51 Senators Oppose UN ATT

This basically spells doom for the possibility of ratification of the UN Arms Trade Treaty. I don’t think there was any possibility that the Senate would have ratified, but it’s good to have them on record, regardless. The real danger of the UN treaty is not so much that the blue helmeted troopers would come during the stealth of night and take your guns, but that the rest of the world would refuse to allow firearms to be exported from their countries to the Untied States, due to the fact that the United States lacks sufficient international controls. That’s an awfully large percentage of the available civilian stock.

Note that both Chris Cox, and Wayne LaPierre, have been spending time at Turtle Bay. If anyone doubts the intent of the governmental and NGO interests pursuing this treaty, just look at the reaction to the Canadian proposal to exempt hunting weapons:

Gun-control advocates following the treaty negotiations blasted Canada’s stance, calling it a “poison pill for treaty negotiations.”

Remember, they don’t care about grandpa’s deer gun. Yeah right.

Related posts (automatically generated):

  1. July Is UN Arms Trade Treaty Month
  2. New Preparations for UN Treaty on Small Arms
  3. CIFTA Might Be Good Ground for a Fight

5 thoughts on “51 Senators Oppose UN ATT”

  2. I have to wonder about countries that do have major gun makers that import heavily to the US. I wonder what there take is on this? I mean most of them do have American plants but to those countries its jobs lost and never recovered. But anti-freedom liberals rarely care about something so paltry as jobs as long as it gives more government control. Especially over America where many of there policiticians would probably LOVE to see our worst case scenario fantasy with UN blue helmets actually happen and for the death toll to get in the 8 figure range. It’s not like we HAVEN’T run accross people so anti gun they wish the govenernment to murder nearly a third of the US population.

    Hopefully canada’s proposal is a “poison pill” for the treaty.

  3. Danny,

    I agree, but that number was “as of this writing” and was just a warning shot. Those 51 were almost certainly the fast-acting low-hanging fruit.

    It really isn’t useful for determining what the actual vote would be except that they don’t have 66 in favor.

  4. The sad part is only 51, and that could change in EITHER direction… we know the administration is pushing for this…

Comments are closed.