A United Nations report states clearly and unequivocally: you have no right to defend yourself. Particularly with a gun. Period.

From the summary:

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

Just in case you were one of those doubting the “hidden” agenda of the UN to remove small arms possession from anyone except tyrants and thugs.

Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations applies to States acting in self-defense against armed attacks against their State sovereignty. It does not apply to situations of self-defense for individual persons.

Mao Tse-tung: 14 to 20 million dead. Joseph Stalin: 20 million dead. Pol Pot: 1 to 3 million dead. Kim Il Sung: 4 million dead. Adolf Hitler: 60 million dead.

The UN would never think to take weapons away from these monsters. But you and I — we are to be feared. Can’t trust us with guns!

Indeed, the UN report calls for regulation and licensing:

16. Minimum effective measures that States should adopt to prevent small arms violence, then, must go beyond mere criminalization of acts of armed violence. Under the principle of due diligence, it is reasonable for international human rights bodies to require States to enforce a minimum licensing requirement designed to keep small arms and light weapons out of the hands of persons who are likely to misuse them. …

The criteria for licensing may vary from State to State, but most licensing procedures consider the following: (a) minimum age of applicant; (b) past criminal record including any history of interfamilial violence; (c) proof of a legitimate purpose for obtaining a weapon; and (d) mental fitness.⁹

Other proposed criteria include knowledge of laws related to small arms, proof of training on the proper use of a firearm and proof of proper storage. Licences should be renewed regularly to prevent transfer to unauthorized persons.

Once the UN starts dictating licensing, it won’t be long before no one will be eligible for said licensing (unless, of course, you’re a celebrity like Sean Penn). And if you do eventually traverse the bureaucracy and grease the right palms, trigger locks and gun safes will be mandatory (do you think a crack-head robber will give you the time to unlock the safe, get the gun, unlock the other safe for the ammunition, and load before trying to take your head off and raping your daughter?).

The UN report specifically acknowledges the fact that the freedom-loving citizens of the United States stand in the way of advancing the anti-gun, make-everyone-a-victim agenda:

While regulation of civilian possession of firearms remains a contested issue in public debate – due in large part to the efforts of firearms manufacturers and the United States of America-based pro-gun organizations – there is in fact almost universal consensus on the need for reasonable minimum standards for national legislation to license civilian possession in order to promote public safety and protect human rights. 

Yes, if you define “universal consensus” as the opinions expressed at New York cocktail parties and in the UN cafeteria.

And, of course, the “assault weapons” lie is perpetrated, all in the guise of keeping you from being a danger to tyrants:

17(a) The prohibition of civilian possession of weapons designed for military use (automatic and semi-automatic assault rifles, machine guns and light weapons);

But then to the real crux of the matter. Just as the US Supreme Court has ruled that the police do not have the responsibility of protecting individual citizens, the UN says we don’t have the right to protect ourselves:

20. Self-defense is a widely recognized, yet legally proscribed, exception to the universal duty to respect the right to life of others. Self-defense is a basis for exemption from criminal responsibility that can be raised by any State agent or non-State actor. Self-defense is sometimes designated as a “right”. There is inadequate legal support for such an interpretation. Self-defense 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.

21. No international human right of self-defense is expressly set forth in the primary sources of international law:

 But surely, this isn’t all just a campaign to take our guns. Or is it?

34. Even if there were a “human right to self-defense”, it would not negate the State’s due diligence responsibility to maximize protection of the right to life for the society through reasonable regulations on civilian possession of weapons.

Holy Brady Campaign, Batman! They sound just like liberal gun control hoplophobes of the last 40 years in America!

Yet what were the Founder’s true intent?

What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.
     — Thomas Jefferson, November 13, 1787

I am an armed citizen. Tyrants fear me and the United Nations can kiss my ass!

From my cold, dead fingers, you bastards! Molon labe!

Technorati tags: UN, United Nations, Second Amendment, American Sovereignty, Gun Control, Gun Rights, Self Defense, Victim Disarmament, Criminal Empowerment, UN Supports Tyrants, UN Wants Your Guns!, Malon Labe.