http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ect-un-arms-treaty-as-it-opens-for-signature/
So we pretty much know the US will not ratify the treaty ... we're not sure if the treaty will be signed by enough countries for it to take effect ... and we think if certain countries don't sign it, then it's impact will be very limited.
So what's the point of this, other than grandstanding, and maybe being able to later on say, "we wanted this, but the conservatives blocked it"?
Secretary of State John Kerry said Monday that the Obama administration would sign a controversial U.N. treaty on arms regulation, despite bipartisan resistance in Congress from members concerned it could lead to new gun control measures in the U.S.
....
The chance of adoption by the U.S. is slim, even if Obama goes ahead and signs it -- as early as Monday, or possibly months down the road. A majority of Senate members have come out against the treaty. A two-thirds majority would be needed in the Senate to ratify.
What impact the treaty will have in curbing the estimated $60 billion global arms trade remains to be seen. The U.N. treaty will take effect after 50 countries ratify it, and a lot will depend on which ones ratify and which ones don't, and how stringently it is implemented.
So we pretty much know the US will not ratify the treaty ... we're not sure if the treaty will be signed by enough countries for it to take effect ... and we think if certain countries don't sign it, then it's impact will be very limited.
So what's the point of this, other than grandstanding, and maybe being able to later on say, "we wanted this, but the conservatives blocked it"?