Skip to comments.
The Next International Right
Fox News ^
| October 17, 2002
| Glenn Harlan Reynolds
Posted on 10/17/2002 4:36:08 AM PDT by RKV
Edited on 04/22/2004 12:35:02 AM PDT by Jim Robinson.
The past century was one of barbarism and mass murder, one in which the world stood by while large populations were exterminated by governments bent on power and possessed of the means of killing.
After World War II, the "international community" determined that the most important goal of the new international system created for the post-war era would be the prevention of genocide. "Never again," we were told, and nations signed the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in large numbers.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Foreign Affairs
KEYWORDS: banglist; naturalrights; rkba
Self-defense IS a human right, and placing the citizens on the same footing as the government with regard to posession of arms is THE primary means to insure the government respects the lives and property of the citizens. The founders of our republic recognized that government power needed a check and the result was the Second Amendment.
posted on 10/17/2002 4:36:08 AM PDT
Having an armed populace is the moral high ground, and it is time that our government acknowleged it and pushed it as international policy.
posted on 10/17/2002 4:45:37 AM PDT
Yes, the "international community" is against all forms of genocide, except Arab terrorists committing genocide against Americans.
And they are for self-defense against genocide, except when Americans choose to defend themselves against Islamist aggression.
You raise a good point. "Some animals are more equal than others," I think was how Orwell put it. It's our opportunity to point out the moral bankruptcy of the victim disarmers.
posted on 10/17/2002 5:02:36 AM PDT
I wonder if the Bush administrations diplomatic corps will have the nerve and the integrity to push this argument at the U.N. and elsewhere, not merely as an argument in opposition to global gun control, which they have been making already, but an argument in favor of a positive right to be armed as part of international human rights law?
Here's where I take serious issue with this article. J.Q. Adams had a much better idea: "America is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own."
We should not be giving legitimacy to the globalist apparatus, even if we're taking positions that appear to conflict with its current regulatory outlook.
posted on 10/17/2002 8:50:02 AM PDT
And another thing: The Bush Adminstrations "arguments in opposition to global gun control" have not been of the nature of the right to self-defense. All they've really said is that global gun control is wrong because some people like to use guns for sporting. Real winner of an argument there.
posted on 10/17/2002 8:54:45 AM PDT
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson