Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: MichaelSkyy who wrote (495254)	7/13/2012 8:40:18 AM
From: FJB	5 Recommendations Respond to of 793542

Vanderboegh warns of civil war if UN small arms treaty enforced http://www.examiner.com/article/vanderboegh-warns-of-civil-war-if-un-small-arms-treaty-enforced SMALL ARMS TREATYJULY 12, 2012BY: ANTHONY MARTIN Excerpt: As Vanderboegh states in the side bar of his blog, "The Three Percent are the folks the Founders counted on to save the Republic when everyone else abandoned it." But it appears that Vanderboegh will not have to count on the three percent in this instance. The small arms treaty is having a difficult time gaining enough support in the Senate to uphold Obama's signature. A treaty, although signed by a president, must gain 67 votes in the Senate in order for it to become the law of the land. At this point 58 senators, 45 Republicans and 13 Democrats, have signed a letter stating they oppose the U.N. small arms treaty. Yesterday the NRA's Wayne LaPierre reminded the United Nations of the letter, which was first submitted last year, indicating broad, bipartisan opposition. The only chance, apparently, that the treaty has of being approved is an underhanded maneuver on the part of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., to slip the treaty onto the docket for a floor vote during the lame duck session after the November elections. Even then, however, the measure would still have difficulty due to the fact that 13 Democrats are on the record opposing it. The other treaty in question, LOST, is much more dangerous due to the fact that its chances of being approved are much greater than that of ATT. Sixteen Republican senators have yet to decide or have declared in favor of LOST. All 53 Democratic senators are expected to vote in favor.

To: MichaelSkyy who wrote (495254)

7/16/2012 4:40:04 PM

From: MichaelSkyy

3 Recommendations Respond to of 793542

Reply from my congressman:

Dear Mr. -------

Thank you for contacting me with your concerns regarding the Arms Trade Treaty.

The Arms Trade Treaty is a proposed international treaty that would regulate global trade in conventional arms sales. While the treaty is still under discussion, the purpose of the treaty is to prevent the transfer of weapons, including light arms, into the hands of terrorists, human rights abusers and other authoritarian regimes around the world. To accomplish this purpose the treaty would incorporate new controls over the transfer of finished weapons, weapon components, ammunition and other military-grade equipment. In October 2009, President Obama reversed the Bush administration's decision to oppose the treaty and endorsed a robust Arms Trade Treaty. In order for a treaty to become binding to the United States, it must first be ratified by two-thirds of the United States Senate.

The Arms Trade Treaty has been presented as a means to control the flow of international weapons into repressive nations; however, until the treaty has been concluded and presented to the U.S. Senate we will not know all of the proposal's details. While the House of Representatives does not directly participate in the treaty-approval process, I believe my colleagues in the Senate will reject any treaty which violates our Second Amendment right to bear arms or conflicts with America's national security interests. I do not believe that the United States should join any additional arms control treaties. Unfortunately, such treaties often restrict the transfer of weapons into the hands of American allies while America's enemies import weapons from nations which refuse to honestly abide by treaty restrictions. Additionally, America is a major exporter of weapons, which supports thousands of American jobs. Overly-restrictive language could interfere with the ability of our businesses to ship their products to legitimate overseas buyers.

For these reasons I am a proud cosponsor of H.R. 3594, the Second Amendment Protection Act. This bill would prohibit the United States from providing any funding to the United Nations during any fiscal year unless the President certifies that the United Nations has not taken any action which would infringe on American's Constitutional rights. I am also a cosponsor of H.R. 5846, the Second Amendment Sovereignty Act. This bill would prohibit the use of any taxpayer dollars for the Arms Trade Treaty negotiations or any other United Nations action which could infringe on American's Second Amendment rights. The measure would also prevent the use of funds to enter into any agreement that would create new regulations, controls or prohibitions against the manufacture, sale, possession, or use of light arms manufactured in the United States. H.R. 3594 and H.R 5846 have been referred to the United States House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs for further legislative action.

Again, thank you for contacting me on this important issue. Hearing the views of all Missourians gives me the opportunity to better understand how important issues could impact the people of the Seventh District and the future interests of the nation.

For additional information regarding current legislation, my representation of the Seventh District, and to sign up to receive my monthly newsletter, I invite you to visit my website at http://long.house.gov .

Sincerely,

Billy Long
Member of Congress