These Senators Voted to Give Away Your Second Amendment Rights to the UN

Would you like to meet the Democrats that voted to destroy your Second Amendment rights? Would you like to meet those traitorous Senators that voted to give the power over your rights to the United Nations?

Fortunately, the odious, anti-American treaty was again voted down by the full Senate, but 46 Senators voted in favor of handing over our Constitutional rights to the UN.

Senator Jim Inhofe (R-OK) offered Amendment 139 that was passed with a 53 to 46 vote. His Amendment contained language to affirm that foreign treaties would not trump the U.S. Constitution.

“Mr. President,” Inhofe said on the floor of the Senate, “I want to make sure that everyone understands what the United Nations trade treaty is. The trade treaty is a treaty that cedes our authority to have trade agreements with our allies in terms of trading arms.”

He went on to say, “I want to very briefly read this so nobody over there or over here misunderstands what this amendment does. This is right out of the amendment. Uphold the Second Amendment rights, that is one thing. And secondly, prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations arms trade treaties.”

But many Democrats simply didn’t agree with Inhofe’s insistence that the U.S. Constitution trump the UN.

Below is the list of Democrats that voted against the amendment and in favor of the UN being given the power to overturn the U.S. Constitution.

Baldwin (D WI)
Baucus (D MT)
Bennet (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)
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 WA)
Sanders (I VT)
Schatz (D HI)
Shaheen (D NH)
Stabenow (D MI)
Udall (D CO)
Udall (D NM)
Warner (D VA)
Warren (D MA)
Whitehouse (D RI)
Wyden (D OR)

You can read a bit more about this at The New American.

Office of Congressional Ethics Investigating Michele Bachmann
Fox News Mentions Me About Jay Leno Being Fired by NBC
  • The_Queen_of_France

    Gilibrand didn’t vote with Schumer on something? Was he home with the sniffles?

    PS Schatz is from Hawaii, not NY.

    • warnertoddhuston

      Thanks for the correction on that. I mis-typed my list on Sen. Schatz.

    • GreatWhiteRat

      Another typo: Warren’s from MA, of course, not PA.

  • jim_m

    This represents the perfect case for the dems. Abdicate all responsibility for governing to a foreign organization so they don’t have to do anything. They can’t pass their anti-American agenda at home so they can defer to the most anti-American body outside of Iran.

  • retired.military

    I am surprised Collins, McCain and Graham aren’t on the list.k

    • jim_m

      And Kirk. Kirk was the only republican to vote against raising the number of votes required to pass gun control legislation. I’d blame it on the stroke but he was a RINO before that.

      • warnertoddhuston

        Kirk is a RINO on many issues, but he has always been relatively pro-Constitution. So, it doesn’t surprise me that he wouldn’t vote in favor of turning over our sovereignty to the UN. He is a 60 percenter for conservative positions.

    • herddog505

      True. And come out calling anybody who didn’t agree with them “wackbirds” or whatever.

  • GarandFan

    Of course that Socialist, Sanders voted for it.

  • herddog505

    democrat politicians are are a pack of traitorous, villainous, lying scum. Trash, every damned one of them.

    • Commander_Chico

      Has someone hijacked your account, herddog? That seems a bit immoderate and partisan for you.

      Truth is most politicians of both parties are traitorous lying villains.

      The treason just comes in different flavors.

      The proposals to subject domain name registration on the internet to a UN body are worse than this.

      • herddog505

        I don’t say that the GOP is much better: any body that includes Yosemite Sam, the Maine Gals, Grahamnesty, et al, hardly recommends itself as a bullwark of personal liberties, but this business of handing over US sovereignty to the f*cking UN is beyond the pale, and just exactly what I’d expect from a pack of quasi-socialists who’ll stick at nothing to get their way.

        I don’t know what we did to get stuck with that pack of sneaking, thieving, conniving, self-aggrandizing, lying, worthless, greedy, feckless, cowardly c*cksuckers we call Congress, but it must be pretty bad (penance for slavery? What we did to the Indians?). A hospital for the criminally insane has a better moral tone and a higher level of competence that the Capitol.

        F*ck ’em all.

        • Jwb10001

          No need to be so kind, they really don’t deserve it.

        • Commander_Chico

          Sometimes handing over sovereignty to international bodies is a good idea.

          For example, ICAO standards for airport runway markings or the SOLAS convention administered by IMO.

          I am sure there are other examples.

          • jim_m

            Obviously it escapes you that there is a difference between standardizing runway markings and determining whether foreign nations will have veto power over our constitutional rights.

          • Watts, ohms, farads, dimensional standards – yeah, in the technical fields it makes sense – same with the Safety of Life At Sea regs.

