Defend Thyself

At first I didn’t think this subject would relate to this blog, though the more I look at it, the more it does. This woman Sonia Sotomayor, who is being considered to be appointed to the highest courts in the land, for what would be the rest of her life, is not the type of judge we need.

We have heard a few things about her, like belonging to an all women club, saying her experiences as a hispanic give her better understanding than a gringo, and ruling on a reverse discrimination case that the Supreme court overturned. Now the Washington Post has started dissecting all her ruling, and the pattern that emerges is frighting to you regarding your ability to defend thyself.

You don’t need a supercomputer to see that this women is a liberal reverse racist.

The White House has portrayed Sotomayor as a tough-on-crime moderate who favors the “judicial restraint” often sought by Republicans, while conservatives call her a liberal activist whose decisions are influenced by ideology and her Latina heritage.

“She looks like a classic Democrat,” Songer said. “I don’t think it’s fair to classify her as tough on crime. I would use the term ‘moderately liberal,’ not ‘moderate.’ But she certainly seems to be in the mainstream of Democratic judges.”

I remember Obama saying that when she is appointed, we are finally going to have justice in the courts.

OBAMA: This woman is brilliant. She is qualified. I want her confirmed. I want her walking up those marble steps and starting to provide some justice.

The article goes on to describe a couple rulings.

In one case, Sotomayor and seven mostly Democratic colleagues voted to set free a convicted murderer who did not contest his guilt but had been tried on what the court called the wrong murder charge. In another, she joined an opinion that cited flawed jury instructions in throwing out a man’s conviction for enticing someone he believed was a 13-year-old girl into sex.

And when she threw out a life prison term for a convicted heroin dealer, ordering that he be resentenced, Sotomayor wrote that judges should not show “slavish adherence” to the “literal terms” of then-mandatory sentencing guidelines when their language is flawed. The view echoed her criticism of the guidelines from the bench that became an issue in her 1997 confirmation hearings.

At those hearings, Republicans criticized Sotomayor for apologizing to a defendant for a mandatory minimum sentence she imposed and for calling the sentence an “abomination.” She told senators that the apology expressed her frustration over a feature in the sentencing rules that Congress later changed, conceded she should not have used the word “abomination” and expressed general support for the guidelines.

So she likes to let murders and drug dealers walk the streets. Are you ready when you meet one? Do you have your Spitfire keychain pepper spray in your hands, ready to use at a moments notice?

Do you have your TASER C2 in your pocket or purse, ready to stop the biggest, baddest murderer that Sotomayor let go?

What about walking in NY and running into that drug dealer, who now needs his fix, and robs you. Will you be ready to take them down and take back your town, or will you be a victim?

Defend Thyself…

Comments?

Just when you though your rights to keep & bear arms was safe after the Supreme court decided just that in District of Columbia vs. Heller:

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. ___ (2008) is a landmark legal case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm for private use. It is the first Supreme Court case in United States history to directly address whether the right to keep and bear arms is a right of individuals or a collective right that applies only to state-regulated militias.

We read over @ the Army of Mom blog that our beloved Barry Obama wants to dredge up CIFTA, after coming back from Mexico. It kind of sounds like NAFTA, and it must be good?

Well guess what CIFTA is, it’s a international treaty to ban the sale and trafficking of illegal weapons and ammunition. The key word is illegal. Illegal means not government approved.

The Brutally Honest blog reminds us that Inernational treaties usurp our Constitution. Even though the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution outlines our right to own a weapon, under CIFTA, it’s overruled. Overruled????

In recent meetings with Mexican President Felipe Calderon, Obama promised to urge the U.S. Senate to pass an international arms control treaty. The treaty, “Inter-American Convention Against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, and Other Related Materials” or CIFTA, was signed by President Bill Clinton ten years ago but it was never ratified by the Senate. The resurrection of this bill brings into question if this is another back door move to restrict second amendment rights by force in a treaty.

