Born lucky ? (was Re: [extropy-chat] urban sprawl as defense)
bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au
Tue Aug 31 01:28:01 UTC 2004
Mike Lorrey wrote:
> In any other country, I'd likely either be in prison or dead, or in an
> asylum for politically incorrect thinkers. There might be a few other
> countries where this would not be the case. NZ, and Oz, for two
> possible examples.
> > > This is evidenced by the fact that the UN is steadfastly
> > > attempting to create a worldwide ban on the private ownership
> > > of firearms, which are the only means by which individuals can
> > > resist state fascism without massive loss of life.
> > That's too big a claim for me to accept without your showing me the
> > evidence. I respect that you have done some reading here (that's
> > good)but I still think you have your wires crossed.
> > Consider Article 2 (7)
> > "Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorise the United
> > Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the
> > domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to
> > submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but
> > this principle shall
> > not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter
> > VII."
> > It is that prohibition against intervening in domestic matters which
> > most people don't get - that is what makes the UN limited (sensibly
> > limited) in what it can do.
> Suggest you read up on what the UN is really doing, then.
What specifically do you want me to read?
For my part I want you to take a look at the Charter. You could
probably read the whole thing in about an hour. I'd guess its less than
What you'd do with any new found knowledge of it would be up to
you. Perhaps you find a bunch of reasons for thinking it was farcical
and for wanting it revoked.
> On the heels of its treaty over the banning of landmines, the UN
> has been working on a protocol for the elimination of all private
> trade and ownership of small arms of any kind.
The General Assembly cannot (it doesn't have even the legal power
even under the UN Charter to) make a law that is legally binding on
the US unless the US agrees.
The only way the General Assembly influences the US is politically
or 'morally' as a sort of body of world opinion. That is not of no
consequence, but it definitely would not be enough to deprive US
citizens of constitutional rights -including the right to bear arms if
US citizens actually have that now.
I say IF only because I googled on it and was surprised to find the
> People I know personally have represented the
> US in these negotiations. The US, under Clinton, had been totally
> willing to cave to the UN on this, but Bush is not, and specifically
> told the UN so. Kerry, on the other hand, is fully in support of the UN
> Convention on Small Arms, which would obligate US armed forces to
> search every American household for firearms to be confiscated...
> This is reason number one why I am steadfastly AGAINST Kerry.
> He would make the world safe for global fascism.
I don't think private gun ownership would make any difference to state
fascism either way. Whatever weapons are readily available the state
(if it is an effective political organisation) is going to have more or
Fascist thugs don't need guns they just need superior brute force. If the
citizens are not paying attention and are not willing to speak out against
it then guns are irrelevant. You might as well plan to oppose political
thugs with lollipops if your are going to wait until they appear at your
door and you do nothing to stop them beforehand.
Fists, boots and clubs were enough for the brownshirts in Germany.
Had they been widely opposed by guns then I've no doubt they'd
have been happy enough to use guns themselves but guns just
I think the only effective weapon against fascism within a state is a
citizenry alert enough and ready enough to speak out and counter
organise against any emerging or organising fascism.
More information about the extropy-chat