            But implementing one-size-fits-all laws usually doesn’t work all that well when it comes down to civil/governmental matters.

          • herddog505

            There’s a difference between having international standards and handing over sovereignty.

  • Bob

    Cool. Now that we have the list, lets vote these people out of office once and for all.

  • jackinnevada

    Treason abounds.

    • Doesn’t rise to the Constitutional standard (Article III Section 3) of treason.

      • Milhouse

        Thank you. Someone has read the thing. Actually this doesn’t rise to any level at all. I’d probably have voted against this amendment just because it’s a stupid waste of ink and paper.

    • Doesn’t rise to the Constitutional standard (Article III Section 3) of treason.

  • Brucehenry

    What is the specific provision in the proposed treaty that “hands over US sovereignty” to the UN? Honest question.

    Because I’m getting that feeling this is another conservative teapot tempest, like “death panels” or “socialized medicine” or the “North American Union.”

    But hey, I could be wrong. What are the words that have y’all so upset?

    EDIT: Hey, check out what Snopes says about this molehill, I mean err, umm, mountain:

    • jim_m

      First of all it would regulate who we could sell arms to. DO you want your congressman making that decision or the UN ambassadors from China, Venezuela and Iran making that decision?

      It makes no distinction between civilian arms and military arms. It also would forbid selling of arms to countries where there are “acts of gender-based violence” meaning they could use that as a pretext to ban importation of handguns into the US.

      And lastly, it calls for actions to“minimize the risk of misuse of legally owned weapons.” That’s called gun confiscation.

      So you can put your Constitution in the hands of the UN if you like. Since it has devolved into little more an a club for the perpetuation of dictatorships I chose not to.

      [edit] To respond to the snopes link – While I agree that the treaty does not directly abrogate the 2nd amendment, it does provide for a mechanism that would restrict the importation of legal arms. Also while the snopes article cites obama’s promise to uphold the 2nd amendment only a complete ass would think that any of his promises are worth anything (yeah I mean you). And lastly, the snopes article does not address the potential loss of sovereignty by essentially placing the government’s arms sales/transfers to non state actors under the regulation of the UN. It was bad enough when Congress prohibited support of the Contras. You want the UN to start making those decisions for us?

      • Brucehenry

        I didn’t say I supported the treaty, just wondered if, as is so often the case, this isn’t just another example of conservative pantspeeing. Looks like from your reply that it is.

        Let me know when blue-helmeted troops from Burkina-Faso and the Malidives jump out of the black helicopters to confiscate your shootin’ iron.

        • jim_m

          again, I did not say that the worry was the UN going door to door. I see the big issue being that the UN wants to direct where guns go. I also see the fact that the dems have an irrational desire to appease foreign powers by taking away our rights. The real issue is entering into a treaty that would subvert our rights.

          • Brucehenry

            I haven’t read much about this treaty, but I have noticed it’s become the latest scary monster in the conservative closet. I’m not taking a stand on it but I’m just here to caution that conservatives have almost undoubtedly misinterpreted what they’ve been told about it.

            Probably because most of them are getting their information about it from models of sober probity like Glenn Beck and Alex Jones. How ’bout you, Jim? Where you getting this stuff from?

          • jim_m
          • Brucehenry

            The Christian Science Monitor tells you that passing this treaty would mean gun confiscation in the US? Or that it would prevent the US from arming, say, the Syrian opposition for example?

            Link, please.

          • Brucehenry

            Didn’t see anything in the CSM article to support your assertions above except quotes from noted geniuses Wayne LaPierre, James Inhofe, and John Bolton.

            I DID note a quote FROM A HERITAGE FOUNDATION OFFICIAL that “this treaty is not likely to have an immediate catastrophic impact if it is approved,” and also that he has little use for the “UN gun-grab argument,” not only because IT’S NOT TRUE, but also because it distracts from the treaty’s real problems.

            EDIT: Turns out that Heritage guy is the guy who writes the Foundry column at Heritage that you say you’re getting your info from, lol.

          • jim_m

            I agree with both. It is a long term threat to sovereignty. I think that the tying of arms regulation to human rights issues is very dangerous due to the way the UN handle human rights, which is to put the most egregious violators of human rights in charge and to accuse the US of being the greatest violator.

            I also agree with the gun grab point. The claim that the UN will send soldiers in to the US is silly. My point is that it provides motivation/cover for the dems to pass laws violating our rights. I also suspect left wing justices who have said that they believe we should look at foreign laws to guide their decisions.

          • Brucehenry

            But yet we have hotheads like Warner claiming that US senators are “traitorous” and voting to “give away your Second Amendment rights to the UN.” And you have no problem with this kind of false, flagrant, rabble-rousing.

