The Next International Right
Glenn Reynolds on The Next International Right.
The result, conclude law professor Daniel Polsby and criminologist Don Kates, is that “a connection exists between the restrictiveness of a country’s civilian weapons policy and its liability to commit genocide.”
Armed citizens, they argue, are far less likely to be massacred than defenseless ones, and armed resistance to genocide is more likely to receive outside aid. It is probably no accident that the better-armed resistance to genocide in Bosnia and Kosovo drew international intervention, while the hapless Rwandans and Cambodians did not. When victims resist, what is merely cause for horror becomes cause for alarm, and those who are afraid of the conflict’s spread will support (as Europe did) intervention out of self-interest when they could not be bothered to intervene out of compassion.
It is no wonder that genocide is so often preceded by efforts to disarm the people.
I can’t resist….
Indeed.
Unfortunately the right to self defense, the right to own firearms, will never be a U.N. sanctioned right specifically due to the fact that evil 2-bit dictatorships out number all others. I’ve frequently referred to the U.N. as the 2-bit Dictators Club because as Reynolds neatly points out, it’s true. And to reinforce it further the U.N. is attempting to get the United States to sign onto a treaty that would force the United States to relegate firearm ownership to law enforcement and government agencies only. It’d be sheer madness if it was really about “rights”. But it’s really about power.