Basic Schism Between Pro and Anti-Gun Legal Foes

Opposition to the right of American citizens to keep and
bear arms is international in its scope, implacable, and the
subject of proposed United Nations treaties.

So far, the United States has withheld its approval of these
treaties. The U.S. Senate, when it has been asked for its
advise and consent on such matters, has kept silent on the
matter, allowing the measures to languish in committee from
one Congressional term to another.

The fundamental difference between American constitutional
law and United Nations international law is a fundamental
difference in the point of view the two entities take
between the basic God given right to self defense espoused
by American law, a Biblical concept outlined in the Talmud,
and the "human right to life" outlined in the United Nations
Charter, a complete departure which expects people to rely
upon the good offices of government to protect them.

And though it is a view taken by the liberal end of the
political spectrum that civilians need not own and bear arms
and ammunition, it is inevitably a windfall for fascistic or
totalitarian governments once that goal has been
accomplished.

A docile, unarmed population with no right to resist
governmental aggression or violence is much more easily
controlled, incarcerated, transported, enslaved or
exterminated.

A political ally of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton,
Minneapolis law professor Barbara Frey wrote a special
report to the U.N. on "Prevention of Human Rights Abuses
With Small Arms" as the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Human
Rights.

"International law does not support an international legal
obligation requiring States to permit access to a gun for
self-defence. The principle of self-defense does not negate
the due diligence responsibiity of States to keep weapons
out of the hands of those most likely to misuse them.

"Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations applies to
States acting in self-defence against armed attacks against
their State sovereignty. It does not apply to situatiions
of self-defence for individual persons," she wrote in her
report.

Furthermore, she concluded, "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 sometimes designated as a 'right.'
There is inadequate legal support for such an
interpretation." She teaches law at the University of
Minnesota.

This fundamental schism between American legal theory and
the ideas propounded by international tribunals such as the
U.N. is further exacerbated by the views of a well-known
Chicago psychiatrist, Dr. Sarah Thompson, M.D.

She has proposed that those who must deal with the
irrational thinking of anti-gun forces should first
understand that there is a basically neurotic underpinning
to their fears, fears which drive and harden their
convictions.

"Extensive scholarly research demonstrates that the police
have no legal duty to protect you and that firearm ownership
is the most effective way to protect yourself and your
family. There is irrefutable evidence that victim
disarmament nearly always preceded genocide. Nonetheless,
the anti-gun folks insist, despite all evidence to the
contrary, that 'the police will protect you, 'this is a safe
neighborhood', and 'it can't happen here', where 'it' is
everything from mugging to mass murder."

Why do people persist in that kind of thinking despite all
evidence to the contrary?

As a doctor specializing in the study, diagnosis and
treatment of irrational thinking and behavior, she says it's
a combination of two well-known mental aberrations.

One of them is projection.

The way that works is an individual has normal homicidal
impulses, the kind of thoughts and feelings people have as a
matter of course and suppress because of the exigencies of
the social contract. Nevertheless, these feelings and
thoughts frighten them to such a degree that they "project"
their emotions onto those who do own firearms and develop an
irrational fear that their armed neighbors might use their
firearms on them if they feel the same way on some off day.

Though it makes no sense, it's still just as real to the
anti-gun forces who think this way.

Another is the very real emotional dynamic of denial.
Because one is faced with a grievous reality, they choose to
deny that there is any truth to what they are seeing. Next
time you are in the early stages of infection with a common
cold or flu virus, gauge your reactions. Maybe it's just
your imagination. The symptoms are probably a "sinus"
reaction or an "allergy." Within hours, certainly before a
day has passed, reality will disabuse you of this attitude
of denial.

"Anti-gun people who refuse to accept the reality of the
proven and very serious dangers of civilian disarmament are
using denial to protect themseles from the anxiety of
feeling helpless and vulnerable. Likewise, gun owners who
insist that 'the government will never confiscate my gun'
are also using denial to protect themselves from the anxiety
of contemplating being forcibly disarmed and rendered
helpless and vulnerable," wrote Dr. Thompson.

jim@downdirtyword.com