions and speaking out in the international community in support of Americans’ Second Amendment rights.


Roll call vote


No surprises here though...

NAYs ---10

Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Levin (D-MI)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Reed (D-RI)
Schumer (D-NY)
Whitehouse (D-RI)


And a number of no-shows/not voting presidential candidates...[thinking]

Not Voting - 9

Biden (D-DE)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Clinton (D-NY)
Craig (R-ID)
Dodd (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
McCain (R-AZ)
Obama (D-IL)

Text of amendment...

SA 2774. Mr. VITTER submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R. 2764, making appropriations for the Department of State, foreign operations, and related programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes; as follows:

On page 410, between lines 15 and 16, insert the following:

RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS

Sec. 699B. None of the funds made available under this Act may be made available to any international organization, agency, or entity (including the United Nations) that requires the registration of, or taxes a gun owned by a citizen of the United States.

http://thomas.loc.gov
 
I'd wager some of the D's who voted in the affirmative did so becuase going after Americans' guns is their job, not the UN's. Just protecting their ideological turf, I'd say.

As for those 10 lowlife scumbags who hate the idea of preventing the UN from f***ing with our guns, well, I'd better not say in a public forum.
 
Vitter's speech on the floor was nice.

Mr. President, this amendment is very simple and straightforward. In fact, perhaps I should not have waived reading of it. It is a few sentences. So I will do it myself:

None of the funds made available under this Act may be made available to any international organization, agency, or entity (including the United Nations) that requires the registration of, or taxes a gun owned by a citizen of the United States.

That is the entire amendment, the entire sum and substance of the amendment. As such, it is a straight funding limitation amendment, which has been ruled by the Parliamentarian as completely germane. This is a version of a full-blown, freestanding bill that I have filed in the past, specifically last Congress. It was S. 1488. I filed that bill and had 17 cosponsors.

Many folks who haven't followed the proceedings on this in the U.N. may ask: What is this all about? Why is this necessary? Unfortunately, it is about an effort in the United Nations to bring gun control to various countries through that international organization. Unfortunately, that has been an ongoing effort which poses a real threat. This goes back to 1995, when this issue of international gun control was first put before the U.N. General Assembly. Then, in 2001, the General Assembly adopted a program of action designed to infringe on second amendment rights. In fact, from July 11 to 15 they met at the U.N. in New York City to finalize some agreements on that.

It is of significance that Dr. Rebecca Peters is the new head of that effort in the U.N. and, in particular, the entity within the U.N. that leads that International Action Network on Small Arms. That may not be a household name but perhaps it should be, particularly to second amendment advocates, because Dr. Peters is the person who led Australia's massive effort at far-reaching gun control. She has been very vocal on the subject, debating, for instance, Wayne LaPierre of the NRA on numerous occasions. Other pro-gun control advocates would help facilitate procedures within the U.N. program of action that could very well impact and infringe U.S. citizens' second amendment rights.

Therefore, again, that gets back to the Vitter amendment, which simply says we are not going to support any international organization that does that; that requires a registration of U.S. citizens' guns or taxes U.S. citizens' guns. If other folks in this Chamber think that is not happening, that it is never going to happen, my reply is simple and straightforward: Great, then this language has no effect. It is no harm to pass it as a failsafe. It has no impact. But, in fact, related efforts have been going on in the U.N. since at least 1995. I hope this can get very wide, bipartisan support, and I urge all my colleagues to support this very fundamental, straightforward amendment.

I yield back my time.
 
I'd wager some of the D's who voted in the affirmative did so becuase going after Americans' guns is their job, not the UN's. Just protecting their ideological turf, I'd say.

+1 to that...

IMO the likely reason someone like Kerry voted in favor of it
was like "HEY! if the UN gets to tax a gun that means that WE
can't tax it, or can't tax it as much!" It wouldn't surprise me
if some also thought that UN regulation was encroaching on our
own gigantic regulatory and revenue "machines". Think- turf
protection, etc. Maybe some of his "muffy get that one on the
rise" shotgun buddies might have complained as well, lamenting
that a UN tax of even say, 5%, would drastically increase the
price of those imported 10K+ O/U's they like to buy. [laugh]

FWIW, I'm not bashing the premise of the amendment at all... I
think it's a damned good idea.... the UN is getting far too close
to comfort in terms of trying to screw with us and pull us into
their globalist jaws.


-Mike
 
Don't forget that not every single person with a D next to their name is like Kerry and Kennedy. Some actually believe in what the 2nd means, or are we stereotyping all D's as tax grabbing socialists?

At this point I'd stereotype most D's and R's as "tax grabbing
socialists" with the numbers of those being somewhat higher on the
D side, although the gap is rapidly narrowing.... both major
parties have turned into pork factories as of late.

Often the tendencies exist independently of how they feel on
the 2nd amendment, as well. In some regions you can get
away with social programs but not with messing with people's
guns, etc. Two different ballgames.

I will agree that a dem like kerry or kennedy is 1000 times worse
than say, a pro RKBA Dem like Jim Webb is. The problem is
that for every one pro RKBA dem there are 10 others that are
antis. Doesn't help the dems too much when their platform
statement on guns is still basically a buffered version of
swinestine's "mr and mrs america turn them all in", etc.

-Mike
 
Don't forget that not every single person with a D next to their name is like Kerry and Kennedy. Some actually believe in what the 2nd means, or are we stereotyping all D's as tax grabbing socialists?

Hardly. Those of us in the People's Republic of Massachusetts are better aware that most that neither support for the 2nd Amendment nor treason follow strict party lines. If it weren't for pro-gun Democrats, then even replacing treasonous Republicans with staunch supporters would prevent Massachusetts from adopting laws worse than DC's. OTOH, one does note a rather significant correlation between being an elected Democrat and supporting gun control.

Ken
 
Back
Top Bottom