            The treaty will not be adopted unless changes are made to include the kind of language acceptable to people like this Bromund guy from Heritage, which seem reasonable enough to me.

            In other words, nothing to pee your pants about. As usual.

          • jim_m

            That the dems are traitorous is nothing new. The fact that they stood against a sense of the Senate resolution that would have taken a stand against murdering US citizens on US soil without due process tells us that they are indeed traitorous.

            You can shed your faux outrage at my statement. Either you believe that they were right and that we are the prey of the federal government or you believe they were wrong and that they are prepared to walk away from their oath of office. They are traitorous because they would do so. They will be traitors when they do so.

          • Brucehenry

            OK, Jim. Traitors, huh? OK.

          • jim_m

            Learn to read dipstick. I said traitorous.


            trai·tor·ous (tr t r-s) adj. 1. Having the character of a traitor; disloyal.

            Having the character. They are not traitors just yet. Not Yet……

          • Brucehenry

            And you said they “will be traitors.”

          • jim_m

            Yes, WHEN they renege on their oath of office. And, yes, I do believe that it is only a matter of time before they do so. But they haven’t gone there yet. Not yet….

            I say it is only a matter of time because you cannot display the disdain for the American public and the disregard for the constitution like they do and not eventually go there.

          • Milhouse

            Treason has a definition, and reneging on an oath of office ain’t it.

          • herddog505

            jim_mThe claim that the UN will send soldiers in to the US is silly.

            Too bad: I can use the target practice.

          • Dennis Johnston

            You’re drinking far too much progressive kool aid Bruce!

          • Brucehenry

            That’s quite a contribution, there, Dennis. I don’t believe anyone’s ever said that on the Internet before.

            Anyone ever hear this “kool-aid” analogy before? It’s a new one on me. Anyone?

          • Don’t worry Dennis, he’s just jealous that you got more net up checks on you first post than he has gotten here in years…

          • Brucehenry
      • Milhouse

        No treaty can override the constitution. So it’s impossible for senators to vote for one that does. It’s really as simple as that. Treaties rank equal with statutes, and both are trumped by the constitution.

        • jim_m

          That’s like saying the Congress can never pass an unconstitutional law. they can do whatever they want and then we have to fight to recover our rights in the courts.

          Nothing is trumped by the constitution until the courts say so. You want to take the risk that an obama nominated court majority votes for your freedom?

      • Milhouse

        DO I want my congressman making that decision? Hell no. I want each arms dealer to make that decision for him- or herself. Why is it any more my communist congresswoman’s business than it is the UN’s? “We” don’t sell arms at all. I don’t, and you don’t. Those who do should be free to sell them to whomever they damn well like.

        This is a bad treaty; but nothing in it could possibly override the second amendment, because treaties can’t do that. And the amendment we’re discussing, that 46 Democrats voted against, wasn’t to the treaty, it was a stupid budget amendment, authorising the chairman of the Budget Committee (a Democrat, by the way) to change some committee allocation in some unspecified way. It doesn’t achieve anything, so voting for or against it is irrelevant. I’d probably have voted against it just because it’s a waste of ink and paper.

    • michaelgingerly

      The date of the Snopes piece you referenced is November 2012. Do try to catch up. Thank you

  • Pingback: These Senators Voted to Give Away Your Second Amendment Rights to the UN()

  • AD_Rtr_OS

    I would guess that they have more loyalty to the UN than to the US.
    Sounds like an impeachable offense.

  • Dennis Johnston

    Everyone of these traitors should be tried for treason against the people of America!! What an absolute disgrace!!

    • 914

      And may they swing from a gallows there after.

    • Milhouse

      Another idiot heard from. How does voting against a stupid amendment to the budget, that achieves absolutely nothing, constitute treason? Do you know the definition of treason? No, you don’t, because you’ve never read the constitution.

  • Stormhammer

    They should be tried for high treason against the United States people and our Constitution and publicly executed.

    • Milhouse

      What an idiot. Have you read the constitution? Try doing that before opening your stupid mouth again. It specifically prohibits what you propose.

      • Stormhammer

        They have done more than this to be tried for treason. And excuse me by exacting my right to freedom of expression as well as giving my opinion. So take your insult and shove it up your ass.

        • Milhouse

          Really? What makes your opinion better than mine? Treason has only two definitions: taking up arms against the United States, or adhering to their enemies giving them aid and comfort. Have the senators done either of these things? No, they have not. Therefore they cannot be tried for treason, and your suggestion that they should be tried is against the constitution. So maybe by your own theory *you* should be tried for treason!

