Discussion in 'On Topic' started by Sloi, Feb 6, 2008.
Copying this from CGN:
Skipped to page 15. Fuck whoever wrote that bullshit. In a perfect world the police would be able to protect everyone anywhere. Obviously thats not the case and we are left holding the self-defense bag.
it's been determined in court of law that police are not obligated to save your life if your life is in danger.
that, and police have been trained to know the exact speed of a vehicle just by looking at it moving.
Don't forget about their uncanny ability to determine your intentions by reading special particles on your skin!
hmm, giving me a 404 error
Just got an ticket for 88mph in a 40mph zone from a visual estimation...
I'd fight it, but i was really doing 110! Wonder if i can use my testimony to repeal that fucking stupid law since they really can't estimate my speed correctly?
The most egregious part of the text (p15) :
"The most startling of the claims in the Frey/HRC report is that there is no human right of self-defense.
No international human right of self-defence is expressly set forth in the primary sources of international law: treaties, customary law, or general principles. While the right to life is recognized in virtually every major international human rights treaty, the principle of self-defence is expressly recognized in only one, the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights), article 2.57
Frey specifically cites, and rejects, an article arguing that there is a human right of self-defense against genocide.58 Elsewhere, she has, in accord with the IANSA position, stated that “It is the State that must be responsible—and accountable—for ensuring public safety, rather than civilians themselves.”59
Frey then argues that a state’s failure to restrict self-defense is itself a human rights violation.
According to Frey, a government violates the human right to life to the extent that a state allows the defensive use of a firearm “unless the action was necessary to save a life or lives.”60
Thus, firearms “may be used defensively only in the most extreme circumstances, expressly, where the right to life is already threatened or unjustifiably impinged.”61
Frey also states that law enforcement officials may only use firearms in similar circumstances.62
In other words, it is a human rights violation for a state to allow its citizens or its law enforcement officers to use firearms to protect victims of rape, robbery, or mayhem.
As this paper will detail infra, in Parts IV, V, and VI, Frey’s hyper-narrow conditions on permissible self-defense—and her denial of the existence of a human right to self-defense—are inconsistent with a long and well-established tradition of human rights law.
The issue of whether international law mandates highly restrictive gun control, as Frey and the HRC claim, is discussed in Part VII.
Then, Part VIII addresses the related question of to what extent, if any, an international right of self-defense would imply a right to some type of arms, or to firearms. "
the pdf link is still broken. rehost?
The link's just bad... Try this
That sickens me.
I love how all the UN supporters of gun control are fucking dictators trying to prevent their people from rebelling LOL