Article by Colonel Nogov on Apr. 29, 2015
It was a bright cold in, and the were striking., his nuzzled into his in an to escape the vile, slipped quickly through the of, though not quickly enough to prevent a of gritty from entering along with him.
Did the above passage make sense? Did you recognize it as a paragraph from a famous book? It’s a paragraph from the book 1984, except all the nouns have been removed. To me it sounds like someone is trying to escape while being beaten. It’s not. It’s something completely different.
Here’s the same passage with the nouns re-inserted.
It was a bright cold day in April, and the clocks were striking thirteen. Winston Smith, his chin nuzzled into his breast in an effort to escape the vile wind, slipped quickly through the glass doors of Victory Mansions, though not quickly enough to prevent a swirl of gritty dust from entering along with him.
If I told you, you had the absolute right to free speech, I was only going to restrict your use of nouns, have I suppressed your right to free speech? Technically no, but effectively yes. You can still say whatever you want, but without the use of nouns your ability to communicate becomes almost impossible.
What about free speech zones? If I told you, you could say anything you want as long as you do it in Antarctica. Once again, I haven’t technically suppressed your free speech, but I effectively have. When are you ever going to be in Antarctica and who is going to hear you even if you were?
These are back door methods of denying human rights. Technically your rights haven’t been denied, but they’ve been restricted to the point where they are effectively denied. The end result is the same. Your human rights are being denied. In the example above I used the fictitious restriction on the use of nouns to show how restrictions are used to deny human rights, free speech in this instance. The following example is very real.
The government denies the human right of self defense when it writes gun legislation. When the government restricts you the means of self defense (a gun), technically you still have the right to self defense, but effectively you don’t. Defending yourself against a stronger opponent, or an opponent trained in martial arts, or an opponent armed with a gun, you are at a major disadvantage. It may be impossible for you to defend yourself against such opponents. Every restriction on owning or obtaining a gun is an effective denial of your human rights. This includes, licensing, registration, or any qualifying requirements.
The government uses the back door technique to deny the human right of self defense by restricting the means to defend oneself. The people are easily duped by this. They can’t see that the restriction of a right is the same thing as the denial of a right.
Gun legislation is a violation of human rights. Specifically the right to self defense.