On Guns: Obama’s Moment of Futility
Critics of Republican attempts to attach a repeal/defund-Obamacare rider to must pass legislation complain that it, and all the votes to do the same before it, were futile and a waste time and effort since these provisions and/or the bills they are attached to will never pass the Senate or get by a promised veto by the President.
Where are these critical voices now that the Secretary of State John Kerry signed a controversial U.N. gun control treaty which U.S. Senators have warned for years is dead on arrival.
For any treaty to become binding on the U.S. or for the President to impose regulations and rules to make a treaty effective, it must be ratified by 2/3 of the Senate – 67 votes. Earlier this year, President Obama and his anti-gun allies in the Senate were unable to muster the 60 votes necessary to pass universal background checks, much less a simple majority to ban assault weapons. So what makes him think the Senate would go along with a U.N. sponsored treaty that could be used to do even more harm individuals’ right to keep and bear arms? Especially after multiple Senators have repeatedly stated that the treaty can’t pass the Senate.
Quite aside from the politics, as I have written before, that the treaty is bad as a matter of policy, so it’s good, in this case, that we have the Senate to check the administration’s ambitions.
I only wish more Administration rules, regulations and laws required a 2/3 majority to become the law of the land – that could result in the truly limited government our founders envisioned.
“I only wish more Administration rules, regulations and laws required a 2/3 majority to become the law of the land – that could result in the truly limited government our founders envisioned.”
Yes, yes, yes.
And to what was John Kerry thinking?
http://0.tqn.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/0/7/kerry_ketchup_lies.jpg
How on earth could he do that
Kerry probably figured his buddies in Congress were getting tired of all this free time recently, and needed something to debate…
Citizens grow upset when government moves slow to change things, but that is absolutely the way the founding fathers intended it.
yes, had the founding fathers envisioned the split of the political parties, I would think they made everything a 2/3.
A vast majority would have been much better than a majority.
I don’t think they intended it to get this slow/inefficient.
“U.N. members sign the treaty, which it says is designed “to protect millions living in daily fear of armed violence and at risk of rape, assault, displacement and death.”
Keeping hands out of the hand’s of “bad guys” will never be done via restrictive policy. In fact, the opposite is true. Imagine every female was given a portable can of mace at the age of 15. Or if every 18 year-old graduated high school with a concealed hand guns license. Then the ‘bad guys’ wouldn’t know who to target because there are people everywhere that could be of threat.
Keeping guns* out of the hands
Giving up our sovereignty is a frightening possibility.
“This treaty will not diminish anyone’s freedom. In fact, the treaty recognizes the freedom of both individuals and states to obtain, possess, and use arms for legitimate purposes.”
Legitimate purposes…Considering the anti-gun folks see few, if any, legitimate purposes for individual gun-ownership, Kerry’s assurances are laughable.
Kerry is laughable, but he is in a position to do a lot of harm to US interests.