Amnesty International on the Right to bear arms

A place for sharing news stories related to armed citizens, law enforcement & 2A/CCW topics.

Please note that when linking to an article you must cite the source URL and provide no more than a brief preview of the article to ensure fair-use standards are met.

NO DOCUMENT DUMPING.

Posts in violation of these rules are subject to immediate deletion without warning.

Moderators: Chuck, Mustang380gal, Coordinators, Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Bruenor
Posts: 7306
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 3:03 pm
Location: Geneva, OH

Amnesty International on the Right to bear arms

Post by Bruenor »

Well there you have it.. Victims of genocide shouldn't be empowered to fight back.. wow So you can imagine how they feel about us carrying firearms for self defense.

https://reason.com/volokh/2021/10/13/am ... bear-arms/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
As the U.S. Supreme Court considers whether to enforce the Second Amendment right to "bear arms" in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, an amicus brief from Amnesty International argues that doing so would violate international law. In this post, I'll examine the arguments in the AI brief.
The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review asked Amnesty International's Trish Katyoka, director of Africa Advocacy for the group, whether the Darfur victims should be armed. Dimitri Vassilaros, "Gun Control's Best Friend," Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Apr. 1, 2005. She answered in the negative:

"We at Amnesty International are not going to condone escalation of the flow of arms to the region." Indeed, "You are empowering (the victims) to create an element of retaliation." "Whenever you create a sword-fight by letting the poor people fight back and give them arms, it creates an added element of complexity. You do not know what the results will be." In sum, "Fighting fire with fire is not the solution to genocide. It is a dangerous proposition to arm the minorities to fight back."

AI's position conflates self-defense against murder with "retaliation," which is revenge after the fact. It's true that armed victims may add "complexity" to a situation—especially for attackers who used to straightforwardly murdering helpless victims. When the victims are unarmed, you do "know what the results will be": the victims will be exterminated. Adding complexity to avoid certain mass murders is a life-saving choice.
Μολὼν λαβέ

"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. . . Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."

- Thomas Paine

"Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem."

- Thomas Jefferson
WhyNot
OFCC Member
OFCC Member
Posts: 1224
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 8:23 am
Location: NW Ohio

Re: Amnesty International on the Right to bear arms

Post by WhyNot »

I was going to print that out. But after careful fact finding here (that is, looking at my newspaper stash to LINE THE BIRD CAGE :P ), I am postponing that.
Acquisitions thus far:

-Slingshot
-Butter knife
-Soda straw and peas
-Sharpened pencil
-Newspaper roll
--water balloon (*diversionary*)

Yeah, I'm that good
User avatar
deanimator
Posts: 7863
Joined: Fri Mar 24, 2006 7:34 pm
Location: Rocky River

Re: Amnesty International on the Right to bear arms

Post by deanimator »

Bruenor wrote:Well there you have it.. Victims of genocide shouldn't be empowered to fight back.. wow So you can imagine how they feel about us carrying firearms for self defense.
That's exactly the attitude that was taken toward the Jews from 1933 onward. In fact, I've seen it expressed online not all that long ago.

To the totalitarian left, human beings have no worth except as victims.
Life comes at you fast. Be prepared to shoot it in the head when it does.
Post Reply