Traitorous (?) Representation

The following is copied from an email I received. I think it's important enough to be shared with you....: Now, Which 46 Senators Voted to Destroy Us? Well, let their names become known !! See below In a 53-46 vote, the Senate narrowly passed a measure that will stop the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty. The Statement of Purpose from the Bill reads: "To uphold Second Amendment rights and prevent the United Statesfrom entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty." The U.N. Small Arms Treaty, which has been championed by the Obama Administration, would have effectively placed a global ban on the import and export of small firearms. The ban would have affected all private gun owners in the U.S. and had language that would have implemented an international gun registry, now get this, on all private guns and ammo. Astonishingly, 46 out of our 100 United States Senators were willing to give away our Constitutional rights to a foreign power. Here are the 46 senators who voted to give your rights to the U.N. Baldwin (D-WI) Baucus (D-MT) Bennett (D-CO) Blumenthal (D-CT) Boxer (D-CA) Brown (D-OH) Cantwell (D-WA) Cardin (D-MD) Carper (D-DE) Casey (D-PA) Coons (D-DE) Cowan (D-MA) Durbin (D-IL)j Feinstein (D-CA) Franken (D-MN) Gillibrand (D-NY) Harkin (D-IA) Hirono (D-HI) Johnson (D-SD) Kaine (D-VA) King (I-ME) Klobuchar (D-MN) Landrieu (D-LA) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI) McCaskill (D-MO) Menendez (D-NJ) Merkley (D-OR) Mikulski (D-MD) Murphy (D-CT) Murray (D-WA) Nelson (D-FL) Reed (D-RI) Reid (D-NV) Rockefeller (D-WV) Sanders (I-VT) Schatz (D-HI) Schumer (D-NY) Shaheen (D-NH) Stabenow (D-MI) Udall (D-CO) Udall (D-NM) Warner (D-VA) Warren (D-MA) Whitehouse (D-RI) Wyden (D-OR) Folks: This needs to go viral. These Senators voted to let the UN take OUR guns. They need to lose their next election. We have been betrayed. 46 Senators Voted to Give your 2nd Amendment Constitutional Rights to the U.N. Please send this to SOMEONE!

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Vulchor

This is how ignorance and misinformation is spread, no disrespect meant to you Marta.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp

raisindot

Vulchor:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp

Isn't it too bad when facts derail conspiracy theories? One minute of Snopes could lower your blood pressure by 50 points.

jlmarta

Before you gentlemen commit to believing what Snopes has to say, I recommend you also check the item out on Truthorfiction.com and also look into the veracity of Snopes. It's been shown frequently that Snopes is politically biased.

No offense taken or intended, guys. I, too, used to think that Snopes was unbiased.....

Bob Luken

I do not support further infringement of our second amendment rights. But I doubt that if push comes to shove that the US, as a people, will tolerate congress adopting rules of a UN treaty that conflict with our constitutional rights. I'm not too worried about this particular issue at this point.

webmost

Bob Luken:
I do not support further infringement of our second amendment rights. But I doubt that if push comes to shove that the US, as a people, will tolerate congress adopting rules of a UN treaty that conflict with our constitutional rights. I'm not too worried about this particular issue at this point.

What the US, as a people, support, and what government foists upon us, are too often worlds apart. You may adduce any number of examples yourself, from our own lifetime.

Bob Luken

webmost:
Bob Luken:
I do not support further infringement of our second amendment rights. But I doubt that if push comes to shove that the US, as a people, will tolerate congress adopting rules of a UN treaty that conflict with our constitutional rights. I'm not too worried about this particular issue at this point.
What the US, as a people, support, and what government foists upon us, are too often worlds apart. You may adduce any number of examples yourself, from our own lifetime.

Blinded by the light / Revved up like (adduce?) / Another runner in the night.

jd50ae

jlmarta

jd50ae:

Is there some reason we shouldn't be discussing this, JD?

Amos Umwhat

jlmarta:
jd50ae:

Is there some reason we shouldn't be discussing this, JD?

I hope that wasn't what was meant.

For my view, see comments in "Question for Gun People" thread.

