More on the UN 'There Is No Right Of Self-Defense' BS

Looking over at Volokh.com(something I need to do more) I found this by Dave Kopel:UN's New Attack on Law-Abiding American Gun Owners . It's about a particular question on a 'Human Rights Law Exam, as follows:
Advanced Topics in Human Rights Law. Exam, Spring 2010. Question 4: One day, a woman goes to a gun store in Florida. She provides picture identification to the store owner, who then, pursuant to the National Instant Check System, uses his telephone to contact law enforcement, and ensure that the woman has no criminal record. The woman then purchases an expensive double-barreled shotgun, manufactured in the United Kingdom. She plans to use the gun for all lawful purposes, but primarily for sporting clays. In accordance with Florida law, she did not need to obtain a government license to possess the gun.

Two years later, a man breaks into her home at night. The woman reasonably (and correctly) believes that the man intends to rape and torture her. She also, correctly, believes that there is absolutely no possibility that the man will kill her. She shoots the man and kills him.

Summarize the human rights violations

They find three, the Brits for exporting 'small arms' to the U.S.; the U.S. and Florida for 'permitting' the woman to buy the gun without a license; and Finally, the woman's use of gun violence against the man was also a human rights violation.

Overall, it's a fairly standard piece of UN crap. But read it all the way through; to me, the biggest red flag in the thing is right at the end:
If the victim's human rights lawsuit were brought before a judge who was sympathetic to such manufacturers or organizations, it is unlikely that the suit would succeed. However, there are many judges who do not have such sympathies. Thanks to the flexibility of international law, and the evolving practice in U.S. constitutional interpretation of using international law guidelines, it would be possible for the lawsuits to result not only in monetary damages, but also in injunctive relief, and the judicial negation of the state and federal laws on self-defense and gun control which violate international human rights.(emphasis mine)

If there was ever a a blunt warning as to what the international GFWs and 'human rights' clowns want to happen here, this is it. It's why, anytime some judge decides to base his ruling on 'international law' instead of the Constitution, he out to be tarred and feathered. These people PLAN on using such judges to trash our Constitution; they're looking forward to it and planning on it.

One more reason why that damn building should be torn down and the sorry excuses for humans in it set up in Botswana or someplace in Europe.