Apparently, they don’t like the first amendment either…
Posted By matt on March 30, 2009
We know that the UN wants to abrogate the Second Amendment (calling it the illegal traffic in small arms), but apparently freedom of speech doesn’t matter much either.
I should note that this was a vote from the human rights council.
The US should leave the UN. Immediately. They are more concerned with stability than freedom, and UN representatives have stated in reports that they would rather allow genocide to happen than to allow trade in weapons so that people can defend themselves. The logic? If one side gets wiped out, the combat settles down and peace returns to the region.
The folks that were wiped off the face of the earth apparently don’t matter.
Comments
8 Responses to “Apparently, they don’t like the first amendment either…”
Leave a Reply
Please note: Comment moderation is currently enabled so there will be a delay between when you post your comment and when it shows up. Patience is a virtue; there is no need to re-submit your comment.
Not that I agree with the UN on their anti-gun stance, but the logic is not entirely faulty. We could allow one side to wipe out or wear down the other side, ending hostilities for the foreseeable future, or we could allow both sides to continue fighting indefinitely. Presumably, the second option would eventually incur far greater numbers of casualties, undermine regional stability, eliminate any chance of trade, etc.
Do I agree with that logic? Yes. Do I endorse that strategy? No. I am a fan of the “let people smarter than me make the decisions” mindset. It's not very democratic (gasp!) and therefore not very American (moar gasp!) but it makes the most sense to me. Why should I attempt to direct economic regulations or foreign policy or military strategy, when I have neither the training, inclination, information, or tools to do so properly? Anyway, I've run off track. In this particular case, I would support the right of a (generally) benevolent, strong third party to decide which of the two factions would create a more positive overall good in the long run, and then eliminate the other. The important thing is that the victor should not be the person with a claim to victory, or the one who deserves to win, or the one with some grievance that needs to be redressed. We cannot govern by ideal or dogma, we must govern by results and products. We would have to select the winner that would create the most benefit for their people and the region, not the one who fought fair or who shares our love of diet soda.
By that logic, if the strong third party (government, whatever, hereafter called “STP”) is right that more people carrying guns leads to more violence, and therefore we want to stop people from carrying guns, the number of people who get robbed, raped or murdered being an acceptable price to be paid for this stability.
A lot of people agree with the above, and therefore would agree with you and the UN.
I am not one of those people. I would rather have a hundred misunderstandings turn deadly than for one person to be disarmed and made a helpless victim.
But that's just me.
See, the reason for my strong and unbending support of RKBA has little to do with the Second Amendment. I'm not overly concerned with a “well-regulated militia” or all that other technical stuff. To tell you the truth, I'm not even a huge fan of the Constitution- not that it's no good, but blind unwavering adherence to a 200-year-old document does not seem sensible to me.
I support RKBA because it's the only feasible solution. One cannot ban what one does not control, and the government can reasonably control neither the supply nor the demand of firearms. One can regulate without total control, but only up to a certain extent. I would presume that the ratio of regulation to disobedience would look very much like a Laffer curve, since the principles are similar. The point is, people will have guns regardless of what the government does. Reasonable regulations like trade enforcement and licensing will create a small positive in reducing gun crime and accidents. However, over-regulating firearms does more harm than good, so it's the wrong choice.
It's not about rights and freedoms, it's not about liberty and justice, and it's not about what should be done. Too much reliance on beliefs and dogma- “the people have a right to this or that”- cloud judgment and push people into making disastrous errors. After all, all unwavering beliefs override logic and reason the same way, whether it's faith in God, belief in justice, or loyalty to family. People like you and I may think that way, but nobody who makes policy should be allowed to.
So I suppose what I'm saying is: if our “STP” could in fact guarantee with some reasonable degree of logical certainty that disarming the population would somehow magically reduce crime, then yes, it would be the right thing to do. I would probably complain- I might even try to hide a handgun or two in my sock drawer- but from the view of governance, it would be the right solution.
The problem I see here is that your arguments are contradictory. You state that the government cannot reasonably control the supply or demand of firearms, but then state that the STP should do exactly that (allowing the minority group to be massacred). So, given that the STP cannot actually limit violence by allowing the massacre, aren't we left with having them perpetuate the massacre? Do we really want to kill off a group of people to stop the violence? By that logic, shouldn't we wipe out either the Israelis or the Palestinians, on order to ensure peace in the region?
I have to say that I reject that idea.
My comment about disarmament was more a theoretical example. In the scenario you described, I would not support disarmament, because the solution would be bad. As you described it, robbery and rape are not “stable”.
And no, I would not support wiping out either of those groups, but only because it wouldn't solve the problem and the difference between lives saved and lives lost would probably be very large. But in the end, death is the same everywhere. As far as the dead are concerned, letting them kill each other is no different from killing them yourself, and if you can eliminate a specific groups or groups in order to reduce future violence, then that is the right choice. Yes, I would kill an innocent person to save a larger group of people; yes, I would torture a captive to extract life-saving information; yes, I would nuke a city to save a country.
And I guess that is where we diverge – I tend to place the individual above the collective in more cases than you do.
This is driving me nuts and making me read my Federalist papers and Declaration of Independence again tonight.
The cool thing about a “gun grab” by the UN is that they can never keep peace in the countries they occupy. I say let the UN come to America. The responsible gun owners of the nation can take care of that supposedly benevolent third party. Problem solved.
When I can count my neighbors and friends who are better armed than a platoon of Marines (with regard to small arms), I have no fear against that cornflower blue helmet.
Well, and let's be honest here – you'd have most of the military siding with freedom. Despite all the condescending arrogant twits who pay lip service to respecting the military and then talk how sad, pathetic and uneducated our military is, very few of them are actually IN said military.. and the so-called “simple folk” generally have a decent set of values.
And yeah.. our fire department is equally well armed… and is used to driving heavy vehicles.