Under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, international legal obligations are superior rank to national law, even if that law is from the national constitution with the exception of Article 46 of the VCLT which says that when the national constitution makes an exception concerning the power to enter treaties, then national law still triumphs even in the face of an inconsistent treaty obligation. If the CIFTA treaty is ratified, and not having defined the exceptions to its many requirements within our constitution, it would usurp U.S. sovereignty on these matters and opens the door to additional legislation to support its application in U.S. law.

Armywifetoddlermom blog posted a CNN clip about CIFTA and all I can say is better get your guns and whaever ammo you can find now, before it’s too late.

Sparky the Stun Gun
Self Defense Products Expert
DefendThyself.com/

Yet again a sad story of a gunman who brings guns to school, and the stupid laws don’t allow any of the students to protect themselves.

Gunman kills 10 at school in Finland, then self
KAUHAJOKI, Finland (AP) – A masked gunman whose violent YouTube postings prompted police to question him a day ago opened fire Tuesday at his trade school in western Finland, killing ten people before shooting himself in the head.

Witnesses said panic broke out as the gunman, dressed in black and carrying a large bag, entered the school in Kauhajoki and started firing in a classroom where students were taking an exam. The shootings began just before 11 a.m. local time (0800GMT), as about 150 students were at the Kauhajoki School of Hospitality, 180 miles (300 kilometers) northwest of Helsinki.

I remember reading how school boys use to bring their .22 rifle to school and hunted squirrels after school. They kept them in their lockers during the day, and after school, they took them out. Life was good, and you went home and had dinner.

What the heck happened??? Now you have these people, usually the ones that were used and abused, bullied and punished who snap. Now they banned any gun from even getting close to any school, though I in Texas, they will allow teachers to carry handguns.

Teachers Who Bear Arms
Effective this fall, schoolteachers in Texas will be allowed to carry guns to class.

Due to recent school shootings in the United States, the board of the Harrold Independent School District approved the plan, making it the first district to adopt such a policy.

But why allow guns in school, even if kids have no access to them? Safety.

Yup, Safety, the safety of knowing no punk is going to ruin your day because you are defenseless. I like the idea of teachers being allowed to carry a handgun, though why draw the line with them? What about letting the students carry guns, like before?

Comments?

Sparky the Stun Gun
Self Defense Products Expert
DefendThyself.com/PepperSpray

The Mayor & Council of Washington D.C. continue their attempt to ban handguns. These idiots just don’t get it.

They are now saying the ban will be in effect everywhere except the home. You still have to register them and there will be books of regulations on how to store them.

“We continue to take every step we can to minimize handgun violence in the District,” said Mayor Fenty. “We must prevent handguns from falling into the wrong hands or being misused, while allowing District residents to exercise their Second Amendment rights under the Heller ruling.”

The proposed legislation has four main components:

1. Continues to ban handguns in most places but creates an exception for self-defense in the home. The handgun ban remains in effect, except for use in self-defense within the home. Sawed-off shotguns, machine guns and short-barreled rifles are still prohibited.

2. Requires the Metropolitan Police Department to perform ballistic testing on handguns and makes such testing a registration requirement. The Chief of Police will require ballistics tests of any handgun submitted for registration to determine if it is stolen or has been used in a crime. Also, to serve as many residents as possible, the Chief will limit registrations to one handgun per person for the first 90 days after the legislation becomes law.

3. Clarifies the safe-storage and trigger-lock requirements. The legislation modifies existing law to clarify that firearms in the home must be stored unloaded and either disassembled secured with a trigger lock, gun safe, or similar device. An exception is made for a firearm while it is being used against reasonably perceived threat of immediate harm to a person within

Because they are so concerned with guns getting into the wrong hands, they will punish everyone to go after the few. We look forward to this pathetic law being struck down also.

Neither am I happy about the Supreme Court Justices who barely affirmed the Constitution means what it says. They seem to feel the US Government was created to regulate us to death, which is the exact opposite of why the US Govt. was created.

While I can’t sell you guns, I can sure as heck show you some non-lethal guns; Stun Guns!

How about a blast from my friend, Big Daddy, the Stun Master 775,00 Volt Stun Gun. The Stun Master 775,000 volt stun gun is big and beefy, the choice of our security guard clients.

