# Is Self Defense A Human Right? The UN Doesn't Think So.........



## Andy Moynihan (Nov 4, 2007)

This came up in another thread but I believe, this being a martial arts forum with a self defense subforum, that this would be a topic of interest.

The referenced document deals mainly with firearms, but this particular bullet point leapt out at me and I didn't like what I saw:

http://www.iansa.org/un/documents/salw_hr_report_2006.pdf 


*Quote:20. Self-defence is a widely recognized, yet legally proscribed, exception to the universal duty to respect the right to life of others. Self-defence is a basis for exemption from criminal responsibility that can be raised by any State agent or non-State actor. Self-defence is sometimes designated as a right. There is inadequate legal support for such an interpretation. Self-defence is more properly characterized as a means of protecting the right to life and, as such, a basis for avoiding responsibility for violating the rights of another.*


Seeing this quote has for obvious reasons left a VERY bad taste in my mouth.

Discuss.


----------



## Jai (Nov 4, 2007)

I think I threw up in my mouth a little after reading that... I'm at a loss for words, honestly...


----------



## Dave Leverich (Nov 4, 2007)

Kick whoever wrote that in the nads (sorry, I'm feeling less than eloquent after reading that crap). Every living being on the planet has a right to try to stay alive, it's fundamental to LIFE ;p.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 4, 2007)

Dave Leverich said:


> Every living being on the planet has a right to try to stay alive, it's fundamental to LIFE ;p.


 
I don't believe the language in the quoted paragraph says anything other than that.



P.S. and I note the Original Poster has updated his location to slur the cradle of American liberty.
The irony is just too think.  "People's Republic of Massachusettstan, USA", indeed.


----------



## Big Don (Nov 4, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> I don't believe the language in the quoted paragraph says anything other than that.


*



			Self-defence is a widely recognized, yet legally proscribed, exception to the universal duty to respect the right to life of others. Self-defence is a basis for exemption from criminal responsibility that can be raised by any State agent or non-State actor. Self-defence is sometimes designated as a right. There is inadequate legal support for such an interpretation. Self-defence is more properly characterized as a means of protecting the right to life and, as such, a basis for avoiding responsibility for violating the rights of another.
		
Click to expand...

*Then you, apparently don't understand what the word proscribed means. You also apparently skipped right past this sentence: 





> *There is inadequate legal support for such an interpretation.*


*
*Dishonest much?


----------



## Cruentus (Nov 4, 2007)

I think that it is very clear from the ideologies of some (particularly in heavily socialist countries) that they believe that the state  (police, etc.) is responsible for the defense of the individual, and therefore self-defense is not ones right. In their minds, saying "self-defense" is a right to a certain extent is bad for the 'greater social good,' as then people may do things to ensure self-defense that they believe is bad for society, such as carry a weapon.

I, of course, think that this mode of thinking is a slippery slope to totalitarianism and an erosion of human rights. That is why I am glad I live in the United States, despite the problems we may have here.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 4, 2007)

I just took a visit over to the UN Web Site. Gee, they have all sort of informative language there... such as this..

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html



> *Article 3.*
> 
> 
> Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.


 
I guess, security of person doesn't mean actual security of person after all ...... wait, .... that doesn't make any sense at all.


----------



## Tames D (Nov 4, 2007)

Let's keep the discussion respectful guys.


----------



## Shotgun Buddha (Nov 4, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> I think that it is very clear from the ideologies of some (particularly in heavily socialist countries) that they believe that the state  (police, etc.) is responsible for the defense of the individual, and therefore self-defense is not ones right. In their minds, saying "self-defense" is a right to a certain extent is bad for the 'greater social good,' as then people may do things to ensure self-defense that they believe is bad for society, such as carry a weapon.
> 
> I, of course, think that this mode of thinking is a slippery slope to totalitarianism and an erosion of human rights. That is why I am glad I live in the United States, despite the problems we may have here.



Hmmmm. Is there any particular countries you'd be referring to with that? Most cases Ive heard of regarding "dodgy" decisions in self defence cases have been in the States, it seems there is alot of room for interpretation there legally, possibly due to differences in legislation from state to state?


