Laura Perrins: The right to bear arms protects Americans against an over-mighty State

(Warning: This blog is only relevant to those who are watching the Handmaid’s Tale. I assume you know the story.)

Those of you who follow me on Twitter will know I have a love-hate relationship with the new series of The Handmaid’s Tale, currently showing on Sunday nights on Channel 4. I love to watch the beautiful cinematography and the wonderful acting but hate the way the lefties have hijacked it for their own agenda.

The Canadian author of the book on which the series is based, Margaret Atwood, I suspect both envies and hates the old US of A south of the border and The Handmaid’s Tale is the result. There have been endless think pieces telling us how this dystopia “is just around the corner”, and I have explained why this is not the case and the US is the most unlikely place for this to happen.

However, it has dawned on me that more than anything this series is just one long advertisement for the Second Amendment to the US constitution, the one that guarantees the right to keep and bear arms.

Before you faint I just want to say at the outset that I would not want to see an equivalent right in the UK. The legal, cultural, political and geographical landscapes between the US and UK are very different – the widespread keeping of arms in the UK would be an unmitigated disaster but in the US is based on self-governance and self-reliance so it makes sense that the Founders said that citizens could legally hold firearms.

As I have said, whenever I watch The Handmaid’s Tale I think to myself, goodness the NRA really should be playing this series on a tape-loop; it reinforces hour after hour why the second amendment is so important.

Following a fertility collapse in the US there has been a take-over of the government by force, one that imposes brutal authoritarian rule in the new Republic of Gilead. Our heroine, Offred, is being held captive as a potential reproductive surrogate, being raped once or twice a month by her Commander so he and his Wife can have a child of their own. It’s grim but gripping viewing.

At one point early in the series while in the supermarket shopping for oranges for the Commander’s Wife, Offred says to herself, I don’t need oranges I need a machine gun. To which I said to myself – yes and had you purchased said weapon before the great take-over perhaps you would not be in this position in the first place.

The greatest promotion for the second amendment came with the episode that revealed June (as she then was) and her husband’s attempted escape after the take-over. Let’s just say it does not go well. June is taken hostage, her daughter Hannah is captured and her husband is shot and wounded by the newly armed force of Gilead – the Guardians.

June and hubby had tried to escape earlier with their daughter and at one point about two miles from the great sanctuary of the Canadian border (of course) the three of them end up in a cabin in a wood. The husband is given a revolver (which is a bit sexist if you ask me, why not give it to June?) but he has no clue how to use it.

The poor hubby, fumbles with the revolver – clearly he has never handled such a weapon in his life before, probably because he was a ‘proud Democrat’. Weapons training was clearly not for him and his wife who probably wanted second amendment rights curtailed before the take-over.

Later, hubby comes face to face with the heavily armed Guardians. They easily overpower him shooting and wounding him. Just beforehand poor hubby is seen fumbling with his feeble revolver, barely able load it, bullets falling to the ground. Typical leftie, I thought to myself.

If only he had joined his local NRA and gotten some basic firearms training along with an actual firearm he, his wife and child would have stood a much better chance against The Guardians! But no doubt they probably thought such a thing was only for dumb Republicans and far too patriarchal. Instead they may have been too busy tweeting about the evils of firearms to do such a thing.

As I watch this series I like to think of the other Handmaid’s Tale out there – the one written by the conservative writer. She points out that first not only are conservatives lovers of freedom and wish to limit the power of the State, making such a dystopia less likely, but they also know how to handle a firearm and have exercised their constitutional right to own one.

So no, The Handmaid’s Tale is not a warning to conservative women; it should be a warning to leftist, feminist women.

While the feminists are out marching, wearing their silly pussy-hats, the freedom-loving conservative women are training and protecting themselves against any potential authoritarian government or take-over. They understand that, “a well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

They know who the real oppressed wimmin are – the feminists railing against second amendment rights while at home knitting stupid looking hats. It is the empowered, liberty-loving conservative women and their protective husbands who are not fumbling pathetically with the revolver, bullets falling, as the Guardians close in. They are the ones who have made it across the border months ago – a journey made much easier by the fact they are armed.

So feminist sisters take some advice for once – put down the knitting needles and mobile phones and get yourself down to the your local firearms training facility and exercise your Second Amendment rights. Let’s see those Guardians try to mess with you then.

Laura Perrins

  • martianonlooker

    “there has been a take-over of the government by force, one that imposes brutal authoritarian rule”.
    You mean like the lefts version of Brexit, keeping us tied to the authoritarian EU? We certainly do need a Second Amendment just like the yanks.

    • John Blacksmith

      Hello. M/S Perrin.