What we like about it is the wrist strap; if the Stun Master stun gun is taken from you, the pin will pull out, disabling the stun gun.

In the heat of the moment, you don’t want to end up being the victim; you want to be victorious. Until the end of July 2008, we will include FREE batteries (a $10 value), in addition to a FREE Pepper Shot Pepper Spray (a $9.99 value) with every Stun Master 775,00 Volt Stun Gun.

Defend Thyself!

Sparky the Stun Gun
Self Defense Expert
DefendThyself.com/StunMaster775

When, we are relieved to hear that a majority of our Supreme court justices feel the Constitution means what it says. In an incredible 5-4 ruling, 4 judges actually disented & felt we don’t have a right to keep & bear arms???

What country are we in? This ain’t X (enter any other country in the world), we actually have a right to defend ourselves from enemies, foreign & domestic.

One comment sticks out like a neon light:

In a dissent he summarized from the bench, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority “would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons.”

Me thinks Stevens forgot We the people created the elected officials, and elected them. We elected them to represent us, not repress us. Not to be our kings collecting their binding yolk and subjecting us to a life of serfdom. NO! We put the son’s of bitches there to help us.

And me also thinks Scalia sorta forgets the same thing,

Although an individual now has a constitutional right to own guns, that new right is not unlimited, wrote Scalia, a hunter.

Uhhh, didn’t we as people have that right way before the Constitution was ever drafted? So when did we loose that right that has now lovingly been bestowed back on us?

Though it appears at least one of them realizes reality,

In dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer wrote, “The decision threatens to throw into doubt the constitutionality of gun laws throughout the United States.”

Now they are screwing us and it’s about time someone bitch slapped Congress with their repressive laws!

We applaud the justices who agreed: Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas.

We loathe the dissenting traitors: Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and David Souter.

Comments?

Sparky the Stun Gun
Self Defense Expert
DefendThyself.com

Here is what happens when Governments ban all self defense weapons, lethal, and non-lethal. You can’t have squat in Japan to defend yourself besides chop sticks. I can only imagine their Government banning knives next, instead of issuing guns & pepper sprays to everyone.

7 dead in stabbing spree in downtown Tokyo

TOKYO (AP) – A man plowed into shoppers with a truck Sunday and then stabbed 17 people within minutes, killing at least seven of them in a grisly attack that shocked a country known for its low crime rate.

The lunchtime violence in the Akihabara district, a popular electronics and video game area, sent thousands of people fleeing.

The assault, which occurred on the seventh anniversary of a mass stabbing at a Japanese elementary school, was the latest in a series of knife attacks that have stoked fears of rising violent crime in Japan.

A 25-year-old man, Tomohiro Kato, was arrested with blood on his face.

“The suspect told police that he came to Akihabara to kill people,” said Jiro Akaogi, a spokesman for the Tokyo Metropolitan Police Department.

If someone had something to defend themselves, this would not have happened. Even a $10 Pepper Shot Pepper Spray or a $20 Stun Master 100,000 Volt Stun Gun. Even a TASER C2. Well, no one had nothing, not even a Sushi knife, so this guy takes out 17 people in minutes.

This month, we will give away a Stun Master Stun Gun and a Pepper Shot Key Chain Pepper Spray to our monthly newsletter drawing winner.

This way, when the poop hits the fan, you are covered. As always, we will give you a free Pepper Shot Pepper Spray with any Stun Gun from our online store.

Take the Me out of Crime.

Sparky the Stun Gun
Self Defense Products Expert
DefendThyself.com/StunMasterStunGun

In the race for the best Socialism money can buy, you might have missed this little gem. I had started to write about it over a month ago, and well, you know how it is, the most important stuff needs to get done. I have been mostly working on loading up a new shopping cart for our sister site, EyeSpyPro.com & setting up some other credit related ventures.

I already wrote about how Mr. Obama plans to lead us into “sensible gun registration”, and while the guy seems really sincere & honest, he is a card carrying member of the CFR, a globalist, and is so far left he touches McCain.