----------



## Shotgun Buddha (Nov 4, 2007)

> The present
> report concludes that the principle of self-defence has an important place in international human
> rights law, but that it does not provide an independent, legal supervening right to small arms
> possession, nor does it ameliorate the duty of States to use due diligence in regulating civilian
> possession.


The document only refers to self defence in how it effects the ownership of weapons. The entire theme of it is that the principle of gun ownership for the purpose of self-defence does not absolve a government of its duty to prevent gun abuse.


----------



## Cruentus (Nov 4, 2007)

Shotgun Buddha said:


> Hmmmm. Is there any particular countries you'd be referring to with that? Most cases Ive heard of regarding "dodgy" decisions in self defence cases have been in the States, it seems there is alot of room for interpretation there legally, possibly due to differences in legislation from state to state?


 
It's a simple ideology that is promoted by many different countries from Europe to Africa to Asia; all over the world. I am not pinpointing 1 particular country.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 4, 2007)

And, interestingly, this report is a report based on Q & A submitted to nations around the globe. It is not, as the Original Poster seems to be intimating, a policy written by the United Nations.



> 1. The present final report of the Special Rapporteur with the task of preparing a comprehensive study on the prevention of human rights violations committed with small arms and light weapons is submitted pursuant to Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights resolution 2002/25, decision 2003/105, decision 2004/123 and decision 2005/110, as well as Commission on Human Rights decision 2003/112. *Annexed to the present report are a summary and an analysis of States&#8217; responses to the questionnaire* elaborated by the Special Rapporteur pursuant to Sub-Commission decision 2003/105 and Commission decision 2004/124.​




And, the basis of paragraph 20 is explained in the omitted paragraph 21.



> 21. *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.Self-defence, however, is not recognized as a right in the European Convention on Human Rights. According to one commentator, &#8220;The function of this provision is simply to remove from the scope of application of article 2 (1) killings necessary to defend against unlawful violence. It does not provide a right that must be secured by the State&#8221;.



So, if one wish to argue with the first statement, let's start with an honest understanding of the position. And defend your supposition. 

Here, we see that the United Nations has reviewed "primary sources of international law" as the basis of their report. 

What is the foundation of your opinion?​*
*


----------



## Shotgun Buddha (Nov 4, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> It's a simple ideology that is promoted by many different countries from Europe to Africa to Asia; all over the world. I am not pinpointing 1 particular country.



Well, is there any you could provide as examples?


----------



## Cruentus (Nov 4, 2007)

You (this means all of you) needs to read at the very least the introduction and conclusion/recommendation sections of the document. It is clear that the document surveyed a number of countries regarding small arms violence, and developed a conclusion and recommendation for states to take actions against small arms violence. 

It is clear that their recommendation consists of making the state responsible for the enforcement and protection of society, via "promoting law enforcement" and "suppressing private violence." One of the ways they recommend in doing this, among other things, is to regulate and suppress civilian possession of firearms. They also state that protection of the individual is not a priority of the state or a right of that individual.

Basically, read the damn thing, because it is all there.

They're solution is a state based regulation on firearms. Ideologically, this clashes with our 2nd amendment rights. Furthermore, it is clear that they believe that the greater good of the state takes precidence over the individual. Here in America, most of us believe in protecting the rights of the individual, thus another clash of ideologies. 

This goes back to what I have been talking about here and in other related threads.  

I am not going to split hairs over wording or argue. Either one disagree's or agree's with the ideology and the solutions proposed; I happen to disagree.


----------



## Tames D (Nov 4, 2007)

[playnice]Tim Jacobsen[/playnice]


----------



## Cruentus (Nov 4, 2007)

Shotgun Buddha said:


> Well, is there any you could provide as examples?