      I have never watched The Handmaid’s Tale but the events of the last year in Europe and America have made the issue a live one and it goes right to the heart of the difference between European and Anglo-American attitudes to democracy.

      The EU member states believe that “democracy” is, like the Euro, something granted from above. Something granted from above can be removed from above.

      Whatever our own national myths, I do not believe that accords with our own views on our democracy. And the fact that the American population, particularly those blue of collar and red of neck, is armed to the teeth is a nice little reminder that American democracy rests on their shoulders – those of the people, warts and all – not on those of presidents, or right-thinking media voices, or the armed forces.

      It is typical that Marcuse and the Frankfurt Group talked of the state being defined by having “a monopoly of violence”. Not in America it doesn’t. That is why I hope that the media maniacs, both here and in America, who want to destroy Trump, the rednecks’ choice, don’t get their way. Do they think that will be followed by everyone living happily ever after? They couldn’t be more wrong.

      • Phil R

        Trump needs to deliver on his promises. If he doesn’t? Well there are a lot of poor people (and no middle class to speak of it seems….?) in America and they are all armed.

        • John Blacksmith

          Hello. I don’t believe that poor people make revolutions.Blue collar American workers are not poor. Two generations ago, however, they were, by world standards, rich as Croesus.

          The American industrial revolution of the nineteen-thirties and forties was, in contrast to the abject and murderous failures of the European left, a genuine liberation: home appliances freed ordinary people from the misery of housework and granted them leisure for the first time in history, cheap cars gave them mobility, consumer credit gave them the chance to accumulate possessions.

          Since the 1950s – nearly seventy years! – as America has got much richer these people have lost out, their standard of living whittled away year by year.

          I do not need reminding that black people did not share this prosperity to the same extent. It does not alter the question: if the United States can’t provide a decent standard of living for skilled workers anymore, for whom does the United States exist?

          That is the question that Trump’s election poses.

          • Actually, almost every American, including those on welfare, just as in Britain, are in the worldwide 1%. Not a great statistic, and there are far too many living off others, but such it is.

          • John Blacksmith

            Hello. I haven’t really got much more to say on this. Still –

            I know about the 1% but unless you’re as old as I am you won’t know how incredibly well-off the American (mainly but not exclusively white) “working man” was. The US forces were in London for years after the war’s end. I was brought up in a very affluent area and yet we were simply stunned at the wealth of ordinary US military personnel who, as late as the mid-fifties, drove new Hollywood-style limousines.

            Some years ago in a BBC interview the American record producer Joe Boyd said – without any front – that when he arrived here at the beginning of the sixties he’d simply never been in a US home that didn’t contain a fridge. At the time I was keeping my milk under an earthenware pot to stop it going rancid and so was almost everyone else I knew.

            My post wasn’t at all about “social justice” or the fate of welfare recipients but about a very hard-working, very well-off, majority section of the US populace who have had their share of national wealth somehow redistributed with neither their clear assent nor knowledge of where the money has gone to – in a US that is now immeasurably richer than then.

            That is not a stable situation.

          • I have learned that that was situation, and you are right, I suspect my parents bought their first fridge in about 1950, when dad built his house, and I mean built with his own two hands, after work. Air con in about 1955 (Almost necessary in Indiana, not really optional (once available) as it is there, and TV in the late forties. I never knew how austere it was in Britain until I was well into adulthood. A lot of it was the money stored up during the war, when there was little you could buy, and everybody was working, of course. Even with the soldiers, how often could they get down to London?

            By the way, they understood perfectly well, how good they had it, they rarely let us forget it. Sorry I misunderstood your thrust. No, you’re right there as well, it is out of balance these days, somehow we’ll have to find a solution for that eventually.

  • Colkitto03

    The Americans should guard their right to bear arms vigorously. They should not give an inch to the anti gun lobby.
    There is nothing wrong with a government being a bit scared of its citizens.
    Americans get more respect from authority than we Brits do.

    • We have, and do. The quote is, “When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.” It is often attributed to Tom Jefferson, but apparently is not his, but there are many similar ones in our past.

      • therealguyfaux ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

        It’s cited in V For Vendetta. I wouldn’t be surprised if some thought the source was Guy Fawkes.

        • Nor would I be, and who knows, nobody seems to able to track it down.

          • therealguyfaux ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            It’s the sort of thought that would occur to many, and perhaps the lack of a clear original source attests to its commonsensicality.

  • captainslugwash

    ‘the widespread keeping of arms in the UK would be an unmitigated disaster .’
    Why exactly?
    Do you think we would all be out tomorrow guns blazing and settling scores?

