I spoke with Michael Doyle, a Columbia Law School professor and expert in international treaties. He said that while the ATT “might hypothetically restrict [Americans’] ability to buy an AK-47 from Russia”; overall, “the Constitution is superior to all treaties, so there’s no way a treaty could change the Constitution.”

What the treaty would have done is abrogate U.S. arms manufacturers’ time-honored right to sell guns to warlords and insurgent militias. Which if you’re the NRA, which relies on arms manufacturers’ donations and good will, is pretty much something you’d want to stop at all cost.

Speaking of costs, Reuters has some information about them for us:

One person every minute dies from armed violence around the world, and arms control activists say a convention is needed to prevent illicitly traded guns from pouring into conflict zones and fueling wars and atrocities. They cited conflicts in Syria and elsewhere as examples of why a treaty is necessary.

While most U.N. member states favored a strong treaty, activists said there was a small minority of states, including Syria, North Korea, Iran, Egypt and Algeria, who loudly voiced opposition to global arms control throughout the negotiations.

But ultimately, arms-control activists blamed the United States and Russia for the inability to reach a decision on Friday, as both countries said there was not enough time left for them to clarify and resolve issues they had with the draft treaty.

Hmm … Syria, North Korea, Iran, Egypt, Algeria, Russia … and us? Thanks, NRA!