 
O.K., Germany is one. Russia is another. How about China? Really, the list is quite large. In these countries, the interest of the state (which poponents claim is there to promote a "greater good") takes precidence over the rights of the individual. China is a particularly bad example:

http://www.christusrex.org/www1/sdc/hr_facts.html


----------



## Shotgun Buddha (Nov 4, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> You (this means all of you) needs to read at the very least the introduction and conclusion/recommendation sections of the document. It is clear that the document surveyed a number of countries regarding small arms violence, and developed a conclusion and recommendation for states to take actions against small arms violence.
> 
> It is clear that their recommendation consists of making the state responsible for the enforcement and protection of society, via "promoting law enforcement" and "suppressing private violence." One of the ways they recommend in doing this, among other things, is to regulate and suppress civilian possession of firearms. They also state that protection of the individual is not a priority of the state or a right of that individual.
> 
> ...



I did read the document. The document seems to advocate gun control, not the banning or prohibiting of fire-arms. As I live outside of the US, could you explain why the concept of gun control seems so unreasonable? I would have thought a basic background check, and then weapon safety instruction, would be logical steps?


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 4, 2007)

Andy Moynihan said:


> This came up in another thread but I believe, this being a martial arts forum with a self defense subforum, that this would be a topic of interest.
> 
> The referenced document deals mainly with firearms, but this particular bullet point leapt out at me and I didn't like what I saw:
> 
> ...





Hmmm The responsibility to be informed. Thanks for sharing the link. 

The difference between a subject and citizen and the idea, of having weapons and protecting oneself versus England (* search MT for an thread on this *) where a person who collected Replica Guns not functional just replica's and had his collection impunded and was brought up under charges.  This is a different state of mind and or point of view.


----------



## Cruentus (Nov 4, 2007)

Shotgun Buddha said:


> I did read the document. The document seems to advocate gun control, not the banning or prohibiting of fire-arms. As I live outside of the US, could you explain why the concept of gun control seems so unreasonable? I would have thought a basic background check, and then weapon safety instruction, would be logical steps?


 
Sorry, I was formulating another response before I saw your "provide examples" response, and well, you know... 

Your question opens up pages and pages worth of debate and explination, of which I sadly don't have time for right now. I actually have to get off-line and do some work that will take me away from the computer again.  But, luckily these explinations and arguments have already been formulated here on MT. I think it would be good to read those, and then bring any points of contention you have up for debate.

Here is a good one which brought up your exact questions:
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=33604&highlight=gun+control

Take care!

C.


----------



## Shotgun Buddha (Nov 4, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> O.K., Germany is one. Russia is another. How about China? Really, the list is quite large. In these countries, the interest of the state (which poponents claim is there to promote a "greater good") takes precidence over the rights of the individual. China is a particularly bad example:
> 
> http://www.christusrex.org/www1/sdc/hr_facts.html




Not disputing in anyway that China is dodgy. But in some countries the emphasis on social order has a number of positive results. I would consider the best approach obviously a balancing of the two, the good of society versus the good of the individual. In Germany I would agree that the emphasis tends to be on social order, but its currently beneficial. Very nice country to live in.


----------



## Shotgun Buddha (Nov 4, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> Sorry, I was formulating another response before I saw your "provide examples" response, and well, you know...
> 
> Your question opens up pages and pages worth of debate and explination, of which I sadly don't have time for right now. I actually have to get off-line and do some work that will take me away from the computer again.  But, luckily these explinations and arguments have already been formulated here on MT. I think it would be good to read those, and then bring any points of contention you have up for debate.
> 
> ...



No problem, I'll get back to you on it. I just happen to feel fire-arms as an issue tend to be personalised and politicized rather than dealt with as a social issue in the States.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Nov 4, 2007)

Our ancestors left Europe for a reason. 

Although some of mine were here before them


----------



## Cruentus (Nov 4, 2007)

Shotgun Buddha said:


> Not disputing in anyway that China is dodgy. But in some countries the emphasis on social order has a number of positive results. I would consider the best approach obviously a balancing of the two, the good of society versus the good of the individual. In Germany I would agree that the emphasis tends to be on social order, but its currently beneficial. Very nice country to live in.


 
Currently, Germany is very nice. But I am afraid that we disagree on ideologies, however.



> No problem, I'll get back to you on it. I just happen to feel fire-arms as an issue tend to be personalised and politicized rather than dealt with as a social issue in the States.


 
Definatily agree on that! Politicized is the bigger problem...


----------



## Shotgun Buddha (Nov 4, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> Currently, Germany is very nice. But I am afraid that we disagree on ideologies, however.



