Does treaty ratification still require a 2/3 Senate vote? (UN Gun Ban Treaty)

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Does treaty ratification still require a 2/3 Senate vote? (UN Gun Ban Treaty)

Posted: 7/3/2012 12:07:18 PM EDT

I keep hearing more and more on this UN Arms Trade Treaty.
The Senate still has to ratify treaties, right? With this idiot in the White House, I wouldn't put it past him to just EO the fucking thing.

That's if there isn't a section in this health care bill to allow the president to sign treaties. Since no one has read the fucking thing...

Posted: 7/3/2012 12:20:38 PM EDT

[#1]

Yes it takes a 2/3rds vote.

The full process is this..

Ratification Process

Posted: 7/3/2012 2:08:52 PM EDT

[#2]

They can do an end around by not calling it a treaty, as they did with NAFTA. Unilateral action by Obama is always a possibility, too. Think Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America.

Posted: 7/5/2012 7:47:29 AM EDT

[#3]

I really don't understand why this hasn't gotten more attention here, of all places.

Posted: 7/5/2012 7:49:58 AM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:
I really don't understand why this hasn't gotten more attention here, of all places.

Because, thankfully, 80% of people seem to realize this is all a bunch of tinfoil nuttery.

Posted: 7/5/2012 7:51:13 AM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I really don't understand why this hasn't gotten more attention here, of all places.

Because, thankfully, 80% of people seem to realize this is all a bunch of tinfoil nuttery.

Wasn't this supposed to get ratified under Clinton's term? It's been so long that I've forgot.

Posted: 7/5/2012 7:51:21 AM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:
They can do an end around by not calling it a treaty, as they did with NAFTA. Unilateral action by Obama is always a possibility, too. Think Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America.

That wouldn't be very smart on obamas part, that would be legislation via EO and could very well end up with getting the boot either by electing Romney or impeachment and conviction for high crimes and such. Between now and November 5th there will be no gun control anything, after who knows

Posted: 7/5/2012 7:51:47 AM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I really don't understand why this hasn't gotten more attention here, of all places.

Because, thankfully, 80% of people seem to realize this is all a bunch of tinfoil nuttery.

Wasn't this supposed to get ratified under Clinton's term? It's been so long that I've forgot.

People have been wetting their panties over this treaty since Clinton's term, at least.

Posted: 7/5/2012 7:53:00 AM EDT

[#8]

Pre or Post Roberts?
Pre, I'd say yes, clearly.
Post? NFC
ETA:

Quoted:

Quoted:
I really don't understand why this hasn't gotten more attention here, of all places.

Because, thankfully, 80% of people seem to realize this is all a bunch of tinfoil nuttery.

Wasn't this supposed to get ratified under Clinton's term? It's been so long that I've forgot.

People have been wetting their panties over this treaty since Clinton's term, at least.

Ahh yes. It's been more than the 3 nanosecond attention span of an ant. Feel free to ignore it, the totally honest Democrats won't try anything.

Posted: 7/5/2012 7:54:32 AM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I really don't understand why this hasn't gotten more attention here, of all places.

Because, thankfully, 80% of people seem to realize this is all a bunch of tinfoil nuttery.

This.

Posted: 7/5/2012 7:55:52 AM EDT

[#10]

It's the Senate that actually "approves" a treaty by means of a 2/3 vote.

The President is the one who then "ratifies" it.

Posted: 7/5/2012 7:56:44 AM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I really don't understand why this hasn't gotten more attention here, of all places.

Because, thankfully, 80% of people seem to realize this is all a bunch of tinfoil nuttery.

This.

Indeed, but I expected that 20% to be much more vocal.

Posted: 7/5/2012 7:56:46 AM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:

Quoted:

I really don't understand why this hasn't gotten more attention here, of all places.

Because, thankfully, 80% of people seem to realize this is all a bunch of tinfoil nuttery.

This.

Uh, yep.

Posted: 7/5/2012 7:59:13 AM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I really don't understand why this hasn't gotten more attention here, of all places.

Because, thankfully, 80% of people seem to realize this is all a bunch of tinfoil nuttery.

This.

Indeed, but I expected that 20% to be much more vocal.

Oh if the treaty is signed and ratified, there will be an incredible gnashing of teeth and wailing.

Posted: 7/5/2012 8:00:09 AM EDT

[#14]

2/3rds until odumbo signs another executive order... for the children.

Posted: 7/5/2012 8:00:30 AM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:

I really don't understand why this hasn't gotten more attention here, of all places.

It has actually come up a number of times. Here's what I remember from those threads:

1. Treaties can't override the BOR or the Constitution.

2. The treaty is for exportation of small arms to countries such as Somalia and other such trouble spots.

3. The President can't sign an executive order to implement this proposed treaty.

4. The NRA is using this as a scare tactic to raise funds.

5. It's on the tin-foil side of things.

6. It's been going on for years.

Posted: 7/5/2012 8:00:36 AM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:

I really don't understand why this hasn't gotten more attention here, of all places.

It has gotten attention, it has been discussed on here for years before you were a member.

Posted: 7/5/2012 8:01:24 AM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
Pre or Post Roberts?
Pre, I'd say yes, clearly.
Post? NFC
ETA:

Quoted:

Quoted:
I really don't understand why this hasn't gotten more attention here, of all places.

Because, thankfully, 80% of people seem to realize this is all a bunch of tinfoil nuttery.

Wasn't this supposed to get ratified under Clinton's term? It's been so long that I've forgot.

People have been wetting their panties over this treaty since Clinton's term, at least.

Ahh yes. It's been more than the 3 nanosecond attention span of an ant. Feel free to ignore it, the totally honest Democrats won't try anything.

Yep, we are far better off to cry wolf and panic over non-credible threats so when a real threat does come along, no one has the emotional energy left to take it seriously. PANIC FUCKIN' PANIC PEOPLE!!

BTW, 57 Senators have publically announced their opposition to the treaty and it only takes 34 to stop it.

Posted: 7/5/2012 8:05:40 AM EDT

[#18]

Please post the text of the UN Gun Ban Treaty.

Oh, wait...

Posted: 7/5/2012 8:11:17 AM EDT

[#19]

Just let me know when I am supposed to start putting blue helmets on my targets at the range.

Posted: 7/5/2012 9:23:58 AM EDT

[#20]

Please don't take this personally. But...according to arfcom, obunghole shouldn't be sitting in the white house right now. So, you'll have to forgive me if I don't underestimate the lengths this mother fucker will go to to disarm us and declare himself king or emperor or whatever.

I don't put anything past this bastard. Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get me.

Posted: 7/5/2012 9:30:30 AM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:
Please don't take this personally. But...according to arfcom, obunghole shouldn't be sitting in the white house right now. So, you'll have to forgive me if I don't underestimate the lengths this mother fucker will go to to disarm us and declare himself king or emperor or whatever.

I don't put anything past this bastard. Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get me.

Well, if we're going to full on nutter-land, he doesn't need a treaty if he's just going to declare that you have to turn your guns over the official political officer.

You're going to need a few more sq mi of duct tape tin foil.

Edit: I guess you need duct tape to hold that much tin foil? I don't know.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Does treaty ratification still require a 2/3 Senate vote? (UN Gun Ban Treaty)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us