Now we see legislative garbage like that that expands the millions we give away to fight poverty, to the BILLIONS, UP TO 0.7% of GDP. Obama is the biggest asshat on earth! I am really sick of hearing Socialists wanting to give trillions away to the poor. Start by giving away all your money, selling all your possessions, and then I might give a few bucks…

Obama’s Global Tax Proposal Up for Senate Vote

If you are a Democrat, I really don’t mean to slag on you, it’s just that I wonder how anyone could approve of his direction based on where he has traveled from. Politicians dont’ change, except I see Bob Barr appears to have in several directions, which I’ll talk about later…

This blog discusses this in further detail:
More on Barack Obama’s S.2433 : Global Poverty Act

We know for a fact that this bill will cost America $845 billion above and beyond what America already spends on global aid in the next thirteen years. America will be locked in to giving .7 percent of the U.S. gross national product. That in itself is scary enough, but there is way more to Obama’s bill. It also locks us into United Nations Millennium Summit. Cliff Kincaid from Accuracy in Media is all over this bill. He writes-(Underlined by me)

The bill institutes the United Nations Millennium Summit goals as the benchmarks for U.S. spending.

“It is time the United States makes it a priority of our foreign policy to meet this goal and help those who are struggling day to day,” a statement issued by supporters, including Obama, said.

Specifically, it would “declare” that the official U.S. policy is to eliminate global poverty, that the president is “required” to “develop and implement” a strategy to reach that goal and requires that the U.S. efforts be “specific and measurable.”

Kincaid said that after cutting through all of the honorable-sounding goals in the plan, the bottom line is that the legislation would mandate the 0.7 percent of the U.S. GNP as “official development assistance.“

We see it’s being held up in the Senate:

Conservatives Place Hold on Obama’s Global Poverty Bill

(CNSNews.com) – Two conservative members of the U.S. Senate have anonymously placed a hold on Sen. Barack Obama’s (D-Ill.) global poverty bill, Cybercast News Service has learned.

The effort is an attempt to slow down the progress of a bill (S. 2433) that conservative analysts say could eventually force the U.S. to increase its foreign aid by hundreds of billions of dollars.

Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in Media, a conservative media watchdog, said S. 2433 has been getting “a pass” from Congress. It received absolutely no scrutiny in the House last fall, when it was passed on a voice vote, and no scrutiny last week in the Senate, when the Foreign Relations Committee also passed it on a voice vote.

“They never held any hearings on this bill in either body – none whatsoever,” said Kincaid. “They never heard from people like me, who monitor the U.N. for a living, about what was in it and what it means. You can be sure that people in the foreign aid lobby completely understand what’s in it.”

The current status is Apr 24, 2008: Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 718.

Here are the 15 Senatorial slimeballs, besides the slimeball that wrote this piece of crap, including the biggest slimeball of all, Diane Frankenfeinstein, who’s pockets are lined with all the special interests she & her husband take money from. I though Chris Dodd was on our side? So much for lip flapping by politicians during election cycles…

Cosponsors [as of 2008-05-04]
Sen. Joseph Biden [D-DE]
Sen. Maria Cantwell [D-WA]
Sen. Christopher Dodd [D-CT]
Sen. Richard Durbin [D-IL]
Sen. Russell Feingold [D-WI]
Sen. Dianne Feinstein [D-CA]
Sen. Charles Hagel [R-NE]
Sen. Thomas Harkin [D-IA]
Sen. Tim Johnson [D-SD]
Sen. John Kerry [D-MA]
Sen. Richard Lugar [R-IN]
Sen. Robert Menéndez [D-NJ]
Sen. Patty Murray [D-WA]
Sen. Gordon Smith [R-OR]
Sen. Olympia Snowe [R-ME]

Then, there is some group called Bread for the World & Bread for the World Institute that is suggesting we call our representatives and tell them we support billions and billions of our dollars going to feed the world, while I can hardly pay my rent?

Bread for the world, such a sweet name; Screw you, Bread For The World! Headquartered in DC, these slimeballs must be a UN group that set up shop here to suck off Uncle Sams teats, and suck they will, billions of dollars sucked out of our economy to feed the world.