    • Debs

      Exactly right. There will come a time ,not too far off the way things are going when only criminals have arms against a totalitarian government.
      With Corbyn and his crowd giving the green light to seize property what are we the law abiding to do. Scary times ahead.

      • Tricia

        I agree. I have been thinking of having shooting lessons. Instead of the anaemic police message of “run and hide”. We ought to be standing and fighting!

        • martianonlooker

          “anaemic police message of “run and hide”
          Always wondered how that would work in practice. Imagine running to hide in the only cupboard available, only to find it occupied by 4 strangers that are now intimate acquaintances. Meanwhile the person with mental health issues (ahemm!) is charging towards you with a sharp instrument.
          To think we pay the initiators of that advice good money and a pension to come up with drivel.

      • Phil R

        “With Corbyn and his crowd giving the green light to seize property what are we the law abiding to do”

        Most will walk away having moved theiur money a long time ago, but a few will want revenge and this will be easy.

        There will be loads of angy poor people to arm and fund from afar…..

    • mctruck

      At the end of March 2016, there were 587,681 holders of Firearm or Shotgun Certificates, possessing 1,704,642 weapons.
      I’d call that fairly widespread.

      • captainslugwash

        A lot less than 1% of the population then. About as ‘widespread’ as epilepsy.

  • AJ

    I am very sceptical that the right to bear arms acts as any kind of restraint on the government or prevents totalitarian rule. The consequences in the US seem to be to an increase in poIice powers, agression and numbers, and a public acceptance of the necessity for this. I think this is understandable. Iraq under Saddam Hussain had a paticularily high level of private gun ownership. This was somethin the occupying forces had to try to reverse and control.

    The restraint on totalitarian government is cultural and societal, that the police and armed forces believe in democracy. No level of private gun ownership would stop a coup by the armed forces if it was widely believed to be justified by those forces.

    Respect within society for the law, legal system and the political process are the barriers to a dictatorship. The extent to which this is threatened in the US and UK is another topic.

    • Colonel Mustard

      “To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.”

      That Peelian principle of policing is absolutely contravened if the police are armed and the law abiding public are not.

      Either both should be unarmed or the public should have the right to have arms for self defence. Otherwhise we are in different territory of an alienating, statist police. Which we are. The state has set itself up to control us rather than serve us.

  • WFC

    The legal, cultural, political and geographical landscapes between the US and UK are very different – the widespread keeping of arms in the UK would be an unmitigated disaster but in the US is based on self-governance and self-reliance so it makes sense that the Founders said that citizens could legally hold firearms.

    No, the US Founders did not say “that citizens could legally hold firearms”. They said that the (already existing) right to keep and bear arms “shall not be infringed”.

    Which right? The right under English common law, recorded in the English Bill of Rights, and referenced by Blackstone as the most important ancillary right of Englishmen.

    Which right was slightly compromised in 1920 when licences were introduced, which were available on demand to anybody without a criminal record (and were introduced not because of a fear of crime, but fear of Bolshevism) and in the 1930s, when fully automatic weapons were prohibited.

    The license regime didn’t become onerous until the 1950s, when “self-defence” was surreptitiously removed as a valid reason for possessing a firearm.

    As for carriage, there were no restrictions on carrying weapons until the Prevention of Crime Act 1953 prohibited carriage of “offensive weapons”.

    I wouldn’t say that the legal, cultural and political landscape of 1950s (and before) Britain was “an unmitigated disaster”. Would you?

    • therealguyfaux ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

      Orwell also remarked that, due to the perception that shooting was an upper-class pastime, most Lefties of his acquaintance found it most difficult to believe that V.I. Lenin enjoyed doing it, even before he was the premier of the Soviet Union; Orwell’s comment was to the effect that “In a vast nation like Russia with plenty of wilderness, shooting would be looked upon much differently, more like a survival skill to be engaged in by the peasants as well, since their lives might depend on it.”

      • And Russia had more arms in civilian hands before the revolution (by a large measure) than America did, for similar reasons.

    • Your quote is correct, but the derivation is not. The 2d Amendment quotes (almost verbatim, without the Protestant clause) the English Bill of Rights, but both are recognition of an inherent (from God or natural law) of an unextinguishable right of self-defense.

    • Colonel Mustard

      “Surreptitiously” removed. It was indeed but it was also illegally removed with no Parliamentary sanction. The Home Office and police connived to undermine and restrict an ancient right. Which has resulted in only police and criminals having arms.

      That contravenes the spirit of Peel’s principles of policing too because it sets the police above the law abiding public, something never intended.

