Response from a Senator

This is a discussion on Response from a Senator within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Well, at least you got a response... all I got was an auto reply thanking me for contacting them....

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 29 of 29
Like Tree6Likes

Thread: Response from a Senator

  1. #16
    VIP Member Array Thunder71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Minnesota, USA
    Posts
    2,505
    Well, at least you got a response... all I got was an auto reply thanking me for contacting them.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #17
    Member Array Varmiter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Full Time Rv'er
    Posts
    153
    A couple of points.

    He is a Class 1 Senator, meaning he is up for re-election this cycle.

    He is NOT on the list of Senators who oppose the ATT

    If memory serves, the Senate does NOT ratify a Treaty. They give their Approval and Consent with a 2/3rds vote. The President ratifies.

    Chris

  4. #18
    Ex Member Array Harryball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Lansing Mi
    Posts
    6,960
    Pink smoke.....

  5. #19
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    We have to understand that when a person states that they will protect the Second Amendment that they might be lying. Or, they might just be saying that they will defend their interpretation of what it says. If he believes that the Amendment applies to the National Guards right to bear arms then that is what he is protecting. Not your rights as an individual.

    Maybe asking if a person will protect the Second Amendment is not the correct question. Maybe they should be asked instead if they support an individuals right to bear arms. And if the Government can infringe on that right.

    Michael
    phreddy likes this.

  6. #20
    Distinguished Member Array tangoseal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Near Hotlanta!!
    Posts
    1,337
    Were gonna so lose this fight. Tyranny is so malignant now in our country there is no possible way to stop it through peaceful means that I can forsee. I am NOT in anyway looking forward to or advocating a violent method. Life is just too precious but these people only strive to take it in mass.

    I fear our better days were long before us and now we are facing biblical proportions of global evil. God save the Union for I fear we have lost it. This bill is going to pass. There is only two senators short of passing ratification last report I read.
    "I believe that the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms must not be infringed if liberty in America is to survive." - Ronald Reagan

  7. #21
    Senior Member Array sigs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    532
    Quote Originally Posted by Varmiter View Post
    A couple of points.

    He is a Class 1 Senator, meaning he is up for re-election this cycle.

    He is NOT on the list of Senators who oppose the ATT

    If memory serves, the Senate does NOT ratify a Treaty. They give their Approval and Consent with a 2/3rds vote. The President ratifies.

    Chris
    Actually it is Advice and Consent. But you are correct. The Senate must concur with the President for the treaty to be ratified. If 2/3s of the Senate do not concur the treaty is not ratified.

  8. #22
    Distinguished Member Array tangoseal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Near Hotlanta!!
    Posts
    1,337
    Quote Originally Posted by sigs View Post
    Actually it is Advice and Consent. But you are correct. The Senate must concur with the President for the treaty to be ratified. If 2/3s of the Senate do not concur the treaty is not ratified.
    The law of the sea treaty (Lost) aka UN Small Arms Treaty is being held up, last reported by different major media sources, by only two to three senators? I'd say that is a little more than 2/3rds supporting it. So I say again it shall come to pass. Face reality and I guess it will be a little less painful when it smacks you in the face.

    Worst part is of all the people in congress supporting this treaty, I'd say almost all of their constituency is against the treaty, and yet without representation they will sign this sucker into law. More evidence of treason and violation of the Oath of Office. And no on with the power will do anything. I am but a keyboard commando powerless to do anything at this moment as I watch our republic slip into the nether of pure evil.
    "I believe that the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms must not be infringed if liberty in America is to survive." - Ronald Reagan

  9. #23
    Senior Member Array sigs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    532
    Quote Originally Posted by tangoseal View Post
    The law of the sea treaty (Lost) aka UN Small Arms Treaty is being held up, last reported by different major media sources, by only two to three senators? I'd say that is a little more than 2/3rds supporting it. So I say again it shall come to pass. Face reality and I guess it will be a little less painful when it smacks you in the face.

    Worst part is of all the people in congress supporting this treaty, I'd say almost all of their constituency is against the treaty, and yet without representation they will sign this sucker into law. More evidence of treason and violation of the Oath of Office. And no on with the power will do anything. I am but a keyboard commando powerless to do anything at this moment as I watch our republic slip into the nether of pure evil.
    I don't know what the final outcome will be. I was only addressing the process. But again to process, one senator can hold up a vote just look to votes on appointees. That does not necessarily mean there will be only one or two who end up voting against it. It is possible that the couple who are holding up the vote do not want to be put on the spot with their ultimate vote, whether it be yea or nay.

  10. #24
    Senior Member Array DaveJay's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Northern VA
    Posts
    536
    Quote Originally Posted by brownsbacker View Post
    I sent a e-mail off to Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio regarding the UN Arms treaty. Here is his response :

    Thank you for getting in touch with me about the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty (ATT).

    Since 2006, members of the United Nations have been negotiating a treaty to combat the illicit international trade of arms. The treaty would establish global standards for the import, export, and transfer of conventional weapons — ranging from tanks, fighter jets, small arms, and ammunition — to prevent them from fueling conflicts or falling into the hands of terrorists, warlords, and international crime syndicates.

    I have heard from many Ohioans who are concerned that an ATT could infringe upon their Second Amendment rights. The ATT is not intended to devise a global gun ban or deny law-abiding U.S. citizens their right to bear arms. The United States has made it clear throughout negotiations that any potential ATT must respect the sovereign rights of nations to regulate gun sales and ownership within their own borders. The Supreme Court has also ruled that no treaty may supersede the powers set forth by our Constitution or Bill of Rights.

    I fully support the Second Amendment right to bear arms and will continue to protect this fundamental right. Should the ATT come before the Senate for ratification, I will be sure to keep your views in mind, and I will not support any treaty that undermines the Second Amendment.

    Thank you again for contacting me.

    Sincerely,

    Sherrod Brown
    United States Senator
    Not that different than the response I got from my senator...


    Dear Mr. DaveJay,

    Thank you for contacting me to share your views regarding a potential United Nations (U.N.) arms trade treaty, which is currently being negotiated at the U.N. Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty in New York City.

    The U.N. regularly drafts and proposes treaties on a variety of issues that the United States has the ability to consider as a member of the organization. The dialogue surrounding whether to establish an arms trade treaty is ongoing. Any U.N. treaty must be ratified by two-thirds of the Senate to be applicable to the United States. However, U.N. treaties do not trump the United States Constitution.

    Regarding Second Amendment rights generally, I realize that there are very strong opinions on both sides of the debate. I support public policies that ensure the responsible and appropriate use of guns, as well as efforts to reduce gun-related crimes through increased enforcement and background checks. I do not, however, support laws or regulations that infringe on the Second Amendment Constitutional right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms.

    Please be assured that I value the thoughts that you have shared with me on this important issue. I will keep your views in mind should any legislation on this matter come before the full Senate in the future.

    Again, thank you for contacting me. For further information or to sign up for my newsletter please visit my website at http://warner.senate.gov.


    Sincerely,
    MARK R. WARNER
    United States Senator
    VCDL Member
    "Let us speak courteously, deal fairly, and keep ourselves armed and ready."
    Theodore Roosevelt

  11. #25
    Member Array brownsbacker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    euclid,oh
    Posts
    172
    That's too scary !

  12. #26
    Senior Member Array Happypuppy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Small Town USA
    Posts
    811
    I support public policies that ensure the responsible and appropriate use of guns, as well as efforts to reduce gun-related crimes through increased enforcement and background checks.


    I do not, however, support laws or regulations that infringe on the Second Amendment Constitutional right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms.




    Sincerely,
    MARK R. WARNER
    United States Senator[/QUOTE]


    Notice how part A fails to harmize with part B.In plain English , both part A and Part B are contradictory.

    It is my God given right codified in English Common Law that I can protect myself and family and others if in peril.

    Sent using 2 cans and string

  13. #27
    Member Array Varmiter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Full Time Rv'er
    Posts
    153
    There is some mis-information that needs to be corrected.

    To date, there are 57 Senators who are on record of either individually, or collectively as having written to Obama and Hillary firmly stating their opposition to this Treaty. And by the way, Hillary is not authorized to sign ANY Treaty.