(Synopsis: Free sane people don't allow themselves to be disarmed by anyone.)

Amos Umwhat

webmost:
Bob Luken:
I do not support further infringement of our second amendment rights. But I doubt that if push comes to shove that the US, as a people, will tolerate congress adopting rules of a UN treaty that conflict with our constitutional rights. I'm not too worried about this particular issue at this point.
What the US, as a people, support, and what government foists upon us, are too often worlds apart. You may adduce any number of examples yourself, from our own lifetime.

Amen.

jd50ae

Amos Umwhat:
jlmarta:
jd50ae:

Is there some reason we shouldn't be discussing this, JD?
I hope that wasn't what was meant.

For my view, see comments in "Question for Gun People" thread.

(Synopsis: Free sane people don't allow themselves to be disarmed by anyone.)

No, there is a reason why I should not be discussing this. Anything to do with obozo and/or the un or the clintonistas makes my blood boil. I have read all I can get my hands on, including the xxxxxxx's twisted BS, about all three. Even though I am pretty sure I know what I am talking about, I know it is wasted energy to argue the point. I have also read the history and reasons behind the 2nd Amendment and that includes all the pertinent writings of the "Founding Fathers". I am a strong believer in my right to own firearms and I have had a carry permit for a very long time.

I choose to stay out of this argument because I do not want to cause any hard feelings, and how you got "we" out of my post escapes me entirely. But it is a good example of why I choose to stay out of it. Typed words carry an inherent possibility of not being taken correctly and often upsets people for the wrong reason. I would much rather a "live" "face to face" conversation on such an emotional issue where tone and expression add so much to understanding someone's knowledge or point of view and feelings are not so much a conjecture of what someone is really trying to express.

I hope this answers your question because I certainly did not mean to stir the pot or step on someones toes.

jlmarta

jd50ae:
Amos Umwhat:
jlmarta:
jd50ae:

Is there some reason we shouldn't be discussing this, JD?
I hope that wasn't what was meant.

For my view, see comments in "Question for Gun People" thread.

(Synopsis: Free sane people don't allow themselves to be disarmed by anyone.)

No, there is a reason why I should not be discussing this. Anything to do with obozo and/or the un or the clintonistas makes my blood boil. I have read all I can get my hands on, including the xxxxxxx's twisted BS, about all three. Even though I am pretty sure I know what I am talking about, I know it is wasted energy to argue the point. I have also read the history and reasons behind the 2nd Amendment and that includes all the pertinent writings of the "Founding Fathers". I am a strong believer in my right to own firearms and I have had a carry permit for a very long time.

I choose to stay out of this argument because I do not want to cause any hard feelings, and how you got "we" out of my post escapes me entirely. But it is a good example of why I choose to stay out of it. Typed words carry an inherent possibility of not being taken correctly and often upsets people for the wrong reason. I would much rather a "live" "face to face" conversation on such an emotional issue where tone and expression add so much to understanding someone's knowledge or point of view and feelings are not so much a conjecture of what someone is really trying to express.

I hope this answers your question because I certainly did not mean to stir the pot or step on someones toes.

No problem, my friend. I evidently mis-read the intent of the smiley you posted. Rather than interpreting it to mean that you didn't wish to discuss it, I took it to mean that 'we' shouldn't discuss it - the 'we' being those of us who were discussing it prior to your post, I.e., Vulchor, Bob Luken, and myself. Hope that clarifies it, Bro.... :-)

jsnake

Snopes is not the final word on a dang thing. It is owned and run by a liberal couple with an agenda. Amazes me people are such sheep as to discount facts and opinions that differ from their views because their websites, sources, aunts back what they want to believe. Gentlemen it is a game of divide and conquer. All politicians care about is themselves, their power, and remaining in power. Look over here as I do something sneaky over there. Not judging anyone but seriously snopes is almost as bad as calling someone a racist or bigot because their opinion differs from yours.

PAtoNH

Okay, so snopes is out… would you accept Voice of America or Guns & Ammo as a news source on this topic?

jlmarta

PAtoNH:
Okay, so snopes is out… would you accept Voice of America or Guns & Ammo as a news source on this topic?