Nothing wrong with that, probably more a result of background than anything else.



> Definatily agree on that! Politicized is the bigger problem...


Yep, social issues should be treated as such. Dragging them into political agendas seems to be one of the primary reasons those issues aren't dealt with, they merely become more and more convoluted.


----------



## Shotgun Buddha (Nov 4, 2007)

Blotan Hunka said:


> Our ancestors left Europe for a reason.




And there's a reason mine stayed


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Nov 5, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> I don't believe the language in the quoted paragraph says anything other than that.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
And you wonder why fewer and fewer people seem to wanna talk to you. 

Well, since none of the mod staff have gotten on your *** for this deliberate personal attack and attempt at a thread hijack, I don't suppose they'll care if I do a little hijack of my own( it is, after all, my thread).

For one thing, maybe you don't understand the concept of sarcastic humor--If I did not believe in "American Liberty" I would not be wearing its flag on TWO uniforms as I do. I just spent all of Saturday in uniform, for no money and no benefit, in support of soldiers about to deploy abroad, helping them through the legal, medical and dental paperwork process, helping them make out wills, and the three of us who showed up from MASG shaved about 5-6 hours of work off of the regular National Guard's schedule doing some of the most important things you can do for a soldier.

Next week, even though it isn't a scheduled drill date, I may be called there again to welcome returning soldiers BACK. For no money, and no benefit other than to do what I can for those troops in time of war.

Whenever a military police battalion needs training, I and my unit provide the "victims" "witnesses" and "Bodies".

Whenever an infantry battalion needs training, we provide the "enemy".

This is what my unit does--for no pay, no benefits other than to do what we can for those troops to help them come back alive.

Which in turn begs the question, since you are so eager to open your mouth to me about "American liberty"--just exactly what the hell have *you* done lately in its name?


What do *you* wear your US flag on? I'm guessing nothing but maybe your gi, depending on your Kenpo school.


For a second thing, you can take it from me that the way MA was at the Revolution when it actually WAS the "cradle of American liberty" and the way MA is now, are nothing alike. At all. But then, what do I know? I've only lived here all my life. But I don't know how much longer that's gonna last.

For the third thing, That has been in my location bar since a year and a half ago when I first joined, so either way, Mike, the joke's on you.


See I can't understand why it is that anytime I try to talk to you, it has to become all about how smart, and clever and awesome you believe yourself to be and it must always turn personal for you.

So I'm not gonna waste anymore time trying to figure you out when there are others with whom it is more productive to talk, and who also understand there are more important things in life than the self.

Welcome to my Ignore list, Mike.


----------



## exile (Nov 5, 2007)

*Second and FINAL warning!*​
[playnice]Bob Levine[/playnice]


----------



## CoryKS (Nov 5, 2007)

AFAIC, this is Reason #6,145 in the list of why the increasingly-misnamed United Nations has outlived whatever usefulness it ever provided.


----------



## newGuy12 (Nov 5, 2007)

CoryKS said:


> AFAIC, this is Reason #6,145 in the list of why the increasingly-misnamed United Nations has outlived whatever usefulness it ever provided.



What's really bad is that as soon as the North American Treaty is in place, and the US looses its sovereignty, we will answer more an more to the UN. 

The US was good as long as it lasted though.  I'm glad that I saw it while it was in full swing.


----------



## Cruentus (Nov 5, 2007)

newGuy12 said:


> What's really bad is that as soon as the North American Treaty is in place, and the US looses its sovereignty, we will answer more an more to the UN.
> 
> The US was good as long as it lasted though. I'm glad that I saw it while it was in full swing.


 
Well, we need to be sure that we vote people in who will fight for our American values so that doesn't actually occur. I am not a big Bush supporter, and I don't like his foreign policy decisions as a whole, but I do admire the fact that his administration consistantly stood up for us against the UN (although, it wasn't always appropriate). I hope that our next adminstration will have the same audacity.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Nov 5, 2007)

exile said:


> *Second and FINAL warning!*​
> [playnice]Bob Levine[/playnice]


 

My bad. I should have behaved a bit better but you understand I couldn't let that one go.

