Australian Politics Forum

thegreatdivide

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics<br
/>

Posts: 12945
Gender: male

Re: Self Defence,
Reply #150 - Dec 11^th, 2024 at 12:15pm

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Dec 9^th, 2024 at 9:36am:

thegreatdivide wrote on Dec 9^th, 2024 at 8:52am:

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Nov 27^th, 2024 at 6:23pm:

(Self-defence) against unlawful attack is not only a basic Right it is also an obligation.
Can this ever be disputed?

[Sir Fada declined to reply to my #128, which I concluded with:

The "right" to self defence?
The problem is how (is this 'right' to be manifested); certainly the 2nd needs to repealed, explained above.

]

So I think we need to go back to basics, to understand the "right to self defence" against "unlawful" attack.

Is the right to self-defence a "basic" right, when we all have basic rights to life and liberty?

I explained why the 2nd needs to be repealed (in #128) in the US, for the sake of a less gun-death-prone US;
so let's see if we can come to a clearer understanding of "the right to self-defence "against unlawful attack".

I begin by observing the existance of the two fundamental "rights" to life and liberty , which are generally accepted without debate, hence "fundamental".

The question is: why does a "right to self defence" against unlawful attack need to be posited at all, if we all have rights to life and liberty.

ie why would anyone want to mount an "unlawful attack"?...which is why I suggested in an earlier post we need to consider the CAUSES of crime, in any system of law.

......

Implications of the right to self defence of nations.

FD considers the UNUDHR to be a failure because it doesn't defend everyone's fundamental rights to life and liberty.

But the reason it's a failure, is the competing interests of individuals (and nations) which are held to be higher than the UNIVERSAL rights set out in the UNUDHR.

Indeed, competing interests is why national sovereignty, which asserts the right to wage "legal war" (to settle disputes between nations) is held to be higher than international law designed to prevent war between nations.

If we want to create a more propsperous and peaceful world, we must temper the "right to self-defence" with awareness of the CAUSES of crime - to reduce (as far as possible) "unlawful" attacks on individuals by other individuals, and to eliminate "unlawful" war by rule of international law - rather than by an insane system of "legal war" in the age of MAD.

So we see the contradiction in Sir Fada's use of the term "unlawful attack": is there any attack by an individual (or nation) on another individual which could be considered "lawful"?

......

And re CAUSES:

Did the UN have the legal right to confiscate half of the Palestine Mandate land, to create a new state for Jews, which resulted in a 7 decade long war even up to the current ongoing genocide of innocent women and children (and men), while Israel claims the right to "self defence"?

Who was the party whose right to possess their land was violated by the UN's adoption of UN res 181, initially?

As you concede that a right to life exists then, logically you should also stand up for the right to self defence which is also fundamental.

Exists in law, ie, it is unlawful to take another's life.

In the real world, people behave badly, and attack and kill other people.

If you refuse to look at the causes of this unlawful killing, then no doubt you may be inclined to arm yourself with the most powerful weapons, but if everyone does that (following the 2nd), it results in negative consequence for the security of other individuals in the community, because the most powerful weapons can take out many people in seconds, than less deadly weapons can kill.

And re causes; even if that amoral CEO of that greedy 'deny and delay' health insurance company in the US was armed, he didn't have eyes in the back of his head.... whereas he might have had a chance to defend himself if his attacker had to get close to him.

Quote:

As regards the Second Amendment it’s been explained that it does not confer a Right but recognises an existing Right and its repeal would have no effect on ‘’. . . the right of the people to keep and bear arms.’’

But its repeal would certainly enable the governmemt to ban high powered military weapons. Would Kennedy still be alive?

Quote:

It doesn’t even set up the Militia, it merely states why they are necessary, repeal would not affect them, what would be necessary is a law disbanding all militia and making their formation illegal, and good luck with that because militias are a State matter.

Cor blimey, the blind Conservative - thinking he is presenting a logical argument.

"A well-regulated Militia necessary for the defence of a free state...." is obsolete; nations now have professional standing armies, as opposed to local militias.

Back to top

IP Logged

Sir Eoin O Fada

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2236
New England, NSW
Gender: male

Re: Self Defence,
Reply #151 - Dec 11^th, 2024 at 4:07pm

From Wikipedia.

