Monday, 5 September 2011

Article 3 of the Human Rights and Access to Non-Violent Self-Defence

To the discussion of tasers/stun guns and peppersprays (I'm in _STRONG_ favour): I have this to relay.
Who has the lowest threshold for hurting people and committing crime?
Who has the least respect for both cranium and head/brain?
Who has the least respect for people in general?
Thus it should be clear who has the initiative to hit people on the basis of bare knuckles (by hands/bones). This hurts law-abiding citizens unreasonably hard and serves to incite "silent" anger/hate. It's also hurtful to live under a threat from people who are more willing to commit this kind of act, i.e., to crack the skulls of people, with no special regard for the human they destroy the life of.
The conclusion must be clear: tasers/stun guns and peppersprays must be allowed, and in the face of (vast/"vast") corruption within the Police forces, we have NO time to waste! Act now! To Europe!!! (And business...)

It may be an objection that people may have a lower threshold for stunning/incapacitating other people if these means become available, but I think the strength of this is lower than the strength of the following, that law-abiding citizens, people of primary priority, are better protected both in self-defence, but also in case they may feel threatened and want to do something about it, let's say in the face of absurd rudeness from a bigger "caveman", to "save the day of one's date/business" and so on. In this way, the law-abiding citizen is allowed a milder tool and a mechanism for escalation of conflict and injury if these are allowed, again, tasers/stun guns and peppersprays. I hope you get the importance of this!

You know, this is for the prevention of the escalation of conflict and for the prevention of injury, that is, beyond necessity of circumstances like injury from merely falling to the ground!


  1. Even with the non-lethal weapons in place, the last stance is always with the weapon in the weapons cabinet, as described for safe storage of dangerous device.

    The Question of Personal Weapon and Personal Security - UDHR Article 3

    There's a question to NRA (National Rifles Association) if they are supporting the World in acquiring weapons for all, making it law or making it a Right in their nation...

    I expect them to give an affirmative and that they are therefore in-line with the State Department. I want to write this as a heads-up for UN and most/all other nations in expecting a given behaviour from USA in aftermath of "Financial Radicalism" charges to Nazi-Germany, in making their efforts to improve the World, also in terms of humanism/human rights/humanistic progress.

    So it goes:
    * U. S. (American) State Department gives its public statement for the normative personal weapons rights to everywhere in the World
    * So does the NRA.
    * So does the UN.
    * And Pentagon plays with it, displaying the use of the personal weapon.

    This is inline with the sales, Worldwide, of the non-lethal weapons. That USA owes us, outside its nation, these efforts, until we too have achieved it, as far as possible.

    In short, I WANT/RECOMMEND MUCH CAMPAIGNING for all and everywhere, having suggested the (mobilised) army to take part, over a 14 days period. Remember that this is about the decent family life for everyone. If not decent families, then life everywhere maybe broken DOWN!

    Note: That to mention the (central) Article 3 of the UDHR doesn't necessarily entail only one article. No, the consequences are thought to influence, critically or not, many/all the others. , note on singular vs. text above.

    National Rifle Association - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    The National Rifle Association of America (NRA) is an American nonprofit organiz... .

    United States Department of State - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    The United States Department of State (DoS),[3] often referred to as the State D...

    This also connects with explanations of universal duties from and to one-another and in being human one-self and bringing this humanity to others as well, from old, "making other people able to _hold_ the Bible" themselves too"! .

    Universal value - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  2. The Case for USA above Europe and Everywhere Else

    1. Industry production (by reliability also) is high in USA, entailing healthy, functional people with beliefs in their society.

    2. I understand the corrupt minds very well and how the guilt from failure to duties abroad influxes into USA on the "macro-scale".

    3. USA has now carried out a large social welfare reform gently moved in, to remove much contradiction inside its nation in terms of Human Rights. Importantly too, the legal system ... allowing the citizens autonomy and initiative to react to deeply upsetting criminial scenes in the public and not in particular fear either to tip the police.

    Sub-point: Insecurity to neighbour... dire consequences.

    To cut the usual "smile of idiocy" from European thinking, that the Universality Principle of Ethics as safety-webbing is easily DESTROYED if one sits there trying to say that the Principle and Insecurity to the neighbour (with a possible disposition of acceptance by torture to the neighbour) by refusing to accept the personal weapons (max. 5?) and non-lethal weapons to ALL, denying these bloated psychiatrists these aloof statements over sanity as THEY have allowed "vampires to walk in broad daylight", like "educated torturers" and serial-killers, 10 or more!

    The academic usual at the end: Instantly, I submit to the Objectivity and more powerful arguments if they exist as well as the best data-sets to these (academic) matters of political science/legal forensics.

    Text is not entirely finished!

  3. The court issues: theology and psychiatry are traditionally alike banned from the courts in terms of presenting Legal Objectivity. They are only, especially psychiatry now, allowed to enter for testifying as experts to a given (narrow) aspect.

    In addition, legal blindness is the Cardinal Sin that condemns either of the acting parties of the court, including the judge. (The judge is continuously under the duty to not become legally blind, i.e., corrupt or "insane".)

  4. Two "missing" sentences above:
    3. Importantly too, their legal system has higher standing in terms of crime, allowing the citizens autonomy and initiative to react to deeply upsetting criminial scenes in the public and not in particular fear either to tip the police and for deeper intuitions of decency, dignity and human worth (than in Europe, elsewhere, hence the "necessity" of "meatshops", crime you can't talk about, the "necessity" of torture, etc.).

    Sub-point ("reiteration"): Insecurity (by physical insecurity, "a door open") as insistence to the neighbour, universally, can have dire, negative consequences.