Dave Weber,
Strongly believe this topic should be left in the misfires section. See too much politicking through misleading assertions about what such a treaty would or could do, and I do not see such partisan politicking as relevant to what seems the focus of this Board.
For some balance and to direct those seriously seeking sources of information, here are views from a wikipedia piece on the Arms Trade Treaty:
QUOTE Opposition in the United States
Given the predominant position of the United States as a global arms exporter[10], any such treaty would have limited relevance without its participation. Ratification would require passage by a 2/3 majority of the U.S. Senate in addition to presidential approval, which is rendered unlikely by opposition from gun rights groups such as the National Rifle Association, who claim that the treaty is an attempt to circumvent the Second Amendment and similar guarantees in state constitutions in order to impose domestic gun regulations.[11] Advocates of the treaty claim that it only pertains to international arms trade, and would have no effect on current domestic laws[12][13]. These advocates point to the UN General Assembly resolution starting the process on the Arms Trade Treaty. The resolution explicitly states that it is “the exclusive right of States to regulate internal transfers of arms and national ownership, including through constitutional protections on private ownership.”
As of September 14, 2011, 58 US Senators (45 Republicans and 13 Democrats) have expressed their opposition to an ATT that would limit the Second Amendment rights of US citizens.[14] As this group comprises far more than 1/3 of the Senate, it is sufficient to block ratification of the treaty by the United States if the treaty addresses civilian ownership of firearms. However, the strength of the opposition remains unclear because the treaty will not likely address the Second Amendment issue.
A quick search of the Internet (on Feb 8, 2012) confirms that the treaty is highly controversial in the United States and has been fodder for political speeches, blogs, viral political e-mails and advertisements claiming or insinuating that the treaty provides a "legal way around the 2nd amendment," and a "complete ban on all weapons for U.S. citizens." Snopes.com, the "urban myth" tester, calls the viral e-mail "scarelore" and false.[15] The Huffington Post reports that "such a scenario remains virtually impossible."[16] The Los Angeles Times reports on October 23, 2011 that "only a narrow fringe purports that Americans could see their guns taken away by the U.N., which has no authority over constitutional rights."[17]
UNQUOTE
Regards