    • And yet those weapons that we donated in 1940 were, at the end of the war, buried. Not sold to your citizens, or returned to ours, who donated them, but buried.

      • WFC

        I didn’t know that.

        I do know that my dad had a gun – a souvenir from Malaya – and an uncle had a gun room. We were also taught to shoot at school (in the 1970s), which had a gun range.

        I wouldn’t say that guns were “part of the culture” back then, but they weren’t unusual (or seen as something to be feared).

        • I don’t have documentation, although I have heard several reports. One from a Brit/Canadian expatriate living (for many years) in Arizona. One of my friends, a girl, was taught to use a shotgun, in the 80s or 90s by her dad, on their Welsh farm, she says she was better than the boys – but I wasn’t there.

          And that’s important. A gun is a tool, just like a knife, or a hammer, it can do good, or it can do harm, it’s all up to the one using it. Nothing really fearful about them. I fell in love with them more because of their engineering elegance than anything else. Amazing precision machines to be produced for so little money, really.

          • WFC

            Reminds me of an old legal joke.

            Defence: when you arrested my client, did you call him a stupid [etc]?
            Policeman: yes, I did.
            Defence: what gave you the right to be so abusive?
            Policeman: because he used a stolen shotgun for the robbery. He got £1,000 from the robbery.
            Defence: so what?
            Policeman: the gun he stole was a Purdey, worth about £75,000. At least it was, before he sawed the end off it.

          • Outstanding! Yep, I’ve been known to drool at their website. Only handled one and it was a dream.

          • forgotten_man

            Farmers do still have shotguns , it isnt particularly unusual even here as they are part of the farm machinery.

          • So I have gathered, which they are. And, in truth, the UK doesn’t strike me, for the most part, as good rifle country, awfully close quarters, in most of it, not impossible, but a bit urban for comfort.

          • forgotten_man

            with 1/4 of your population on 1/100th (I’m guessing the latter , but you get the idea..) then ‘urban’ is probably a bit of an understatement!!

          • Yep, I look at videos of London, and I think how do they survive? And why would they want too? But then, I dislike our cities as well, so it’s not really fair of me. Parts of Norfolk, for instance, do look lovely, as do parts of Wales, and the West Country. (Don’t anyone feel slighted here, just examples!)

          • logdon

            There’s a sign in Morris’s Barbour clothing shop window in Hereford.

            Rabbit Problems?
            Visit Our Gun Room.

            Having visited the aforesaid Gun Room, I wasn’t disappointed.
            All manner of wonderfully crafted shot guns and deer rifles on show in rack after rack.

            And they use them.

            There’s a completely different mentality around fire arms outside the urban boxes which dispenses with the fluffy to be replaced by hard reality. It echo’s nature’s food-chain itself where self sufficiency is key to survival.

            I’ve got to know people who actually do shoot deer and boar around here and to them it’s as normal as a visit to the butchers.

            And despite any thoughts of marauding humans decimating a helpless animal population both deer and boar numbers are growing.

            This creates a problem for foresters replanting felled wood with mangled torn up shoots and thus the balance is maintained.

            Trees, plants, animals and humans is a cycle. As a dominant species, we manage it. It’s as simple as that.

          • forgotten_man

            I actually didnt know we had boar here anymore!

            However, hunting for food, not primarily for fun is about as reasonable as it gets in the real world.

          • logdon
          • Can’t speak to UK, but in US almost all conservation efforts have been headed by hunters and sport fishermen, who have voluntarily imposed regulations and costs on themselves for conservation. That’s where hunting and fishing licensing came from in the US. Goes back to Teddy Roosevelt. Like everything with the government, it occasionally gets out of hand, but it’s been a good system.

  • Owen_Morgan

    The complete disarming of the British population is not as unambiguously desirable as Laura Perrins suggests. It has long been illegal to carry weapons in public, which is why only criminals do so – and yet they still do so. Criminals are like that.

    British police went unarmed well before the populace did. After all, doesn’t Sherlock Holmes tell Watson to remember to bring his revolver, on at least one outing? During Conan Doyle’s lifetime, the Metropolitan Police were comprehensively outgunned at the Sidney Street siege, by a bolshevik gang led by Yakov Peters. If memory serves, the police needed to bring in the Scots Guards, from ceremonial duty at the Palace, to root out the terrorists.

    Nowadays, the Metropolitan Police seem to have a fair number of firearms-trained officers, but there are a lot fewer in the rest of the country. At London Bridge, armed police were on the scene in minutes, but how long would it take in a rural area? If the people are not allowed to defend themselves, they should be able to have confidence in the authorities to protect them.

