Powered by ScribeFire.
Powered by ScribeFire.
Powered by ScribeFire.
Powered by ScribeFire.
Last year, the United Nations Sub-Commission on the Promotion
and Protection of Human Rights declared that international human rights
law requires all nations to adopt strict gun control laws. These
“minimum” provisions are much more restrictive than any of those on the
books anywhere in the U.S. and would almost certainly violate the
Second Amendment of our Constitution.
Besides concluding that all nations are obligated under
international human rights law to control the small arms and light
weapons to which its civilian population has access, the UN report
remarkably denied the existence of any human right to self-defense,
evidently overlooking the work of Hugo Grotius, the 17th century
scholar credited as the founder of international law, who wrote, “It is
to be observed that [the] Right of Self-Defence, arises directly and
immediately from the Care of our own Preservation, which Nature
recommends to every one. . . ,” and that this right is so primary, that
it cannot be denied on the basis that it is not “expressly set forth.”
There is another disturbing aspect to this call for
international global gun control. Throughout modern history, the forced
disarmament of people by its government has often been accompanied or
followed by that government’s commission of often massive human rights
abuses. In fact, no genocide in the 20th century occurred when the
victim population still possessed small arms, legally or illegally,
with which to defend themselves.
So now the UN wants to disarm civilians? Where was the UN when
the massacres in Rwanda occurred? What did the UN do to protect the
victims of ethnic massacres in Bosnia? Disarming civilians under the
guise of international human rights law will only lead to more such
genocides by ensuring that civilians can never defend themselves! It
would be funny if it weren’t so perverse.
Powered by ScribeFire.
Compromise is always a good thing....... isn't it?
Momma always used to tell the kids: "You will have to
compromise and share", like it was just the right thing to do.
'Good relationships are all about compromise' (manly shudder).
Well.... maybe in some cases, and certainly not in others.
The cases where it's a good activity are manifest and well
noted by every feel good counselor in the world.
These words are not about when we should compromise, but
when we should not.
Some people look to a compromise as the way to settle everything.
Especially politicians, as in the sickening words:
'Bi-partisan compromise'.
Perhaps that's fine in some cases, but a slavish devotion
to the almighty idea of meeting in the middle is a poor
way to run a government. It's an especially poor way
to run a life.
An example to illustrate the point is in order.
Find a compromise in this case: Your goal is to
live your life in peace without injury. The goal
of the deranged drug addict who just broke into your
home is to kill you. Ok? Got the terms?
Ready..... set...... Compromise!
What.... you think living your life in peace is a
perfectly valid goal and you aren't willing to be maimed,
let alone murdered, in the name of compromise?
How about just beaten senseless and left for dead?
Kicked in head a few times? No?
My, how counter social an attitude!
This extreme case does illustrate the idea that not every
situation can be solved by splitting the pot. Sometimes
compromise is wrong. It's generally in these cases
where you'll find 'principles' coming into play.
Principles are tricky things. One key point about
principles is they usually won't survive a compromise.
Once even a bit of a principle is given away in the bargain,
it's all gone. All that's left is a a convenient attitude, but never
a principle.
Give this idea some thought.....
What are you willing to compromise on?
What is beyond compromise for you?
Understanding that bargaining with principles means losing them,
apply that concept to some basic questions in life, such as:
