Let me demonstrate the difference between actual foreign policy and partisan bull****. The link below for the Heritage Foundations analysis of the treaty.
U.N. Arms Trade Treaty's Criteria for Transfers Pose Problems for the U.S.
They argue against the basic framework of the treaty, claiming that it will unduly hinder U.S. policy and do little to stop authoritarian regimes. In addition to providing criticism, they also provide an alternative course of action.
Now I can't say I agree with some of the Heritage foundations arguments, but I give them credit for making a serious proposal that is actually based on reality. This "the U.N. wants to steal your guns and molest your dog" nonsense is utter garbage that has no place in real foreign policy discussion.
Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.