There are very few things more sobering than having to assist 120+ soldiers through lines and up and down stairs to get their medical, dental, and legal paperwork in order prior to deployment, and seeing these boys and girls some of them no older than 17, 18 years old, a few of them haven't even had basic training yet, I'm getting names in the list with ranks below PVT( PV2( pre-completion of basic) or CDT (ROTC cadet), and having them come to me or another MASG comrade for assistance and having to escort them to the line for the legal paperwork and watch the JAG officers help these 17 and 18 year old boys and girls write their wills, to give one perspective on who and what is worth one's time in the big scheme of things.

But I've just fixed things so there is no more issue.


----------



## qwksilver61 (Nov 5, 2007)

OK. I that be the case "do unto others,then split"


----------



## Trent (Nov 7, 2007)

That paragraph is a thinly veiled framework for fascism-- nothing more, nothing less.


----------



## Guardian (Nov 13, 2007)

I must say after serving 20 years in the Air Force and defending this countries right to liberty from all.  I must admit though the times look alittle more gloomy folks, there is a silver lining at the end, we might see harder times ahead (as with any growing pains), but we will survive and we will once again regain/keep that edge that we've always had, because we value something alot of other countries can only dream of and when push comes to shove, it's still there and that's "Freedom", it can't be taken, it can't be surpressed and it definately will always be there in one fashion or form.

My personal view on the UN is as stated in another post, they have outlived their usefulness and it's time for them to find another home in another country.


----------



## GBlues (May 24, 2009)

This is what I think. I think that I don't know much at all about europe, and I don't care to. I think I don't know very much at all about a lot of countries, and it's not my job, or duty to understand there laws or there situations because I don't live there. I live in America. I think it's my job to know the laws in my state where I live in America so that I can be a law abiding citizen. I don't live in other countries, I don't stick my nose in there affairs it's none of my business. I think the same applies to people who try to speak to Americans about the affairs that go on over here. It's none of your business. You foriegners that think gun control is a great thing. Well, good for you, you live in a country where you have it, and apparently those of you that agree with it, that's where you live. I and many other Americans think we don't need to have our guns taken away from law abiding citizens that don't go out and shoot people for no reason. So in essence if you don't live here, mind your own damned business. Stop telling us how we should live our lives. I'm sick of hearing how great it is in your country when on a regular basis, people are still being shot, knifed, and mugged in your countries. Amercians can't even walk the streets in some of your countries without the fear of being attacked or mugged, or kidnapped. Yeah, gun control did you guys a lot of freaking good didn't it.  I'm tired of hearing about everybody else's rights, and everbody in the world has the right to step on my rights, because they don't like the way I or many others may live. Somebody is going to tell me that I don't have the right to defend myself when attacked because I can't violate the rights of the person that is assaulting me is total b.s. You folks that are arguing that it's not, know that it is. The second somebody attacks me he has lost his right to not be violated in the most viscious manner that I can give it in. Period. If you don't like that, well in my mind you can shut the hell up, and stay in your country and hope to god, when your attacked the cops will be there in time to save your ***. I on the other hand, am not going to count it.


----------



## Em MacIntosh (May 25, 2009)

Seek freedom and become captive of your desires. Seek discipline and you'll find your liberty.

We weren't "allowed" to defend ourselves between k-12 but we figured &#%& that and protected ourselves anyway. The right to keep and bear arms relies on your faith in general human integrity.  I've seen few examples of people I'd trust with a gun. One of the few people I did trust has shown me how poor my character judgement is. Not that I'm a good judge of character but many people flatter themselves, especially regarding self-control.

This is a politically polar thread either way, IMO and any opinion agitates sensitivities.


----------



## K-man (May 25, 2009)

Shotgun Buddha said:


> I did read the document. The document seems to advocate gun control, not the banning or prohibiting of fire-arms. As I live outside of the US, could you explain why the concept of gun control seems so unreasonable? I would have thought a basic background check, and then weapon safety instruction, would be logical steps?


 This question was raised back in the thread and seemingly ignored. Any comments?


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (May 25, 2009)

Well the first problem that stands out to me is that anyone actually takes the useless nations....ermm united nations seriously. That is most corrupt pile of crap organization on the planet, worthless for the United States.


