The USA has such a law but other countries do not, which is the reason the international community thought that the UNATT was a good idea. Consider China and especially Russia, who are major international arms suppliers and eager for sales dollars (or yen or rubles). They seem to have no issue with providing mass quantities of weapons to Assad, for example, even though it is common knowledge that he uses them for genocide and other purposes which would be considered 'war crimes'. This treaty is intended to stop precisely this type of transaction, not infringe Mr. Blakely and his precious guns here in the USA.
Regarding your comment about Schumer, Feinstein, etc.; I have a problem with anyone who would place more importance on the messenger than the message. What if these same messengers were to tell you not to smoke cigarettes while pouring gasoline into your lawnmower? Would you do the opposite just to spite them? Based on your past posts and comments, it is my impression that you don't seem to do nuance particularly well so perhaps you may not get the point I am trying to make?
You are correct that I have mentioned Assad twice (now four times) on this thread, but incorrect in your presumption. I mention Assad, along with Kim Jong Un, only as examples of 'heinous dictators' who would have their feathers clipped by the UNATT. I have no opinion regarding, as you suggest, going after Assad because of supposed WMD's. I personally think the whole issue is 'not our problem', but I would not aid and abet the guy by selling him WMD's or other arms, for example. He seems dangerous enough to his own people as it is.
Regarding you apparent fear about the UNATT infringing your 2nd amendment right; perhaps you might have been alarmed by the following publication, written by John Bolton:
A sneaky way to control guns* - NY Daily News
If I formed my opinions on emotion instead of logic, I would certainly be alarmed. However, I am logical and rational (at least IMHO) and I notice that, despite making some serious accusations in this piece (which all boil down to "vague, ambiguous stipulations gun-control advocates could later cite as requiring further domestic restraints"), he fails to provide even a single example of these 'stipulations'. Now, I realize that if Bolton did give examples, they would make his argument vastly stronger! He could point to specific language and proclaim "See! See how the evil liberals are trying to cleverly trick us?!!" but he does not...and if such language or evidence existed, it would be very easy to show. Instead, he relies entirely on unsubstantiated accusations and this, to a rational, logical person such as myself, makes his case both very weak and very suspicious. It is clear to me that Bolton is making merely a rhetorical argument, which is no valid argument at all although it does resonate with people who do not have good critical thinking skills.
Lastly, I would like to compliment you on your gif. Blakely, you have a natural talent for finding gifs which seem to accurately represent your attitudes and views.
Edit: clearly it is time to change my 'motto' again. :-)