‘’ Nearly every state has laws authorizing state defense forces, and 19 states, plus the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, have active forces with different levels of activity, support, and strength. State defense forces generally operate with emergency management and homeland security missions. Most SDFs are organized as ground units, but air and naval units also exist.[5][6] Depending on the state, they may be variously named as state military, state military force, state guard, state militia or state military reserve.’’
Note the use of the descriptive term ‘militia’

The ‘Right to life’ exists independently of the law, it is recognised almost everywhere.
Do you think that a tiger should be hunted down for taking a human life and having a feed, or
do you think that it has a right to life and liberty as it only took food from the food chain to feed itself and cubs?

Your words: “ well-regulated Militia necessary for the defence of a free state...." is obsolete; nations now have professional standing armies, as opposed to local militias.
Perhaps you should tell the States that maintain militia.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Dec 11^th, 2024 at 5:10pm by Sir Eoin O Fada »

Self defence is a right.

IP Logged

thegreatdivide

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics<br
/>

Posts: 12945
Gender: male

Re: Self Defence,
Reply #152 - Dec 12^th, 2024 at 11:23am

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Dec 11^th, 2024 at 4:07pm:

From Wikipedia.

‘’ Nearly every state has laws authorizing state defense forces, and 19 states, plus the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, have active forces with different levels of activity, support, and strength. State defense forces generally operate with emergency management and homeland security missions. Most SDFs are organized as ground units, but air and naval units also exist.[5][6] Depending on the state, they may be variously named as state military, state military force, state guard, state militia or state military reserve.’’
Note the use of the descriptive term ‘militia’

The US military is the most powerful in the world.

Trump has at times suggested he might call on the National Guard to control local disturbances, an idea not generally welcomed by the population. Police are generally considered to be the preferred force to maintain local law and order.

Quote:

The ‘Right to life’ exists independently of the law, it is recognised almost everywhere.

For the sake of the argument, I will accept that statement, in the context of this thread. [But the doctrine of "natural rights" belonging to individuals, immediately sets up contradictions because individuals have competing desires and self-interest].

Quote:

Do you think that a tiger should be hunted down for taking a human life and having a feed,

Yes, or at least removed from a place visited by humans.

Quote:

or do you think that it has a right to life and liberty as it only took food from the food chain to feed itself and cubs?

No, because in the animal world there is NO "right to life", only the instinct to survive.

Quote:

Perhaps you should tell the States that maintain militia.

Addressed above; individual states (not nations) should properly fund their police forces, not ad hoc citizen militias.

Back to top

IP Logged

Sir Eoin O Fada

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2236
New England, NSW
Gender: male

Re: Self Defence,
Reply #153 - Dec 12^th, 2024 at 12:31pm

I would contend that an instinct to survive constitutes a right to life and liberty.
Humans are part of the species, animal.

It seems that elected Politicians here and in the US can break their oath/affirmation to uphold their respective Constitutions with virtual impunity.
E.g. local politicians who do not support the King or who publicly advocate a republic.

No wonder so many of them are against self defence but have voiced no objection to being protected by armed bodyguards, as considered necessary, themselves.

Back to top

Self defence is a right.

IP Logged

Sir Eoin O Fada

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2236
New England, NSW
Gender: male

Re: Self Defence,
Reply #154 - Dec 12^th, 2024 at 5:16pm

Did you know that people who live in homes that have electricity are more likely to be.electrocuted than people who live in houses that don’t have electricity?

Chain saw users are more likely to be injured by chainsaws than people who don’t have one?

Did you know that people who travel in motor vehicles are more likely to be injured or killed by motor vehicles than those who don’t travel in cars?

Did you know that people who use Zimmerstutzen are never likely to be shot with one?

Back to top

Self defence is a right.

IP Logged

Sir Eoin O Fada

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2236
New England, NSW
Gender: male

Re: Self Defence,
Reply #155 - Dec 12^th, 2024 at 5:26pm

Reference above re bodyguards; if the PM is attacked and his bodyguards return fire, and then the PM is whisked to safety but the criminal attackers continue to attack and fire at the bodyguards are the bodyguards p-to stop firing because they are now in a self defence situation and we know that the National Firearm Agreement specifically states that firearms must NEVER be used for self defence?