    From “The Independent”:

    “Sadiq Khan has said he believes the threat of terror attacks are ‘part and parcel of living in a big city’ and encouraged Londoners to be vigilant to combat dangers.”

    It’s not the threat of the attacks that matters. It’s the attacks themselves. The “dangers” (those would be terrorists) are not confined to big cities. And he’s exhorting his intentionally unarmed citizenry to “combat dangers”.

    Yeah, that’ll work.

    • Tom Burroughes

      Excellent comment.

    • Mr TaxPayer

      In rural areas it can be over an hour before the armed response team arrive. Derek Bird proved this in Cumbria some years back. Police were called at 10.20, Local Police arrived within a few minutes, however they were only able to follow him at a distance, giving updates. Armed police did not arrive until 12.36.

    • Little Black Censored

      You don’t mention the stupid BASEBALL CAPS that these armed police wear. Why ever were they intoduced?

      • peter_dtm

        Not necessarily in order

        – because baseball caps are COOL
        – because baseball caps are cheaper than a Custodian
        – because a Custodian looks good
        – because a Custodian adds height and Presence
        – because a baseball cap adds nothing to the aims of (Peelian) policing
        – because too many idiots taught their kids to be frightened of the police – so they have to be made ‘approachable’ by having to wear naff American apparel
        – because Custodians worked
        – because Custodians are ‘old fashioned’ and therefore useless

        We are ruled not by people who are merely idiots; but idiots with no appreciation of anything other than the virtue signalling they can do by doing away with perfectly good traditions;

  • Tom Burroughes

    I recommend any Americans this book by the late Col. Jeff Cooper, one of the founders of modern teaching around rifles/pistols and broadly, self defence.

    https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00IO01UEI/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

    I also recommend this book to those who, like the author, assume that the US is so different from the UK that the UK and its citizens have to be banned totally from owning firearms. (The Swiss, to take another example, seem to be relatively peaceful, and gun ownership is higher per head of population). I guess culture is a big part of it. https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B007XHCO66/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

    • sfin

      Yep, there’s a reason why the Swiss largely avoided the wars of the last century.

      Apart from their system of direct democracy (people don’t vote to go to war – governments do), their high level of private gun ownership makes occupation extremely difficult.

      It was Hitler who said: “Before you invade a country, you must first disarm its citizenry.” The coalition forces did not learn this piece of wisdom before it invaded Afghanistan and Iraq.

    • Coniston

      I remember reading that, during the Cold War, when every Swiss man was in the military reserve, they had to keep a rifle and ammunition at home – and every household had to keep several months’ basic foodstuffs at home.

    • Col. Cooper is excellent although in parts dated, I was trained originally with his precepts. I would recommend anything by Massad F. Ayoob, as well. He is also very good on the law and firearms, which tends to be a major concern.

  • UKCitizen

    I believe that were you to remove gun homicides associated with certain ethnicities in the US, they would not be vastly different from homicide stats elsewhere in the West.
    Introducing guns into the current UK ethnically and culturally diverse population which is mainly urban and have never known culturally how to behave with guns, would probably not be a good idea and would probably result in the same ethnic and social divisions in gun crime as the US.
    Any introduction or availability of guns in a society should be attached to some form of responsibility of the gun owner to society such as national service/guard or militia training attaching the gun to a purpose other than personal use as it is in Switzerland. It would also need a strong national and mono cultural identity to prevent a bloodbath.
    Much is made of the fact that most individual mass shooters in the US are white but then completely ignores the mass shooting committed by certain communities mostly against themselves.

    • Bingo. We do have a very high murder rate in a few areas, mostly cities with strict gun control. Elsewhere this is one of the safest countries in the world. It’s not all about the guns, of course, its also about how the American character has developed over the years, and the amount of training that those of us who do use guns, do. Much more than our police, and probably more than your armed police, do. We are the people who always couple rights with responsibilities.

      • UKCitizen

        Responsibility is a dirty word these days and not applicable to our infantilized populace who need to be absolved of every failure and cheered for being mediocre and compliant.

  • The_Mocking_Turtle

    If every armed American citizen rose up against an elected government, unless pretty much all of America’s armed forces were with them, they would be swept away by bona fide American armed forces like dust in the wind. Charlton Heston used to say daft things similar to those in the article but in mitigation we must remember that he was a fervent member of the National Rifle Association and also had Alzheimer’s at the time.

    • Nonsense, unless the USG decided to use nuclear weapons. We haven’t pacified Afghanistan yet. Hate to tell you the US is considerably bigger than Afghanistan and there are about 500,000,000 weapons, and trillions of rounds of ammunition, many of them of military derivation, here. In addition those weapons are owned by people who take things seriously, study, and many of whom are military veterans themselves. And who’s to say the military wouldn’t be, they are us, it really is America’s army. Always has been, except of course for the politicians with eagles and stars on their epaulets.