Do either of those purport to verify or discredit news items, urban legends, or the like? Or are they simply biased publications?

jsnake

PAtoNH:
Okay, so snopes is out… would you accept Voice of America or Guns & Ammo as a news source on this topic?

In this instance I would go to the Congressional website and look up the vote and the details of what the vote was for. Just like gun and crime statistics everyone tried to manipulate to support their views. I go to the FBI website where you can see the crime statistics for yourself. People just need to look at their sources and check some facts for themselves. Like people saying something like oh you believe everything on Fox News when my opinion is different. Really? That is your weak argument? So instead of throwing that at me how about backing up what your position is because everything on CNN and MSNBC is not the word of God just because it is what you want to believe. Snopes does have some accurate info but just like everything else out there it is subject to bias and inaccuracies when people have agendas.

jd50ae

jsnake:
PAtoNH:
Okay, so snopes is out… would you accept Voice of America or Guns & Ammo as a news source on this topic?
In this instance I would go to the Congressional website and look up the vote and the details of what the vote was for. Just like gun and crime statistics everyone tried to manipulate to support their views. I go to the FBI website where you can see the crime statistics for yourself. People just need to look at their sources and check some facts for themselves. Like people saying something like oh you believe everything on Fox News when my opinion is different. Really? That is your weak argument? So instead of throwing that at me how about backing up what your position is because everything on CNN and MSNBC is not the word of God just because it is what you want to believe. Snopes does have some accurate info but just like everything else out there it is subject to bias and inaccuracies when people have agendas.

I never limit myself to a single source for news or information. I do ignore msnbc because they are a bunch of stooges who never get anything right and lie by editing and omission which is rampant. pierce morgan is only in the US because he got caught doctoring photos in England. Other then that I read and listen to both sides and make up my own mind. There are too many sources out there to be caught up in anyone's "talking points". And I will say that FOX has kept a lot of stories alive that "other" cable "news" just seems to ignore. Ever notice cnn does not mention the political affiliation of a democrat that has been caught with his or her pants down or their hands in the till..? So, watch em all and be careful who you believe. Investigate, the internet can be a wonderful tool.

Vulchor

jsnake:
PAtoNH:
Okay, so snopes is out… would you accept Voice of America or Guns & Ammo as a news source on this topic?
In this instance I would go to the Congressional website and look up the vote and the details of what the vote was for.

Which the snopes article I referenced has a link to btw, but I guess no one bothered to check that out?

jsnake

Vulchor:
jsnake:
PAtoNH:
Okay, so snopes is out… would you accept Voice of America or Guns & Ammo as a news source on this topic?
In this instance I would go to the Congressional website and look up the vote and the details of what the vote was for.
Which the snopes article I referenced has a link to btw, but I guess no one bothered to check that out?

Wasn't jumping on you and referring to anyone here in my statements. Sometimes they get it right. Just saying snopes shouldn't be treated as the answer to all questionable things and an absolute truth.

PAtoNH

jlmarta:
PAtoNH:
Okay, so snopes is out… would you accept Voice of America or Guns & Ammo as a news source on this topic?

Do either of those purport to verify or discredit news items, urban legends, or the like? Or are they simply biased publications?

We live in the information/disinformation age and having news sources I am comfortable with is important so that I can form a point of view. When I googled "Arms Trade Treaty" to find out more (I'm not an expert on international arms trading) a HUGE variety of articles came up, over 8 million returns. That's where things get interesting to me… Which do you pursue and which do you discard?

You've re-posted an email you received that makes a series of claims and alleges betrayal and treason… pretty serious charges. I'd like to know more about the sources of your article.

I read a wiki on the topic, a piece in VOA and a third in Guns & Ammo… there were other sources that I read and trust but I thought it would be interesting to try new ones. All the articles I read come up in the first 3 pages of a google search.

Thanks for reading my post - Mike

jlmarta

PAtoNH:
jlmarta:
PAtoNH:
Okay, so snopes is out… would you accept Voice of America or Guns & Ammo as a news source on this topic?