Back to top

Self defence is a right.

IP Logged

Sir Eoin O Fada

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2236
New England, NSW
Gender: male

Re: Self Defence,
Reply #156 - Dec 16^th, 2024 at 4:56pm

Reference the young mother and her baby hospitalised after a home invasion by two youths [reportedly with 300 or so offences on their record and out on bail for the35 or 36th time] they were armed with at least an iron bar and beat the woman and the baby has a fractured skull with bleeding to the brain.

Had she had a gun then she and the child would be alright.
But the law, which could not possibly protect her would not let her have one.
The Northern Territory, her State, which is supposed to protect it’s citizens from criminal harm, did nothing.

Back to top

Self defence is a right.

IP Logged

thegreatdivide

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics<br
/>

Posts: 12945
Gender: male

Re: Self Defence,
Reply #157 - Dec 16^th, 2024 at 5:21pm

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Dec 12^th, 2024 at 12:31pm:

I would contend that an instinct to survive constitutes a right to life and liberty.
Humans are part of the species, animal.

Indeed I would contend that, too; or rather, the instinct to survive is the SOURCE of the presumed "right to life and liberty" - a "right' which animals aren't aware of.

Quote:

It seems that elected Politicians here and in the US can break their oath/affirmation to uphold their respective Constitutions with virtual impunity.
E.g. local politicians who do not support the King or who publicly advocate a republic.

All that statement proves is the constitution - or more likely your erroneous interpretation of it - is faulty.

Quote:

No wonder so many of them are against self defence but have voiced no objection to being protected by armed bodyguards, as considered necessary, themselves.

Such is the outome of political hyper-partisanship in dysfunctional economic systems with entrenched generational poverty and systemic socio-economic disadvantage.

Back to top

IP Logged

thegreatdivide

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics<br
/>

Posts: 12945
Gender: male

Re: Self Defence,
Reply #158 - Dec 16^th, 2024 at 5:36pm

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Dec 16^th, 2024 at 4:56pm:

Reference the young mother and her baby hospitalised after a home invasion by two youths [reportedly with 300 or so offences on their record and out on bail for the35 or 36th time] they were armed with at least an iron bar and beat the woman and the baby has a fractured skull with bleeding to the brain.

Had she had a gun then she and the child would be alright.

You are assuming she had the opportunity to become aware of the invasion well before the crims were actually threatening her with an iron bar, and that she had the time to locate the gun.

And most of us have never pulled a trigger before....wouldn't it be better if the government fixed the socio economic disadvantage which is a cause of all this crime, rather than all of us having to purchase a gun and learning how to use it?

Quote:

But the law, which could not possibly protect her would not let her have one.
The Northern Territory, her State, which is supposed to protect it’s citizens from criminal harm, did nothing.

That's true; as mentioned above, governments prefer to maintain the poverty industry, rather than eliminating it...and the revolving-door courts' routine continues.

Back to top

IP Logged

Jasin Gold Member Offline Posts: 48386 Gender:	Re: Self Defence, Reply #159 - Dec 16^th, 2024 at 5:44pm Over populating ( having more kids than you can afford to feed and care for responsibly) is the main cause of Poverty. Those in power only exploit it to their benefit, even if they are inbred themselves.
Back to top	AIMLESS EXTENTION OF KNOWLEDGE HOWEVER, WHICH IS WHAT I THINK YOU REALLY MEAN BY THE TERM 'CURIOSITY', IS MERELY INEFFICIENCY. I AM DESIGNED TO AVOID INEFFICIENCY. IP Logged

Grappler Truth Teller Feller

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 84586
Proud pre-1850's NO Voter
Gender: male

Re: Self Defence,
Reply #160 - Dec 16^th, 2024 at 5:46pm

Nah - fix the gun shortage and make it mandatory that each fit and licenced household member shoots at least once a month.... minimum a hundred rounds, or if you can prove your proficiency with a shotgun loaded for bear, as many as it takes to make that clear.

Howard had plenty - but he threw them away as trash. You just can't teach some people........

