Again, my thanks to a listener for alerting me to this document. It can be found on the web site for the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research and is entitled “Removing Military Weapons from Civilian Hands.” Here’s your link if you want to read the whole thing: http://www.unog.ch/UNIDIR/discus-1.htm
Now – you may have some sympathy for the concept of removing military weapons from civilian hands. Before you sign on, however, stop to think about just how the UN would define “military weapons.” Definitions --- it’s always in the definitions.
Right now the UN is hosting a meeting in New York on “small arms.” Basically, it’s a meeting to discuss international gun control efforts. Some of the delegates to this UN meeting have made it clear that (a) they consider all firearms to be “military weapons”; and, (b) that they favor a binding UN resolution banning the private ownership of all firearms with the exception of some specialized hunting weapons.
So --- why do I bring up this particular document? It’s because of one statement made by its authors. Here’s your quote: "Such weapons distort societies … they make it harder for the State to regain the legitimate monopoly of force ... compromising the effectiveness of police forces and encouraging law-abiding civilians to arm themselves for protection..." (You’ll find the entire quote in the 12th paragraph of the document.)
Now .. read the paragraph again. Do you see what’s being presented as good and what’s being presented as bad?
Good: “.. the (state’s) legitimate monopoly of force…”
Bad: “ … law abiding civilians (arming) themselves for protection.”
Just call me old-fashioned, but I subscribe to the concept, as set forth in the Declaration of Independence, that government derives its powers from the consent of the governed. The ONLY reason government is empowered to use force, then, is because the governed have allowed the government to use force for certain narrowly defined purposes … collective self defense, for instance.
Inherent in the concept of wielding power with the consent of the governed is the idea that the governed (that’s us) can, if we wish, decide to deny to government the power to use force. Now just how in the hell would we ever enforce such a decision if we have been disarmed?
Pay attention folks. The movement isn’t limited to Sarah Brady and her leftist cronies in the United States. There is a concerted world-wide movement to take all firearms out of the hands of all civilians. This movement is based on the concept of the supremacy of government, not the people. Government should and does have a monopoly on force, and the citizens should be powerless to change this. We, after all, are just subjects. We do as we’re told … right?
Now – you may have some sympathy for the concept of removing military weapons from civilian hands. Before you sign on, however, stop to think about just how the UN would define “military weapons.” Definitions --- it’s always in the definitions.
Right now the UN is hosting a meeting in New York on “small arms.” Basically, it’s a meeting to discuss international gun control efforts. Some of the delegates to this UN meeting have made it clear that (a) they consider all firearms to be “military weapons”; and, (b) that they favor a binding UN resolution banning the private ownership of all firearms with the exception of some specialized hunting weapons.
So --- why do I bring up this particular document? It’s because of one statement made by its authors. Here’s your quote: "Such weapons distort societies … they make it harder for the State to regain the legitimate monopoly of force ... compromising the effectiveness of police forces and encouraging law-abiding civilians to arm themselves for protection..." (You’ll find the entire quote in the 12th paragraph of the document.)
Now .. read the paragraph again. Do you see what’s being presented as good and what’s being presented as bad?
Good: “.. the (state’s) legitimate monopoly of force…”
Bad: “ … law abiding civilians (arming) themselves for protection.”
Just call me old-fashioned, but I subscribe to the concept, as set forth in the Declaration of Independence, that government derives its powers from the consent of the governed. The ONLY reason government is empowered to use force, then, is because the governed have allowed the government to use force for certain narrowly defined purposes … collective self defense, for instance.
Inherent in the concept of wielding power with the consent of the governed is the idea that the governed (that’s us) can, if we wish, decide to deny to government the power to use force. Now just how in the hell would we ever enforce such a decision if we have been disarmed?
Pay attention folks. The movement isn’t limited to Sarah Brady and her leftist cronies in the United States. There is a concerted world-wide movement to take all firearms out of the hands of all civilians. This movement is based on the concept of the supremacy of government, not the people. Government should and does have a monopoly on force, and the citizens should be powerless to change this. We, after all, are just subjects. We do as we’re told … right?
