U.N. Arms Trade Treaty: Dead on arrival
Contemptible as it is convoluted, the Arms Trade Treaty that sailed through the United Nations on Tuesday — and with considerable U.S. support — deserves swift rejection by the U.S. Senate as a fitting rebuke to the Obama administration for foisting this nonsense on the American people.
Hailed by naive supporters and gun-grabbers alike, the treaty is supposed to stem the flow of conventional weapons to terrorists and other thugs. How? By guilting the world's bad actors who supply the weapons into abiding by the treaty's stipulations. The treaty itself has no enforcement mechanism, The New York Times reports.
Why would the U.S. be a party to this “historic” U.N. “accomplishment” when, in fact, America already employs some of the toughest policies on the export of arms? As Heritage Foundation security policy expert Ted Bromund points out, “Negotiating treaties that the other side won't respect is a fool's errand. Unfortunately, we're continuing to play the fool.”
You see, the U.S. didn't simply support the treaty. Team Obama was “hugely constructive” in shoving the pact through Turtle Bay, according to a U.N. official. This, after the Obama re-election machine last year beat a hasty retreat from the treaty's negotiations.
Americans' Second Amendment right to bear arms has been tortured enough by “gun-control” lawmakers and their half-cocked assumptions. Now the Senate is supposed to ratify a treaty that would defer to the unaccountable arrogance of the United Nations? Absolutely not!
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.
- ‘Small business’ Congress? ObamaCare’s ruse
- Greensburg Laurels & Lances
- Pittsburgh Laurels & Lances
- Alle-Kiski Laurels & Lances
- Union’s ‘rebate’
- The solar problem: Subsidized inefficiency
- No basis to claims
- Volunteers’ contributions: Growing flowers & more in Connellsville
- Another broken promise: ObamaCare in the ER
- NVT fire policy still under attack