Born lucky ? (was Re: [extropy-chat] urban sprawl as defense)

Samantha Atkins samantha at objectent.com
Thu Sep 2 09:19:47 UTC 2004


On Aug 30, 2004, at 6:28 PM, Brett Paatsch wrote:
> 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.
>

Not quite.  If we are signatories to a treaty that we decide to take  
seriously (for once) that could be used for justification.  You have it  
a little backwards I think.  It is not that the UN would enforce such a  
thing on us.  It is that we would perhaps (I don't think it is at all  
likely) sign a treat which we ourselves enforce in the US.

> I say IF only because I googled on it and was surprised to find the
> link below.
>
> http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/ 
> Second%20Amendment%20to%20the%20United%20States%20Constitution
>
>> 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
> better
> of them.
>

So you would prefer to be disarmed the rest of the way instead of  
largely disarmed?  Really?

> 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.

Guns are hardly irrelevant.  Every dictatorship in history has first  
seized private arms.   Look around you.  We have a presidential race  
with the two "real" candidates both arguing how to divide the spoils of  
our lives and both intent on endless international intrigue and both  
saying nothing remotely coherent about the rights of the people or  
protecting civil liberties.   What exactly will you say that will make  
a difference?   We can push for an alternative candidate and party.   
But it is not at all clear if the system is remotely still honest  
enough to be changed from within.   On the day the rest of it goes  
south I would rather be armed than not.

>
> 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
> weren't necessary.
>

Boots and clubs would not have been enough if the citizens still had  
guns.  At the time a large number of armed citizens willing and able to  
defend themselves would have been a very serious problem for Hitler's  
designs.  Or do you think the disarming was only coincidence.


> 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.
>
>

When the rest of your civil liberties are gone then where will you  
speak out safely?  When your right of free association is severely  
curtailed how will you counter-organize?  When you and your group get  
brand terrorists or supporters of terrorist or enemy combatants or  
simply are hauled away on no declared charges indefinitely - all of  
which the US now has the means on the books or proposed to do - then  
what does your talk about speaking up really mean if you have no power  
but your words?  Now we can speak.  Let us by all means take maximum  
advantage of it.  But let us not forego every free citizens rightful  
insurance to do so.

- s




More information about the extropy-chat mailing list