Bag's Rants

How do the UN square this up?

It seems like the UN is saying that the right to self defence is not actually a right. The right to live is, but if you need to defend it you can't, so someone can deprive you of your right to live and there is nothing you can do except go peacefully. So, take the time you would have spent struggling to prepare to meet whatever deity you call your own. Your wonderful government can dive in and then get they evil bad doer, if they feel like it, but tough on you. Read the story here on 'Of Arms and the Law' blog.

But governments seem to have the right to remove your life. In some countries only after due process but as that seems to involve someone saying 'We think it's him' that due process does not seem to be worth much. In addition governments, only powerful ones though, also have the facility of self defence before an attack, a preemptive strike, to other countries. Looks like they are developing the same weapons we have had for years. Let's stop them now before they can become a threat. Now the UN signs up to that.

So, people who don't follow the law and people who work for the law can take your life and legally you can't resist. However, only those that take your life illegally, such as a burglar, can be prosecuted if we catch them. Providing their lawyers are not too good and they sue our estate for the blood we leaked on them and stress of wondering if they caught a disease from us. The basis seems to be that he fired 45 rounds from his Mac10 in your direction because you looked like you wanted to kill him and he was frightened. The intent was for him to escape so no harm was intended. Plus he got spots of your blood on him and the stress involved in thinking he may have aids or Hep C was really bad on him and his entire family. Let's not forget the six kids and wife all on welfare. Who will look after them? Not guilty of murder, Mr Burglar. There is of course the fine for burglary, a fiver, pay on your way out to freedom or you could wait till your claim for stress against the victims estate. For you to resist means you get prosecuted and, again, you get sued because you deprived someone on welfare their primary income source. If you killed him with the nail file, which is all you are allowed to have, as you wanted to stop him, it is clear your intent was to cause harm and thus you are guilty of murder. Fifteen years for you. Don't worry about the kids. The actually Hep C infected blood on you is your own fault so don't come crying to us.

So how does the UN square up the fact that individuals don't have the right to defend themselves but a country has? Or is it that a large group of individuals can have that right? What is the break point on that? Can I set up a neighbourhood defence system and kill anyone suspicious walking down the street? Can we get guns then? What about rockets and machine guns?

Or, is it simply that the only reason the UN is against guns is it is made up of murderers and dictators who just want to ensure that the populace is unable to defend themselves against the one thing all people now distrust. Their own government. People should not fear their government. The government should fear the people. If only.

And it is not just the UK. It is the situation in the any country in the world at the moment. Even in the US it is just words as was proven when the government took their guns away at New Orleans. Nobody had their guns pried from their cold dead hands. Excepting those who may have died by other means of course. But at least they have to tread carefully there and it is mainly the government that is the concern. Unless you live in one of the areas like California where guns are bad, you are defenceless and crime is up.

So a right to live does not actually mean anything except a nice soundbite. I wonder what rights I have left in the UK at the moment? If there are any, I can't think of any, will they last till 2009? I feel depressed.

posted by Bag @ 9:37 am