      • Colkitto03

        Well said, in addition the USG knows that even trying to get armed forces into conflict with the people would lead to mass military inaction or desertion.

        • Adrian Johnson

          Which is why photos of UN military vehicles during the Obama administration rolling around the rural USA on “Department of homeland Security / disaster exercises” or similar are cause for everyone’s concern. Foreign soldiers have no problem being a Stasi.

          • They don’t, but then they are almost everybody’s enemy. It’s likely to be short, although exciting life. After all, Yamamoto (if he really said it) wasn’t wrong about a rifle behind every blade of grass.

        • I’d guess inaction, mostly. But it’s simply a guess. But an unmotivated soldier isn’t going to be all that effective, in any case. Amazing how the batteries in night vision goggles and radios go dead at the most inopportune moments.

          • Colkitto03

            Agreed, inaction is much more likely.
            Interestingly studies of combat activity in the era of mass citizen armies (from US civil war onwards) repeatedly show that many (up to 80%) soldiers ‘shoot high’ even against genuine enemies.
            Our natural aversion to killing is typically only overcome when we become desensitized and that takes quite a while.
            Studies show that the vast volume of ammunition expended should have in nearly every case resulted in more kills. In WW1 artillery actually accounted for something like 70% of deaths on the Western front.

          • Yes. Two points are relative to that. One of the reasons the NRA was founded was to help have people trained in the use of firearms, many rifled muskets were found on the battlefields loaded with up to eight rounds, but had not been capped, rendering them useless. Another was to arm and train the recently freed blacks to resist the KKK. It wasn’t entirely successful, but it mattered. And yes, even back to the American Revolution the advice officers gave their men was to aim at their knees, the tendency to fire high is apparently universal. It’s a hard thing, to shoot a man, which is very proper.

          • The_Mocking_Turtle

            Inaction in conflict would be no different to mutiny, i.e., refusal to carry out orders given legitimately by a superior officer. Considering the ghastly things that the American armed forces have done in the past, and how few individuals disobeyed orders, I think mass mutiny by the Army, Navy, Air Force and Special Forces would be very, very, VERY unlikely.

        • The_Mocking_Turtle

          Maybe, maybe not. Any American revolution could only win by winning support from the armed forces. But then, if it had such support, the civilian contingent wouldn’t need to be weaponised anyway. An American coup would be interesting and just about imaginable given current circumstances.

          • Happened before, my turtle friend. Back in 1776 the American people had enough, and revolted against the greatest power in the world. We won, even though New York was invested by the greatest British armada before Normandy. Wasn’t any support from the armed forces either, just a bunch of mercenaries, they were.

          • The_Mocking_Turtle

            Didn’t you read my other comment where I pointed out that America now has “… most powerful armed forces ever assembled in the history of the world…”? Conflict these days as far as American armed forces are concerned would would include Apache attack helicopters and helicopter gunships, airborne early warning and control systems, satellite surveillance, tanks, cruise missiles… you name it and the Americans will have it. It would not be between natives residents and troops from a country on the other side of an ocean whose only connection with their colonies was by ships powered by wind with all the problems involved with support, communication and logistics you can imagine.

            You folk keep comparing one thing with a completely different things and seeing an equivalence which doesn’t exist.

            If it had to American troops would cut down civilian uprisings like a Combine Harvester through a field of wheat.

      • The_Mocking_Turtle

        Afghanistan?

        You are comparing fish with foul.

        I was talking about a civil uprising by large numbers of armed American citizens in the United States. Countries like Afghanistan are always a problem because guerilla forces spill over the border from the Hindukush and neighbouring countries supposedly hostile to the conflict, e.g., Pakistan, make their attacks, and then slip back over the border, melding with other civilian populations. What and where would American militias go to to hatch their plots and plans? Mexico? Canada?

        A nation acting against dissidents within its own border can behave quite differently to the way its armed forces behave in peacekeeping roles or policing actions.

        The idea that American civilians, armed to the teeth, could overthrow an elected regime is sweet but entirely unlikely.

    • therealguyfaux ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

      Wouldn’t the question then be “Who would want to live in a US that could do such things to its own people?” and wouldn’t it prompt a lot of LEE-ROY JENKINS! banzai charging(“I’m gonna die, but I’ll take a few of them with me when I go…”) that could make a “Government Forces” victory Pyrrhic?