Now I am not a cold-hearted SOB most of the time, only some of the time, though I’ll be dammed if we are going to start sending 0.7% of our GDP to Africa to have corrupt dictators steal all the damn money anyway makes no sense to me…

How about you? Comments?

Christopher Winkler
Self Defense Products Expert
DefendThyself.com

Geez, I start a nice little blog to to bring you interesting news about self defense, and show you some of the non-lethal products that can protect you, if you can’t or don’t want to use a gun. Now the more I look for news, the more I am finding all this crazy stuff like the U.N. wanting to remove all guns from citizens because it is the “right” of a government to do that…

And when I go and read a forum called thinkfree be free, that linked to the article, I poke around and start reading up on the subject of Death Camps in North America, dozens of them. What the ???

Civilian Inmate Labor Program

Headquarters
Department of the Army
Washington, DC
14 January 2005 *Army Regulation 210–35
Effective 14 February 2005
1–1. Purpose
This regulation provides Army policy and guidance for establishing civilian inmate labor programs and civilian prison camps on Army installations. Sources of civilian inmate labor are limited to on– and off–post Federal corrections facilities, State and/or local corrections facilities operating from on–post prison camps pursuant to leases under Section 2667, Title 10, United States Code (10 USC 2667), and off–post State corrections facilities participating in the demonstration project authorized under Section 1065, Public Law (PL) 103–337. Otherwise, State and/or local inmate labor from off–post corrections facilities is currently excluded from this program. The Civilian Inmate Labor Program, official US Government plan to create slave-labor camps’

Here is another article. While this is 2 years ago, I never heard about it and these laws have not gone away.

10-Year U.S. Strategic Plan For Detention Camps Revives Proposals From Oliver North
The Halliburton subsidiary KBR (formerly Brown and Root) announced on Jan. 24 that it had been awarded a $385 million contingency contract by the Department of Homeland Security to build detention camps. Two weeks later, on Feb. 6, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff announced that the Fiscal Year 2007 federal budget would allocate over $400 million to add 6,700 additional detention beds (an increase of 32 percent over 2006). This $400 million allocation is more than a four-fold increase over the FY 2006 budget, which provided only $90 million for the same purpose.

Finally, we leave you with this blog, that links to a Market Watch article and an Army publication on the subject

Secret Prisons? Army Civilian Inmate Labor Programs? USA???

But don’t take MY word for it…follow the links to an article from Market Watch and a PDF file right off the Army’s website…thanks to TruthOut.org for bringing this to my attention.

KBR GETS CONTRACTS TO BUILD PRISON CAMPS (Jan 06)

ARMY CIVILIAN INMATE LABOR PROGRAM REGS (Jan 05)

That evidence paints a pretty clear picture that Michael Chertoff and the rest of Homeland Security really was not set up to protect us from enemies without, they were set up to paint anyone they want into the enemy from within and wisk them away, never to be heard of again, just like we did to the Japanese.

Isn’t this the kind of stuff that went on during WWII? Work camps set up to put the Jews and dissidents to work for the Reich, to save it money on labor costs so they can buy more bombs? Hmmm, incompetent government agency running these camps with massive people milling around, kind of makes me think of what happened in New Orleans during the hurricane.

Are we destined to repeat history, or do something about it.

Comments?

Christopher Winkler
Self Defense Products Expert
DefendThyself.com

I had 2nd thoughts of posting this, then I read over @ Democrat = Socialist the same subject, that this guy is the worst possible person who could be our President, as he will grab your guns under U.N. Programs already in place. More proof this empty suit is not person we need to lead us, because its apparent that Obama will goose step us into a “Constitutional” gun registration program that is the first step in a grab for your guns.

Then I found this little gem about Hussein Obama:

Obama’s International Socialist Connections
Campaign workers for Senator and presidential candidate Barack Obama are under fire for displaying a flag featuring communist hero Che Guevara. But Obama has his own controversial socialist connections. He is, in fact, an associate of a Chicago-based Marxist group with access to millions of labor union dollars and connections to expert political consultants, including a convicted swindler.

Obama’s socialist backing goes back at least to 1996, when he received the endorsement of the Chicago branch of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) for an Illinois state senate seat. Later, the Chicago DSA newsletter reported that Obama, as a state senator, showed up to eulogize Saul Mendelson, one of the “champions” of “Chicago’s democratic left” and a long-time socialist activist. Obama’s stint as a “community organizer” in Chicago has gotten some attention, but his relationship with the DSA socialists, who groomed and backed him, has been generally ignored.

Jacob Sullem pens a great piece on Reasononline.com

Isn’t Self-Defense Common Sense?
Barack Obama’s Second Amendment is all about hunting and target shooting.

Under the Second Amendment, Barack Obama says, “There is an individual right to bear arms, but it is subject to common-sense regulation, just like most of our rights are subject to common-sense regulation.” The leading candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination thus seems to be on the same wavelength as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which in a decision last March said “the protections of the Second Amendment are subject to the same sort of reasonable restrictions that have been recognized as limiting, for instance, the First Amendment.”

But there is a crucial difference between these superficially similar formulations: The appeals court meant what it said, and Obama doesn’t. Although the Illinois senator has learned to pay lip service to the Second Amendment, the details of his past and present positions on gun control suggest he neither understands nor respects the right to keep and bear arms.

In last year’s ruling, which the U.S. Supreme Court will soon review, the D.C. Circuit overturned a Washington, D.C., gun law that bans possession of handguns in the home and requires that rifles and shotguns be kept “unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock.” The law thereby effectively bars city residents from using firearms for self-defense in their own homes.

Obama evidently considers that de facto prohibition a “common-sense regulation,” since he recently cited Washington’s law as an example of constitutionally permissible gun control. “The notion that somehow local jurisdictions can’t initiate gun safety laws to deal with gangbangers and random shootings on the street isn’t borne out by our Constitution,” he said.

And this emptiest suit ever made was a Constitutional lawyer??? What Constitution was he a layer for, and why does it even need a lawyer? It’s pretty clear what it says and that’s the problem with things now adays; people believe it’s up to interpretation. He does have a track record of voting for bans, restrictions, and regulations on gun ownership. What makes anyone think he will do anything different once he is firmly in place for the next four years?

Hey Obama, what don’t you understand about the right of the people to keep and bear Arms? Just another reason to not vote for this clown.

You obviously forgot that the first Ten Amendments to the Constitition “all relate to limiting the power of the federal government. They were added in response to criticisms of the Constitution by the state ratification conventions and by prominent individuals such as Thomas Jefferson (who was not a delegate to the Constitutional Convention). These critics argued that without further restraints, the strong central government would become tyrannical. The amendments were proposed by Congress as part of a block of twelve in September 1789. By December 1791 a sufficient number of states had ratified ten of the twelve proposals, and the Bill of Rights became part of the Constitution.

It is commonly understood that the Bill of Rights was not originally intended to apply to the states, though except where amendments refer specifically to the Federal Government or a branch thereof (as in the first amendment, under which some states in the early years of the nation officially established a religion), there is no such delineation in the text itself (wikipedia.org).”

Then I went to look Obama’s Web site, and he does has a link for “sportsman” with a section for “protecting gun rights.” It only talks about hunting. It does not talk about protecting yourself from criminals, and that the police won’t be there, so you are pretty much on your own, and oh yeah, we we want to regulate your Constitutional rights. When asked about his view on the Second Amendment, Obama has said, “There is individual right to bear arms, but it is subject to common sense regulation, just like most of our rights are subject to common sense regulation.”

What planet is this clown from? Anyone who would ever vote for this guy is a traitor to the Constitution. None of our rights are suppose to be regulated, we are suppose to regulate you and if you guys dont’ wake up and start making a stink about this, it’s going to be too late and all you will have to defend yourself with will be Pepper Shot Pepper Sprays and Stun Master Stun Guns.

While I base my business on providing self defense devices, they really won’t work against a gun. I firmly believe gun ownership is a God given right, and right to defend ourselves against criminals, foreign or domestic, and, as my friend Thomas Jefferson said, The only defense against a tyrannical government is an armed citizen.