          • When in either of my posts did I say my opinion was better than yours? When did you express your opinion to me? You insulted me, and I am merely defending myself against your insult. So are you just delusional or do you have such low self esteem that you have to try and prove yourself on an internet thread? Because I certainly don’t need to explain or prove myself to anyone, especially some arrogant prick like you. Have a wonderful day 🙂

          • Milhouse

            You’re the one who called for breaking the constitution by trying these people for treason. And you did it in the name of upholding the constitution. That makes you objectively an idiot.

            Then you go on about your right to freedom of expression, which you are apparently “exacting” whatever that means, which means you think your opinion that the senators should be illegally tried for treason is more privileged than my opinion that you’re an idiot.

          • I share this quote with you,

            “Even three words of quarreling you shouldn’t have with an inferior.”
            – Hávamál, st. 125

            and I have wasted enough on you. Go troll someone else.

  • Pingback: UN Arms Treaty Over a Decade of Propagandaintended to subvert America. What It Really Means to American Sovereignty and The Constitution | Family Survival Protocol()

  • Pingback: CBS: Support for gun control wanes()

  • Pingback: ZION'S TRUMPET » 46 Traitor Senators (All Democrats) Voted Yes to Turn Our Constitutional Rights Over to The United Nations()

  • Berzrkr50

    I’m not surprised in the least with the way Boxhead and Feinswine voted. These two beotches have ridden the lead float of my sh!t parade for years with their anti-American B.S.

  • road2change

    Gee, I don’t think You Guys should have any rights. It is a priveledge to be in this country and all you do is abuse what you have. Get rid of your unrealistic ideals and face reality. Get your country back on track before it goes down the sewer pipes. Your loyal GOPs under Bush and Reagan had done everything in their power to sell your society to the super-rich and the multicorporations. I can’t believe you believe are so happy with the way the United States has gone down the tubes over the last 40 years.

    • jim_m

      At least this particular leftist is honest about his fascist tendencies. People he disagrees with should not have any civil rights. You would probably sell your own family if it would advance your lefty agenda.

    • “I can’t believe you believe are so happy with the way the United States has gone down the tubes over the last 40 years.”

      Since ’06, things have been pretty sucky. But it’s all been with the absolute BEST of intentions! Just ask all the Democrats. Just ask all the ‘progressive’ folks out in California how that wonderful Highly Expensive High Speed Rail’s working for them, and how much it’s helped their state money flow! Just ask Barney Frank – his refusal to allow oversight of Fannie and Freddie was so everyone could get a loan… as long as they had a pulse and could lie on the forms! Because that was a GOOD thing, everyone getting a loan that wanted one!

      Remember – THEY are the ones who CARE about you! THEY are the ones who’ll borrow trillions so YOU can have a pittance when you can’t find a job – and then tax the small, greedy little companies to a point where they don’t dare hire people. THEY are the ones putting the chains of debt on your children, so you can get a bright, shiny quarter … and so you’ll vote for them because they’re telling you they CARE so much about you.

      You’ll vote for them – because you don’t dare not vote for them.

      And just between you and I… that gray lump of material between your ears? You’re not really using that for anything other than buzzword and meme storage and a spacer to keep your ears from colliding… are you?

  • Pingback: Here Are the 46 Senators Who Voted to Turn Your Gun Rights Over to UN | Give Me Liberty()

  • Pingback: 46 Senators Voted Your Gun Rights to United Nincompoops |

  • Pingback: The 46 US Senators who SUPPORTED the UN Small Arms Treaty….Traitors, one and all! | The Right Of Way()

  • Milhouse

    this is rubbish. Nobody voted “in favor of the UN being given the
    power to overturn the U.S. Constitution”. That’s ridiculous. There’s
    no way for the senate to give the UN that power, so how could these
    Democrats have voted for that? This is just stupid panic-mongering by
    ignorant people on our side.

    amendment in question does absolutely nothing. Read its text and tell
    me what it achieves, or what would be lost if it had been defeated.
    It’s just a stupid waste of time designed to pander to the stupid stupid
    people who think treaties can amend the constitution.

  • Pingback: 46 Senators Who Voted to Turn Your Gun Rights Over to UN()

  • Pingback: Moonbattery » Forty-Six Cases of Treason()

  • I can hardly believe this one!!!!!

  • dmacid

    A reminder in case you missed it.

  • Lougjr1

    Well, Well, Well, This kind of proves that the Democratic party is now the communist party of the United States. By taking away the right of Americans to own their guns, it allows the government controlled by the dictator to subject all citizens to do whatever the dictator wants. Next, it will be to stifle all voices contrary to the government known as disbanding the 1st. amendment. Do we need any more proof ? Well, I don’t !!