Defense, From Down Under
By Peter Cunningham, Guest Contributor. May 1st 2015
Some philosophical musings on defence from “down under”.
I preface these comments with my prejudices. Though creaking and groaning in ever decreasing increments as I enjoy my last 20 or so years of effective life on this planet – a few comments from one who has on a number of occasions needed to fight for life against human predators who for whatever social reason wanted to take advantage without consideration the well being of myself or others.
I am penning these words now because of my firearm skills and mindset in a developing country just to the North of Australia – Papua New Guinea. Yes – I legitimately carried a Glock 19 – a little thing that did make bad people good in an instant as it proffered greater force than could they.
Rest assured, self defence requires a totally different mindset to that at the range putting little holes in cardboard targets – a distinction deliberately sidestepped by those whose phobia is against of firearms of any kind. I shall say no more as a recent JPFO article (28 April 2015) by Neale Osborn sensibly put it all on display.
Let’s first examine the basic philosophy of defence:
(1) The essence that life exists on earth is due to death.
If it was not, then practically all life would not have the means to consume another. Preserving life actually means having and using effective means of defence to resist assaults, but paradoxically, the failure of aggression can result in that death.
(2) As a nation has the internationally accepted and sanctioned right to possess and use effective means of self defence: Why do most nations do everything possible to deny their citizens that same right?
(3) The biggest killers on earth are not ordinary people or criminals but governments and despots. Governments and religious based conflicts cause the greatest deaths and suffering, yet, they are piously intent on creating Valhalla by disarming people.
The USA uniquely enjoys it’s 2nd Amendment, which is under constant assault from assorted social engineers and liars - many who stand for office.
(4) The tinsel of life are laws and processes. They all too often deny effective self defence, but which merely directs the advantage to the human predator(s). It’s no accident that those involved in the so called “Justice” industry, that they handsomely profit.
National Defence:
The United Nations is the greatest threat to sovereignty and individuality that has ever existed on the planet. Under it’s Articles 39 to 51 – particularly 43 & 51 - the UN specifically permits it’s “Member States” (Nations) to possess and use weapons for self defence. Ref: http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/index.shtml
Article 51:
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.
Disarmament:
The UN itself has the underlying agenda of "General and Complete Disarmament" that underwrites every dealing with the UN.
People have difficulty in understanding just how incestuous is the UN. Everything in every arm or activity of the UN is interrelated to achieve common UN aims.
Clearly UN “Member States” are absolved from being disarmed and have the ability to possess and use effective means of defence – commonly denying citizens that same fundamental and natural right.
UN actions are focused on disarming civilians using a broad brush where all are tarred with the same brush. Despite a focus being a conflict in some flea ridden, despotic headed nation – ALL are ensnared, such as in SALW. That approach achieves the “General” component of UN disarmament efforts.
Barbara Frey
For example: Ref: http://www.un-arm.org/PoAISS/CASAMember.aspx?MemberId=11 The UNHCR appointed Ms. Barbara Frey as “Special Rapporteur” with the task of preparing a comprehensive study on the prevention of human rights violations committed with small arms and light weapons. This is a broad brush approach to look at all aspects of firearm misuse but focused on the misuse of firearms by state entities and by private persons, and the effect they have on UNHCR agenda and it’s laws.
Her 2006 UN report clearly defined each step of immediate and progressive civilian disarmament. Furthermore, a perceived Valhalla where no individual has a "right" to self-defense, and where a signatory “Member States” become legally obliged to alter domestic laws and processes to be consistent with the agenda to which it committed.
Australia is one nation that has cowtailed to the UN and put most recommendations into effect – with ongoing torment to those who comply with process.
The current president of USA (Obama) and ilk are hellbent on following suit. The first target must be and is your 2nd Amendment. Assault is both direct and indirect, and each with the same end effect.
One day it may be necessary for the repetition of very hard decisions to resist those intent on control, and if not countered, then liberty is dead and nobody will be left to again fight for it.
So: As a nation has right to possess and use effective means of self defence: Why do most nations do everything possible to deny their citizens that same right?