    Of these 57 Senators, 45 are Republicans and 12 Democrats. There are 13 in Class 1, meaning they are up for re-election this cycle. For conversation sake, lets just assume all 13 are replaced with someone who would support the Treaty. That would STILL leave 44 who oppose and since a 2/3rds vote is necessary for Advise and Consent of the Senate, we only need an opposition of 34 to kill this.

    I have serious doubts that the UN can finalize the wording before the election. But, if they did, does anyone really think Obama would bring any attention to it, let alone sign it. However, if he were to win re-election, there is no doubt he would sign it and present it to the Senate. And as we already considered the worst case in the Senate elections, this Treaty STILL will NOT pass in the Senate.

    My greatest worry is that Obama may find some illegal way to do and end run around the Senate. But I also don’t believe he would even contemplate this before the election.

    A complete list of the Senators, including Class 1, who oppose this Treaty can be viewed here.

    The ‘Potential’ U.N. Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) « Constitution Watch…..Dedicated to Bobby's vigil

    A complete list of all the Class 1 Senators can be viewed here.

    Class 1 Senators « Constitution Watch…..Dedicated to Bobby's vigil

    Lastly, if anyone wishes to contact ANY of their congress critters, on the right hand side of either of the above links is a map. Click on that map, click on your state and all your critters are there. Follow the directions for easy contact.

    I’m sorry, but I can’t make it any easier.

    Chris

  14. #28
    Member Array brownsbacker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    euclid,oh
    Posts
    172
    Go figure, Sherrod Brown wasn't on the list against the treaty, but, this was from about a year ago, maybe he changed his mind.

  15. #29
    Distinguished Member Array tangoseal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Near Hotlanta!!
    Posts
    1,337
    Quote Originally Posted by Varmiter View Post
    There is some mis-information that needs to be corrected.

    To date, there are 57 Senators who are on record of either individually, or collectively as having written to Obama and Hillary firmly stating their opposition to this Treaty. And by the way, Hillary is not authorized to sign ANY Treaty.

    Of these 57 Senators, 45 are Republicans and 12 Democrats. There are 13 in Class 1, meaning they are up for re-election this cycle. For conversation sake, lets just assume all 13 are replaced with someone who would support the Treaty. That would STILL leave 44 who oppose and since a 2/3rds vote is necessary for Advise and Consent of the Senate, we only need an opposition of 34 to kill this.

    I have serious doubts that the UN can finalize the wording before the election. But, if they did, does anyone really think Obama would bring any attention to it, let alone sign it. However, if he were to win re-election, there is no doubt he would sign it and present it to the Senate. And as we already considered the worst case in the Senate elections, this Treaty STILL will NOT pass in the Senate.

    My greatest worry is that Obama may find some illegal way to do and end run around the Senate. But I also don’t believe he would even contemplate this before the election.

    A complete list of the Senators, including Class 1, who oppose this Treaty can be viewed here.

    The ‘Potential’ U.N. Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) « Constitution Watch…..Dedicated to Bobby's vigil

    A complete list of all the Class 1 Senators can be viewed here.

    Class 1 Senators « Constitution Watch…..Dedicated to Bobby's vigil

    Lastly, if anyone wishes to contact ANY of their congress critters, on the right hand side of either of the above links is a map. Click on that map, click on your state and all your critters are there. Follow the directions for easy contact.

    I’m sorry, but I can’t make it any easier.

    Chris
    Good info. Lets hope it stays accurate.
    "I believe that the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms must not be infringed if liberty in America is to survive." - Ronald Reagan

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

at&t does not supercede the 2nd amendment
,
list of senators opposing att
,
list of senators who contacted president about small arms treaty
,
sen. warner and un gun ban treaty
,
senate vote status small arms treaty
,

senators against the arms trade tree

,

senators against un small arms treaty nra

,
sharod brown un arms treaty
,
sherrod brown voted to ban most hunting ammunition
,

un small arms treaty 2011

,
which senate members voted for att
,
which senators opposed att
Click on a term to search for related topics.