Actually, according to the ATT as it is currently written (since it's only in draft form right now since no one could agree on anything), that is exactly what it does. It demands that anyone who has signed the treaty turn over the records of all sales of weaponry. The treaty even mentions that "small arms", a.k.a. hand guns, must be reported to the council. In other words, even our police officers are now regulated by the UN Council on the Arms Trade Treaty.
BTW, I'm not far-right. I'm actually a moderate. I believe that some gun control is in order, but not on any scale that would over-ride our Constitution.

Just to remind you: The US was one of the founding members of the UN, and, as such, are one of the five permanent members of the Security Council, out of the hundreds of nations who are members of the UN. The United Nations was created in order to make sure that nothing that happened in World War II ever happens again. Granted, the UN is over-reaching, and there are certain branches, i.e. the UNFPA, who are bigots and in favor of eugenic policies that would end the human race.
However, the larger mission of the UN, "Maintaining international peace and security, developing friendly relations among nations and promoting social progress, better living standards and human rights," is what makes our membership of the organization so important. Besides, if we aren't members, who's going to come to our aid the next time something like Peal Harbor happens? It's in the best interest of our national security that we maintain our membership in the United Nations.

Well, so far, according to the article, no one will touch the case, not even the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), a pro-life, Christian organization which has fought the ACLU successfully. Apparently someone in that city or county holds extreme power, being frightening enough to scare off even the most experienced and successful lawyers.

So you're saying that those who practiced civil disobedience in he 1960s were wrong to do so? That they should have left the segregation law alone? And those who hid the Jewish people in their homes and in other properties during World War II were wrong, they should have turned them in?

This is the same concept. There are civil rights being violated by law, and someone has to show others how wrong it is.

It was a bubble-zone law, which we do have here in the US.

Just because it's legal doesn't make it right.

Nazi Germany legalized what they did to the Jewish people. Britain and then the US legalized slavery. The one-child policy, forced abortion, and forced sterilization is legal in China and North Korea. It's legal to imprison and deport asylum-seekers from war-torn countries who cannot pay for the naturalization process. The Iraq war was legal. Capital punishment is legal.

I'm sure that there are many more examples, but the fact remains that not all that is right is legal, and what is legal is not always right.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
"2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

"2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection." http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P85.HTM

From The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith's Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons:
"The Church, in rejecting erroneous opinions regarding homosexuality, does not limit but rather defends personal freedom and dignity realistically and authentically understood...
"What is essential is that the fundamental liberty which characterizes the human person and gives him his dignity be recognized as belonging to the homosexual person as well. As in every conversion from evil, the abandonment of homosexual activity will require a profound collaboration of the individual with God's liberating grace." http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/c...

We're not saying that we're better at all! Saying that would be like saying those who try to get help for those who are ill think that those who are ill are less than those who aren't. That is simply not true.

Having homosexual feelings is not a sin. Acting on those feelings is. As with other moral disorders, it prevents one's fulfillment and happiness in God by rejecting and acting contrary to His creative wisdom.

It is horrid that homosexual people have been targets of violence. This needs to be stopped, and condemned wherever it's seen. "It reveals a kind of disregard for others which endangers the most fundamental principles of a healthy society. The intrinsic dignity of each person must always be respected in word, in action and in law."

Rejecting homosexual behavior is not the same thing as targeting them for violence. Just like you wouldn't support a person's bad habit, you also wouldn't beat them up over it, or say that they're any less of a person for it.

However, homosexual activity cannot be condoned, according to our faith. While some say that it is not a choice, it obviously must be to some extent. They do have the freedom to not act on their feelings, just as a person has the freedom not to hit someone who makes them angry. It is demeaning to homosexuals to say that they are slaves to their passions, for that would put them with the beasts, which would them less than human. They ARE fully human, and must be treated as such. They can choose whether or not to sin. They are called to lives of chastity. We must accept them with love and help them with their trial.

Very true. Jack Nicholson is also very pro-life, as he was born of rape, as well. He says he can't be anything but pro-life.

Her name is Janet Sheen. She's not an appendage. It's just that more people know her husband and children than her.