Pop Quiz
Advanced Topics in Human Rights Law. Exam, Spring 2010. Question 4: One day, a woman goes to a gun store in Florida. She provides picture identification to the store owner, who then, pursuant to the National Instant Check System, uses his telephone to contact law enforcement, and ensure that the woman has no criminal record. The woman then purchases an expensive double-barreled shotgun, manufactured in the United Kingdom. She plans to use the gun for all lawful purposes, but primarily for sporting clays. In accordance with Florida law, she did not need to obtain a government license to possess the gun.
Two years later, a man breaks into her home at night. The woman reasonably (and correctly) believes that the man intends to rape and torture her. She also, correctly, believes that there is absolutely no possibility that the man will kill her. She shoots the man and kills him.
Summarize the human rights violations
The answer is frightening.
September 14th, 2006 at 5:59 pm
perhaps the UN should be declared an Organized Crime Syndicate and all diplomatice passports rescinded for its members and staffs, and RICO statutes applied to all that cannot clear the country in 24 hours.
They are obviously on the side of depravity and despotism and are accessories to human rights violations before the fact. Why do they never care about the human rights of the victims or intended victims of the killers, rapists, robbers, enslavers, etc.?
Simple, they hope to be them some day.
September 14th, 2006 at 6:26 pm
The whole scenario and all the rationalizations surrounding it fall to hell in the face of logic. Some of the most obvious flaws are:
The Woman could not possibly have had any foreknowledge of whether the attacker would have eventually killed her or not. Such a standard would require genuine psychic ability.
Even if she had obtained the shotgun under a licensing requirement, she would still have had the shotgun, and would still, presumeably, have used it in the same way.
This is to say nothing of the fact that criminals are not subject to any of the limitations proposed in the stupid treaty, or of the fact that governments, proveably, represent a greater threat to human rights, including human life, than all the civilian-owned guns in the world, or of our Second Amendment.
If the UN wants go to war against our right to self defense, let them. (Yawn) Like they’ve ever had one iota of enforcement power, or could ever hope to have any in the United States. We don’t use the term “blue helmeted elk” around here purely in jest. Now I’m off to buy a case of 12 gauge ammo, so I have to sign off…
September 14th, 2006 at 11:10 pm
The UN is an abomination; it’s a government of no people, a government of governments and as such only cares.. or really knows of.. governments.
September 14th, 2006 at 11:16 pm
It would have been cooler if the woman had eviscerated the perp with a bowie knife, but I think she did quite well.
The International Action Network on Small Arms could be a fun organization, but I somehow suspect that it is against small arms.
The UN is morally obtuse.
We need to channel a few smart bombs and daisy cutters in its direction, bulldoze the trash heap into the East River, and send the occupants back to Ghana, where they can enjoy the great theatre and shopping with Kofi.