Gun treaty's recoil
After flatly rejecting the United Nations' gun-grabbing Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) last year, followed by a rapid post-re-election change of heart, the Obama administration waited for the coast to clear, then signed this odious deal.
And now that it's signed, the treaty will linger for Senate ratification, which remains highly unlikely. In a bipartisan letter, half the Senate has pledged to oppose ratification.
To critics who insist the gun treaty tramples the Second Amendment if not U.S. sovereignty, Team Obama firmly plants thumb to nose and signals its mindset. The U.N.'s cheerleaders insist this pact will keep guns out of the wrong hands — assuming that terrorists, gun-runners and the world's worst thugs will abide by its stipulations.
What the administration's not-so-sharpshooters disregard is the likelihood of future amendments by the U.N.'s gun-control fanatics, notes The Heritage Foundation's Ted R. Bromund. And whereas the amendments would be binding only on the nations that accept them, the U.S. would be pressed to do so.
“As the treaty is interpreted and amended, both the U.N. agencies that explicitly promote gun control and the many nations that wanted the ATT to impose even tighter domestic restrictions will pull and pressure the U.S. toward imposing future regulations,” writes Mr. Bromund.
Congressional Democrats who helped the Obama administration target this abysmal gun treaty should brace for the recoil from angry voters in next year's elections.
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.
- Saving RadioShack: Innovation vs. focus
- A chilly reception
- The Box
- The medical device tax: An abject failure
- Sunday pops
- The Scottish vote: Defeat as victory