      • The_Mocking_Turtle

        I wasn’t considering rights and wrongs only the fact that the most powerful armed forces ever assembled in the history of the world would very easily be able to deal with any civil threat involving armed citizens without much trouble.

        Which is true.

  • If only the people who need to read this article would do so…

  • Pat

    Of course the same right to keep and bear arms was accorded to every subject of the Crown from the Bill of Rights (1688) until after the first world war. At which point Parliament decided that British subjects needed to show a reason for having a gun, and from then on got more and more fussy as to what reason to accept.
    The reason was not public safety, no such problem had occurred. The reason was fear of revolution. With every adult male fully combat trained and highly experienced if any subset got armed they would be very dangerous.
    It may well be that the regulars could have put down such an uprising, but at vast cost.
    Of course I believe the government’s fears to be vastly exaggerated, after all no such thing had happened before. All that was necessary was to actually take notice of the people.
    As to reintroducing the original rights, we now have a population completely unused to the responsibility involved, nor as homogeneous as then applied, so this should be done gradually and with caution.

    • Groan

      Well in a sense it did happen in the Kingdom of Ireland. Then part of the UK . So the fear was understandable.

      • Pat

        Indeed. Though that was resolved by conceding what the Irish wanted. Not a bad outcome, though it would have been much better if the Irish could have agreed amongst themselves.
        As an afterthought, from the time of Edward 1 onwards Englishmen were required to keep, bear and practice the longbow, a prime battlefield weapon. That law fell into disuse as muskets replaced bows, and I’m not sure if it’s ever been properly repealed.

      • AJ

        … and during the english civil war

    • Colonel Mustard

      The Bill of Rights was 1689, after the Glorious Revolution of 1688, but other than that spot on.

      It has not been repealed and many politicians made the mistake of believing “as allowed by law” gave them licence to interfere with and qualify the right. In fact it referred to the law allowing the ownership of arms to defend hearth and home which James had overruled.

      The Home Office and police connived illegally to reject “self defence” as a valid reason for having a gun.

      • therealguyfaux ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

        There is no written British Constitution which by its own terms establishes that it is the Supreme Law and that all subsequent law must be weighed, measured and possibly found wanting based on its conformity with/repugnance to the Founding Document. All British law is “last in time,” i.e., that which has been enacted which is repugnant to the Bill of Rights is deemed to have modified it, in virtue of later passage. Did I not read somewhere once that only three provisions of Magna Carta are still in effect as written?

        • Colonel Mustard

          An inherited ‘right’ cannot be modified by law except by oppression or consent.

          The Bill of Rights was re-stating an ancient right not codified in law. The original licencing regime did not seek to repudiate that right but the administration of it incrementally impinged on it. Then Blair came along and passed illegal law.

          The House of Commons Briefing Paper on the Bill of Rights demonstrates the contempt with which it is held and the arrogance in which the modern politicians disregard it and trample on it.

          • therealguyfaux ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            That’s dangerous talk, Colonel– why, you sound just like that rebellious rabble in late 18th C. Philadelphia, with that “inherited right” business! Which is not to say that the US Congress and SCOTUS have always adhered to the letter and spirit of the Constitution– but as one of my favorite authors, George Orwell, wrote about the thief Raffles, to the effect of, “He may not have always behaved well by the standards of his era, but at any rate he knew what those standards were…” Such too is the perhaps-sometimes-hypocritical US Government. But as with Thomas More, they refuse to cut down the trees to deny refuge to the devil, knowing they may need the thicket themselves someday. Having Article 6 of the US Constitution, which by necessary implication says in effect, “If a law is passed which is not in pursuance with this Constitution, it is void.”, at least a SCOTUS willing to do so CAN, and often DOES, nullify laws, and does not automatically defer to Congress.

          • Colonel Mustard

            Well, having lived through the eras of Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron and May I admit I do feel pretty rebellious now.

        • I imagine you did, I know I did, and they were such unimportant provisions that I cannot remember what they are. Probably something to do with weirs on the Thames, or something.

      • Marcus Orr

        On reading all the old Sherlock Holmes stories (which are supposed to have taken place in London between 1880 – 1910) you notice straight away how Holmes expects Dr. Watson to always have his revolver in his pocket when they go out on a mission which may be dangerous. So the right to bear arms was certainly completely in place in the UK up until WW1 at the very least.
        Funny how that got whittled away and forgotten since.

        • Colonel Mustard

          Yes, and that tradition of the armed and responsible law-abiding gentleman was completely in accord with Peel’s principles of policing because the police were not set above the law abiding public. It has been trampled on.