----------



## Tez3 (May 25, 2009)

GBlues said:


> This is what I think. I think that I don't know much at all about europe, and I don't care to. I think I don't know very much at all about a lot of countries, and it's not my job, or duty to understand there laws or there situations because I don't live there. I live in America. I think it's my job to know the laws in my state where I live in America so that I can be a law abiding citizen. I don't live in other countries, I don't stick my nose in there affairs it's none of my business. I think the same applies to people who try to speak to Americans about the affairs that go on over here. It's none of your business. You foriegners that think gun control is a great thing. Well, good for you, you live in a country where you have it, and apparently those of you that agree with it, that's where you live. I and many other Americans think we don't need to have our guns taken away from law abiding citizens that don't go out and shoot people for no reason. So in essence if you don't live here, mind your own damned business. Stop telling us how we should live our lives. I'm sick of hearing how great it is in your country when on a regular basis, people are still being shot, knifed, and mugged in your countries. Amercians can't even walk the streets in some of your countries without the fear of being attacked or mugged, or kidnapped. Yeah, gun control did you guys a lot of freaking good didn't it. I'm tired of hearing about everybody else's rights, and everbody in the world has the right to step on my rights, because they don't like the way I or many others may live. Somebody is going to tell me that I don't have the right to defend myself when attacked because I can't violate the rights of the person that is assaulting me is total b.s. You folks that are arguing that it's not, know that it is. The second somebody attacks me he has lost his right to not be violated in the most viscious manner that I can give it in. Period. If you don't like that, well in my mind you can shut the hell up, and stay in your country and hope to god, when your attacked the cops will be there in time to save your ***. I on the other hand, am not going to count it.


 
Who exactly is this rant aimed at?


----------



## GBlues (May 26, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> Who exactly is this rant aimed at?


 
Anybody and everybody from another country who thinks that we shouldn't have our firearms because they allowed their's to be taken away. Mainly at the united nations and the countries that decided to create such a piece of crap as that which has been shown here on this thread. I was once asked if I was prejudiced, and I told the honest truth, no sir, I hate everybody equally. So take your pick on who it's aimed at.


----------



## chinto (May 26, 2009)

why is any one surprised that the UN would not think that self defense is a right??!  they would not be for any thing that would allow the individual the liberty of saying no to them or the governments that make up the UN !

they , the UN diplomats would be the first to scream for their "right" of diplomatic immunity from a traffic ticket or civil suit! But, to think that you might have the Right to defend yourself from them or their agents whom they may send some where in the world to make you or others do what they want??  NEVER!!  ( oh I can GUARANTEE YOU THAT THEY WILL STAND ON THEIR RIGHT TO SELF DEFENSE IF YOU TRY AND ATTACK THEM!  usually by way of their armed bodyguards shooting you I am sure. ) 


One more reason I have no use for the UN. they have become as big a joke in most ways as the old LEAGUE of NATIONS was in the very late 1920's and early 1930's.


----------



## Jade Tigress (May 26, 2009)

*ATTENTION ALL USERS

Please keep the conversation polite and respectful.

Pamela Piszczek
MT Super Moderator*


----------



## Andy Moynihan (May 26, 2009)

Jade Tigress said:


> *ATTENTION ALL USERS*
> 
> *Please keep the conversation polite and respectful.*
> 
> ...


 

You know what? This thing's 2 years old and went nowhere, and it got drudged up again and is going nowhere, in neither case anywhere near the direction I was hoping, so as the thread starter (2 years ago) you have my permission to kill it( not that you need it).


----------



## Tez3 (May 26, 2009)

GBlues said:


> Anybody and everybody from another country who thinks that we shouldn't have our firearms because they allowed their's to be taken away. Mainly at the united nations and the countries that decided to create such a piece of crap as that which has been shown here on this thread. I was once asked if I was prejudiced, and I told the honest truth, no sir, I hate everybody equally. So take your pick on who it's aimed at.