Back to top

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams

IP Logged

Jasin Gold Member Offline Posts: 48386 Gender:	Re: Self Defence, Reply #161 - Dec 16^th, 2024 at 5:55pm Albanese said the mother and boy should have had Security personnel like he has.
Back to top	AIMLESS EXTENTION OF KNOWLEDGE HOWEVER, WHICH IS WHAT I THINK YOU REALLY MEAN BY THE TERM 'CURIOSITY', IS MERELY INEFFICIENCY. I AM DESIGNED TO AVOID INEFFICIENCY. IP Logged

Sir Eoin O Fada

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2236
New England, NSW
Gender: male

Re: Self Defence,
Reply #162 - Dec 16^th, 2024 at 7:18pm

thegreatdivide wrote on Dec 16^th, 2024 at 5:36pm:

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Dec 16^th, 2024 at 4:56pm:

Reference the young mother and her baby hospitalised after a home invasion by two youths [reportedly with 300 or so offences on their record and out on bail for the35 or 36th time] they were armed with at least an iron bar and beat the woman and the baby has a fractured skull with bleeding to the brain.

Had she had a gun then she and the child would be alright.

You are assuming she had the opportunity to become aware of the invasion well before the crims were actually threatening her with an iron bar, and that she had the time to locate the gun.

And most of us have never pulled a trigger before....wouldn't it be better if the government fixed the socio economic disadvantage which is a cause of all this crime, rather than all of us having to purchase a gun and learning how to use it?

Quote:

But the law, which could not possibly protect her would not let her have one.
The Northern Territory, her State, which is supposed to protect it’s citizens from criminal harm, did nothing.

That's true; as mentioned above, governments prefer to maintain the poverty industry, rather than eliminating it...and the revolving-door courts' routine continues.

You could also ask why the police were not nearby to protect her and her child, after all the NT Government is a party to the ludicrous statement in the NFA that a firearm must never be used for self defence, so the Government must have assumed the responsibility of protecting the public.
Anyone in the NT who is attacked by a crocodile must try to outrun it, even though they have a license and a rifle, to defend themselves would be a crime.

Back to top

Self defence is a right.

IP Logged

UnSubRocky

Gold Member

Offline

Crocodile Hunter: Origins

Posts: 24990
Rockhampton
Gender: male

Re: Self Defence,
Reply #163 - Dec 17^th, 2024 at 2:50am

Dnarever wrote on Nov 27^th, 2024 at 6:41pm:

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Nov 27^th, 2024 at 6:23pm:

against unlawful attack is not only a basic Right it is also an obligation.
Can this ever be disputed?

The police often dispute it and it is not uncommon for people who self defend to be imprisoned.

Knew a guy who won a few martial arts national championships, he beat up 3 guys who broke into his home. Almost went to prison.

If he "almost went to prison", he must have used excessive force.

I was escorted off a property by a security official, only 3 weeks ago. Whilst the security guard was being professional about what he was doing, had he touched me in any way, I would have had the right to push him away. If I punched the guy, I would have been charged with assault.

Back to top

At this stage...

IP Logged

UnSubRocky

Gold Member

Offline

Crocodile Hunter: Origins

Posts: 24990
Rockhampton
Gender: male

Re: Self Defence,
Reply #164 - Dec 17^th, 2024 at 2:54am

Baronvonrort wrote on Nov 27^th, 2024 at 7:55pm:

Dnarever wrote on Nov 27^th, 2024 at 6:41pm:

Knew a guy who won a few martial arts national championships, he beat up 3 guys who broke into his home. Almost went to prison.

What should old people use against younger fitter stronger home invaders who may have trained in MMA?

Something like this would be effective little to no recoil be fairly quiet wouldn't need hearing protection.
The Aimpoint sight means he could acquire targets with speed and confidence.

Until the younger, fitter, stronger home invader throws an object at the armed resident and gives the elderly person a moment of confusing lasting long enough that the intruder can disarm the elderly person.

Then the intruder can go about robbing the elderly person without fear of being attacked any further. Perhaps the intruder uses the firearm in a hold up somewhere else.

Back to top

At this stage...

IP Logged