A sampling of how the foreign press views the issue of the common sense human Right of self-defence.
The Anti-Liberty Left seems to have a false narrative for everything, including the common sense human right
of self-defence. In this case, it is the rest of the world looks down
on the states for it’s allegedly antiquated point of view.
However, a short perusal of some recent articles from the foreign
perspective shows this isn’t quite truthful. Of course the Chinese
Communists, ideological brethren in arms of the national Socialist Left
were perfectly willing to offer their opinion on the subject that is nothing short of astoundingly ironic given their human rights record.
Curiously enough, the editorial from a government-controlled newspaper: China can offer lessons to US in protecting human rights sounds very much like the United States media:
If we look back in history, the US was founded on the use
of firearms. The right to gun ownership is regulated by the Second
Amendment to the Constitution. Opponents of gun control argue that the
Constitution guarantees them the absolute right to own guns. However,
the situation of the US now is different from that of more than 200
years ago when protection of gun ownership was written into the law.
There is an urgent need for the US to impose harsh restrictions on
gun purchases nowadays. The US has witnessed mad proliferation of guns
and rampant gun violence. It’s estimated that civilians in the US own
about 300 million guns, enough for every adult in the US. There are more
mass shootings in the US than in any other country in the world.
According to CNN, a 2016 study looked at 292 incidents in which four or
more people were killed, finding 90 of them occurred in the US.
But the Leftists get things mixed up a bit with this little passage:
The US has no other choice but to adopt gun control. The
right of life is the most fundamental human rights. The right to bear
arms cannot overpower the individual’s right to live.
This from a collectivist nation without any vestiges of democracy, known for the deliberate mass murder of millions and the Tiananmen square massacre when an estimated 10,000 people were killed alone.
In Uruguay, a country where the possession of weapons is
highly regulated, there are proportionally more deaths from firearms
than in the United States (number of deaths per 100,000 inhabitants).
Switzerland, meanwhile, the third most armed country in the world, and
where the acquisition of weapons is legal and (46 out of every 100
inhabitants have weapons,) does not have mass shootings or an alarming
number of firearm deaths.
Someone could argue that it is precisely because of human evil that
weapons should be prohibited. But such a person would be out of touch
with reality, and unaware that in Europe the main “weapon” for mass
murders is a truck or, should it fail, a sharp object. Would he also
request a ban all types of vehicles and require plastic knives?
To find solutions you have to step away from naivety: if someone
wants to kill, he will always find a way to do it, with or without
weapons, with or without regulations.
This subject requires contemplation. For one, the Second Amendment is
almost 230 years old, while mass shootings have been a recurrent event
for just under 30 years. What happened in American society in recent
decades? Are we not facing a kind of decline that plunges human beings
into frustration and drags people towards violence?
Then there is this from the same publication on the issue of Gun Confiscation from Mamela Fiallo Flor, a university professor, translator, and interpreter, and the co-founder of the Cuban Libertarian Party.
On the experience of Gun Control in the home of mass murderer Che Guevara:
Far from reducing violence, disarmament monopolizes force and makes citizens vulnerable.
From a “social justice” position, the perpetrator is not the culprit
but society as a whole and, therefore, weapons must be denied to all
citizens. This is an inherited stance, typical of postmodernity, that
denies the existence of the individual and his responsibility, and
favors the collective.
But far from reducing violence, disarmament monopolizes force and makes citizens vulnerable, as the history of Cuba has shown.
Weapons for the Government, not for the people
We consulted with Rebeca Esther Ulloa Sarmiento, Cuban journalist and
researcher, co-author of “Fidel Castro, the last dinosaur” and other
political books, about what happens when a government takes away from
its citizens the ability to defend themselves and how this process is
experienced by exiles in the United States.
Ulloa says that Castro convinced the people that armament was not
necessary. One week after seizing power, Fidel Castro said: “Weapons for
what? to fight against whom? against the Revolutionary Government,
which has the support of all the people?”. The audience present
Officers, soldiers and revolutionary groups handed over their weapons. Later, many of them were executed or imprisoned.
Message to US citizens
It is precisely the great respect for the individual in the United
States that leads to autonomy and freedom, Ulloa states. It allows
citizens to achieve goals through their own effort.
She concludes that it was the Founding Fathers, the creators of the
Constitution, who equated the success of the country to the sum of the
individual success. Therefore, she urges not to allow individual failure
to limit constitutional rights.
So much for the false narratives from the national Socialist-Left and it’s crusades against liberty.
Originally published on the NOQ Report