The U.N. Arms Trade Treaty: What's that smell?
Kudos to Pennsylvania Congressman Mike Kelly for leading the charge against the Obama administration's all-but-certain reversal on an odious United Nations gun treaty.
Even before Secretary of State John Kerry could suggest conditional support of the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty, the Butler Republican, along with Sen. Jerry Moran, R-Kan., organized opposition from at least 28 senators and 121 representatives.
And with very good reason.
“(W)hy would we ever sit down with bad actors and let them decide what our (gun) policy will be going forward?” asks Mr. Kelly. Especially when the United States already has some of the strictest statutes in the world on the import, manufacture and export of firearms, says Ted Bromund, a security policy expert at The Heritage Foundation.
The congressional resolution makes clear that the arms treaty “needs to exempt domestic civilian firearm ownership and use from its scope,” Mr. Moran says. And as with any treaty, it must pass congressional review.
That's especially pertinent as new arms treaty negotiations begin at Turtle Bay. Mr. Kerry says he's confident a consensus can be reached — you know, so long as the treaty doesn't trample the Second Amendment.
Don't be too sure of that.
Last summer, the Obama administration, in full re-election mode, walked away from this U.N. entanglement. Now, apparently, the same troublesome treaty is worthy of U.S. consideration?
The administration's reconsideration of the arms trade treaty stinks worse than the gun-grabbing treaty itself.
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.
- Expanding Medicaid: Gov.-elect Wolf embraces a false premise
- Sunday pops
- The Box
- The regulatory state: EPA picks a fight
- Holiday Gift Club: The spirit of the season
- Saturday essay: A manger’s light
- Pension reform should not be linked to a natural gas extraction tax
- Ford City’s solution: Good side to cop cuts
- The Kathleen Kane chronicles: New and serious questions are being raised about the Pa. attorney general