Here's my WTH? for the morning:
Even if the treaty wouldn’t affect U.S. domestic sales or impinge on the constitutional right to bear arms, it would be a political minefield at home. The accord wouldn’t muster enough votes for approval by the U.S. Senate, and the influential National Rifle Association, which says it has more than 4.5 million members, has lobbied against it.
At what point would the NRA having anything to say about the illegal weapons trade? We're not talking handguns or riffles, we're talking about missiles and tanks and bombs. What on earth could the NRA possibly have to say about it? Keeping long-range missiles out of the hands of dictators is one step on the slippery slope of a gun ban in the United States? Someone please explain this one to me, I apparently haven't had enough coffee yet this morning.
At least there's one bright spot:
For now, the U.S. is happy to lend its symbolic seal of approval while reiterating that in practice much of the regulation outlined in the treaty has already been put in practice by the U.S. in its overseas sales of small arms, missile launchers, tanks, warships and attack helicopters.We're already practicing what we're afraid to preach and we plan on signing in the future, just not right now. Apparently the political stars aren't aligned closely enough and critical thinking is in retrograde. Or something like that.