IMHO, there could be grounds for opposition to the treaty based on procedural objections, but not so much on its substance, which is why Portman spends so much time in his letter discussing the treaty's ambiguity and "potential." Put simply, the treaty has little to no binding value in either direction other than a political one of acknowledging arms trade as having global context. The rest of Portman's reasons for objection are conjecture at best, and reminiscent of no-compromise "cold dead hands" ethos. But worse, the NRA itself (I'm a long-time member but don't always toe the party line) is doing an incredible disservice to truth with the way they're spinning its implications. Their robocalling fund drivers (who I've heard from several times this month already) aren't even crafting their words as deftly as Portman and are outright saying that this treaty subjugates US gun owners to UN new world order tracking and control, which is nothing but a bold-faced lie. The treaty is little more than feel-good oatmeal for the diplomats. Which brings me to my position - I really can't come to care if this specific treaty is ratified or not. I has no bearing on my rights as a US citizen - the thing is mush. Could it lay the groundwork for a global registry or UN agreement to ban all citizen gun ownership? Yea, I suppose, but so could having a ham sandwich with mustard - both of which would be about the same stretch, but ham sandwiches can't be used as NRA fund raising fodder (though they are more delicious). I propose that it would be better to spend time and political capital not sounding like a paranoid freak show every time arms are discussed at the national or global level. It weakens our credibility at those discussions and strengthens our opposition. It's a foreign concept to NRA hard-liners, but it's how I feel. Just my 2 cents. If I know OR's readership, I'll soon be attacked as a heretical, liberal pansy boi. Whatever! Payback starting in T minus 10... 9... 8...