Comments? Does anyone care??? Pick up your pepper sprays & stun guns today, as you might not be able to own a gun in the near future…

Christopher Winkler
Provider of Self Defense Products
DefendThyself.com

You boys better be ready to give up your guns, according to a report called The Human Right Of Self Defense, a subcommission of the United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC) has declared that “there is no human right to personal self-defense and that extremely strict gun control is a human right which all governments are required to enforce immediately.”

The Human Right of Self-Defense
David B. Kopel,1 Paul Gallant2 & Joanne D. Eisen3

I. INTRODUCTION

“Any law, international or municipal, which prohibits recourse to force, is necessarily limited by the right of self-defense.”

Is there a human right to defend oneself against a violent attacker? Is there an individual right to arms under international law? Conversely, are governments guilty of human rights violations if they do not enact strict gun control laws?

The United Nations and some non-governmental organizations have declared that there is no human right to self-defense or to the possession of defensive arms. The UN and allied NGOs further declare that insufficiently restrictive firearms laws are themselves a human rights violation, so all governments must sharply restrict citizen firearms possession.

This Article investigates the legal status of self-defense by examining a broad variety of sources of international law. Based on those sources, the Article suggests that personal self-defense is a well-established human right under international law and is an important foundation of international law itself.

If you start reading this, you start to see that while the U.N. would have a very difficult time to get Congress to pass such draconian laws, it would be another thign to try and collect those guns. An interesting tidbit states, “…a variety of ways, discussed infra, in which purported international law mandates can be imposed on American citizens without legislative consent.”

It also reminds us of the Frey report, written by Barbara Frey, who was put on the HRC subcommission by the Clinton Administration, who strongly supported U.N. gun control efforts. Note to Hillary Clinton supporters; I bet she will also back draconian UN Gun control laws, and push to change our gun laws and I would not doubt even try for a possible grab IF she made it to office.

It goes on to show how completely incompetent and inept the U.N. is, that eventually the HRC was abolished in 2005, after it was shown that some of it’s memebers that promoted gun control were actually members that performed genocide, slave trading, strict control of their citizens, and state terrorism. The Human Rights Council was an oxymoron and actually an adversary of promoting human rights.

Incredibly, the HRC was resurected the next year as the exact same thing and fully embraced the Frey Report which says that all national governments are required by International law to implement various levels of gun control.

I am not liking this women, or the U.N. at all. It gets worse.

Of course the subcommission has little power to enforce its wishes directly, but the declaration gives national government officials, including courts, considerable support to promote restrictive gun laws which are, according to the UN, mandated by international law. The full Human Rights Council is scheduled to take up the issue, and indications at the time of this writing suggest that the full Council will ratify most or all of Frey’s report. The Chairman of the full Human Rights Council has already announced his enthusiastic support for the Frey Report, the subcommission’s adoption of the report, and the prospect of using the Human Rights Council to advance a worldwide gun control mandate.

The Frey Report, then, is not simply a scholarly paper that will be filed away in a United Nations library. It is an effort to establish a new norm of international human rights law, and this effort to establish the new norm is supported by the United Nations Human Rights Council, as one aspect of the UN’s far-ranging support for restrictive and confiscatory firearms policies.

The United Nations General Assembly began drafting an international Arms Trade Treaty in late 2006. A stated purpose of the Arms Trade Treaty is to prohibit arms transfers which violate human rights.51 As interpreted by the HRC and Frey, every firearms sale in the United States would be a human rights violation; this is because even the most restrictive jurisdictions in the United States—such as Washington, D.C., or New York City—do not meet the minimum Frey/HRC gun control standards.

Ok, that’s about all of this I want to write about as I am getting really, really sick. Read the report, understand the U.N. wants your guns, and ask Hillary & the gun grabber Obama if they support the Frey report and do they plan on implementing their gun control mandates?

If you are an elephant, ask Romney (gun grabber), McCain, or Huckster what are their positions on gun control? Lets start talking about real issues, instead of still talking about change. We need change, we need to get the hell out of the United Nations and not put a Socialistic gun grabber in the White house…

Comments?

Christopher Winkler
Provider of Self Defense Products
http://DefendThyself.com