 


Thank you for your answer. I ask because it is a post that is offensive  and I have taken appropriate action as such.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 26, 2009)

Andy Moynihan said:


> This came up in another thread but I believe, this being a martial arts forum with a self defense subforum, that this would be a topic of interest.
> 
> The referenced document deals mainly with firearms, but this particular bullet point leapt out at me and I didn't like what I saw:
> 
> ...


 The UN is mostly an organization for the defense of global bureaucracy and complete impotence in the face of true evil.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (May 26, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> The UN is mostly an organization for the defense of global bureaucracy and complete impotence in the face of true evil.


More strongly worded that I would have chosen on this board, but true to an extent.  True evil, so to speak, is unhindered by bureaucracy, while the UN, however well intentioned it's mission, is quite hindered by bureaucracy and of course, politics.

Daniel


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (May 26, 2009)

LuckyKBoxer said:


> Well the first problem that stands out to me is that anyone actually takes the useless nations....ermm united nations seriously.


 
Well, given that the US is a member nation, does that not technically make _us_ one of the usless nations? 



LuckyKBoxer said:


> That is most corrupt pile of crap organization on the planet, worthless for the United States.


 
As for the corruption issue, well, perhaps we should look to corruption within our own government before concerning ourselves with the corruption of other governments. We have plenty in our own back yard to clean up.

Daniel


----------



## Archangel M (May 26, 2009)

The level of corruption frequently found in some of the 2nd and 3rd world member nations of the UN make any "issues" we have seem like small potatoes....


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (May 26, 2009)

While I do agree, Archangel, that really was not the point.  

That is like saying that I do not need to deal with my weak points because students from the local McDojo are horrible by comparison.

Yes, there are countries that have much worse corruption issues than we do, but we still have some pretty glaring issues that do need to be addressed.  Often, they are not because doing so... 

*A.* requires one of our two corrupt parties to take ownership of things rather than blame things on eachother and...

*B.* it would require the majority of Americans to own up to how badly they have shirked their responsibility to be informed and active in the political process.  

Most people are woefully uninformed and they pretty much just vote party line and that is the end of it.  I have family that votes democratic because they are Irish Catholics.  When I ask them why they go with a party who's platform violates the Catholic church's stances in many ways, they spout off about Bush and how the Dems are pro union.  I am not busting on the Dems (I'm independent); just pointing out that these folks vote as they do just because their parents and grandparents did, not because they have put any cognizant thought into it.  A good number of people I know are Republican for similar reasons.

Nothing wrong with being either a Democrat or a Republican, but people should be much more involved in the political process than they are.  It is our responsibility as a free society with the right to elect our leaders.

The US is a wonderful country, but there is always room to improve and we still have a long way to go to reach the ideal that our country has the potential to be.

Until we get our own heads out of the sand and and stop assuming that we are better than everyone else just because we are American, we really should not be criticizing other nations.

Daniel


----------



## Archangel M (May 26, 2009)

Im 50/50 with ya...you are dead on about the "political common sense" point. My folks (staunch Catholics) are almost carbon copies of yours..

However, the "lets take care of things at home first.." thing I typically dont buy. When will things EVER get to that point? Name a country who ever has lived up to that standard. While I cant fault you for your opinion because I dont really know it in its entirety, Ive always viewed that argument as the isolationist mantra used to avoid standing up for anything. If having to be perfect is required before being allowed to deem something as wrong...well I dont know where we can move forward from there.


----------



## GBlues (May 26, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> Thank you for your answer. I ask because it is a post that is offensive and I have taken appropriate action as such.


 
And again my point proven. Good job tez! Reminds me of a 5 year old. I'm telling mom you called me a doo-doo head. Get real dude. Grow up a little. There was absolutely nothing wrong with my post. It is an opinion and I did state it. If you feel that it is offensive that is your perogative. you must do what you feel is best, but I wonder....do you call a cop when your called an *******?


----------



## Sukerkin (May 26, 2009)

That will do, sir. 

If you cannot behave like a civilised person, perhaps it is time to consider your involvement in discussions which are predicated on people behaving like such?

Do you wish to reconsider your tack on this, given that this forum does not tolerate excursions into the paths you seem driven to frequent?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (May 26, 2009)

*Note:

Thread locked pending staff review.*


----------

