The Arms Trade Treaty: Stop the U.N. gun grab
Given the Obama administration's fixation on gun control, the long-disputed United Nations Arms Trade Treaty — down but not out — offers an opportunity to secure by an international accord that which Congress, fearing for its hide, has resisted.
A new round of U.N. negotiations on the international sale and regulation of conventional weapons begins March 18. And what a coincidence, too: The very day after President Obama won re-election, the U.S. joined other nations to green-light new talks after the treaty last July was DOA — at least from the U.S. perspective.
So, what's changed? Nothing.
Regardless of the administration's vow to “red-line” any Second Amendment infringement, what's proposed is a patchwork of entangling propositions that would augment government control of U.S. gun sales and conceivably tie the United States to the gun-grabbing proclivities of other regimes that aren't as open-minded about citizens' gun ownership.
The proposal raises the ire of Rep. Mike Kelly, R-Butler, so much that on Monday he began a privately funded petition drive against the measure ( attpetition.com): “There is considerable cause for alarm (that this treaty) could trample the constitutional rights of Americans and could seriously compromise our national security and the security of our allies,” Mr. Kelly said.
Proponents argue that the treaty will clamp down on terrorists. But as Heritage Foundation scholar Ted Bromund reminds, “Law, including treaty law, matters to the law-abiding — not to the lawless.”
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- The Thursday wrap
- Fresh produce solution
- State of Corruption: Jim Short’s plea
- Wilmerding’s gamble
- Thou shalt not parse the First: The Connellsville Ten Commandments decision
- Trumpeting ObamaCare: The Medicaid factor
- Kathleen Kane’s woes: A new & troubling twist
- Laurels & Lances
- President Carbon: Hypocrisy’s trip
- Greensburg Tuesday takes