Do either of those purport to verify or discredit news items, urban legends, or the like? Or are they simply biased publications?
We live in the information/disinformation age and having news sources I am comfortable with is important so that I can form a point of view. When I googled "Arms Trade Treaty" to find out more (I'm not an expert on international arms trading) a HUGE variety of articles came up, over 8 million returns. That's where things get interesting to me… Which do you pursue and which do you discard?

You've re-posted an email you received that makes a series of claims and alleges betrayal and treason… pretty serious charges. I'd like to know more about the sources of your article.

I read a wiki on the topic, a piece in VOA and a third in Guns & Ammo… there were other sources that I read and trust but I thought it would be interesting to try new ones. All the articles I read come up in the first 3 pages of a google search.

Thanks for reading my post - Mike

Here's a link to the Truthorfiction.com verification:

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/l/List-Of-Traitors.htm#.UxHy9Sm9LTo

PAtoNH

jlmarta:
PAtoNH:
jlmarta:
PAtoNH:
Okay, so snopes is out… would you accept Voice of America or Guns & Ammo as a news source on this topic?

Do either of those purport to verify or discredit news items, urban legends, or the like? Or are they simply biased publications?
We live in the information/disinformation age and having news sources I am comfortable with is important so that I can form a point of view. When I googled "Arms Trade Treaty" to find out more (I'm not an expert on international arms trading) a HUGE variety of articles came up, over 8 million returns. That's where things get interesting to me… Which do you pursue and which do you discard?

You've re-posted an email you received that makes a series of claims and alleges betrayal and treason… pretty serious charges. I'd like to know more about the sources of your article.

I read a wiki on the topic, a piece in VOA and a third in Guns & Ammo… there were other sources that I read and trust but I thought it would be interesting to try new ones. All the articles I read come up in the first 3 pages of a google search.

Thanks for reading my post - Mike

Here's a link to the Truthorfiction.com verification:

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/l/List-Of-Traitors.htm#.UxHy9Sm9LTo

Interesting read, thanks! When I did a bit of searching on info about the site I came up with this bit: Urban Legends

I don't want to get bogged down in a discussion of "fact check brand A" vs. "fact check brand B", I don't doubt that these politicians made this vote (a matter of public record). What I'm curious about when looking at legislation that's being presented is: "What are the intended goals?" and "What side effects are likely?" - thanks again.

Vulchor

Lol......ya know......ehh, nevermind. Disinformation is all the information some people want.

perkinke

Something I bear in mind when I recieve emails like this from friends at either end of the political spectrum:

“A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.” ? Mark Twain

And this is something the internet has exacerbated.

raisindot

perkinke:
Something I bear in mind when I recieve emails like this from friends at either end of the political spectrum:

“A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.” ? Mark Twain

And this is something the internet has exacerbated.

Actually, Mark Twain didn't originate the phrase. To quote, as cited from http://freakonomics.com/2011/04/07/quotes-uncovered-how-lies-travel/:

“A lie will go round the world while truth is pulling its boots on.” C. H. Spurgeon, Gems from Spurgeon (1859). An earlier version appears in the Portland (Me.) Gazette, Sept. 5, 1820: “Falsehood will fly from Maine to Georgia, while truth is pulling her boots on.”

Bob Luken

Vulchor:
Lol......ya know......ehh, nevermind. Disinformation is all the information some people want.

LOL! You ain't kiddin' brother

perkinke

raisindot:
perkinke:
Something I bear in mind when I recieve emails like this from friends at either end of the political spectrum:

“A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.” ? Mark Twain

And this is something the internet has exacerbated.
Actually, Mark Twain didn't originate the phrase. To quote, as cited from http://freakonomics.com/2011/04/07/quotes-uncovered-how-lies-travel/:

“A lie will go round the world while truth is pulling its boots on.” C. H. Spurgeon, Gems from Spurgeon (1859). An earlier version appears in the Portland (Me.) Gazette, Sept. 5, 1820: “Falsehood will fly from Maine to Georgia, while truth is pulling her boots on.”

There ya go, unintentionally proved my own point.