  • Phil R

    I would feel safer being able to carry a gun and defend my family.l

    Yes even in the UK

    It was grought home to me a few years back when working with my family in Central Africa. The country was regarded as “safe” but the neigbouring countries were at war (with themselves it seemed).

    One night we were told that there were a group of “armed men” in the valley where we lived. It was raining a pitch dark. I considered putting my family in my Jeep and making a dash for the Capital city some 50 miles away, but I thought the headlights would make us a target. So we switched off all lights and waited, my family hidden in a cuboard and me behind a door with a large knife (all I had). Nothing happened to us, we heard gunfire a long way off and in the morning we heard that another community was attacked, some people were killed, a few 4X4s taken and some young girls carried away.

    No police turned up untill later that morning. We then had an armed police (and locals — a few locals bought guns if they could afford them) presence and it never happened in our area again.

    Would they have attacked the other community if they all had carried guns?

    I think not.

    Closer to home, would we feel safer if all law abiding citizens that want a gun could buy one and defend themselves? Lets put it to my wife. She was scared every day in Africa when I left her on her own with our young baby. She befriended an expatriate South African family and spent most of the day with them, who BTW had double fences, large dogs and armed staff.

    I think if I leved near some of our more lawless cities, I would want double fences, large dogs and armed staff to defend my family also.

  • forgotten_man

    There is this concept in medicine that does apply outside it, that any treatment has a built in cost, a lesser price to pay than the disease itself.
    So cost/benefit then.
    In the US , having a sea of firearms and a constant slow burn daily revolution currently costs around 12,000 lives a year in ‘collateral’ damage and none of the shots fired are to maintain freedom.

    even 9/11 didn’t make that much difference that year.

    And i’m no leftie….

    • First define collateral damage, and then give me an example of a legal gun used in street crime. I can’t think of one.

      • Tyler Ward

        You’ve set up an imimpossible Logical fallacy in which no one could ever provide the evidence you have challenged them to give you. The moment a gun is used in street crime, it becomes an illegal gun, so therefore, no one will ever be able to cite a case in where a legal gun was used. Just remember this… Every gun was legal at some point.

        • You’ve a point, although I think you’re splitting hairs here. Let me rephrase. The last time a weapon, let’s say handgun, they’re most commonly used, in the hands of it licensed owner (excluding police, which is a different class), was used to commit a crime. There probably are a few examples floating around, although I’ve not seen them, and the media in this country would have a field day

          • forgotten_man

            If in some ideal parallel universe the only guns in the US were in the hands of licences users, police or otherwise , then I’m sure the death rate would be far lower and even novel enough to make the headlines nationally.
            However, in this universe you have, in addition to the virtuous and able above, an ocean of uncontrolled guns that are not being reduced and no political will to do so.
            And even within the virtuous there are more deaths by child messing with legal weapons than there are in total in many countries.

            If you have an environment with easy access to firearms you get a Florida nightclub body count.

            If you don’t you get a London bridge.

            The latter is too many but a lot less than the alternative..

          • Pase’ Doble

            I respect your opinion but the ocean of guns here and worldwide isn’t going away. People are getting murdered all over the world with guns in countries where it is practically impossible to get one, legally.
            Evil people exist worldwide, that’s not political.
            The only real solution to prevent gun deaths is to remove guns, all of them, from everyone. Govts included.
            I’ll gladly hand mine in… last. After I’ve buried 4 or 5 in dry bags and poly pipes.. hehe

          • Been following the Czechs? They’re in the process of passing something akin to the 2d Amendment. Worried about illegal immigrants from what I read, not to mention more than a bit irritated with Brussels.

          • Pase’ Doble

            just read that…. couple days ago. It’s not gonna be pretty in Europe in the not too far future I fear.

          • I’m afraid you’re right, especially western Europe, in the east, well, Russia screwed their heads down tight.

          • forgotten_man

            I agree, I think the penny is beginning to drop that this one tribe is not like the others in as much as there is a stated, written political aim central to the creed.

            To that end I think Uncle Sam is being very lenient in it’s oversight of this stated threat to the adoptive state.

      • forgotten_man

        This question reminds me of various conversations I had with my, then, motorcycling friends many years ago, about whether they , or I, should slow down when approaching a junction onto the road we may be travelling as we would ‘have right of way’ so they ‘shouldn’t’ pull out into our path.
        Even then we often travelled at speeds the average Joe could conceive so my position was, yes, because the car drivers would probably make a decision on what they could understand…not the multiples of that that were the reality.

        Result?

        Many who took the opposite view are no longer with us.
        They became the ‘most right’ person in the morgue.

        At 12k/y ‘being right’ is bloody expensive.

    • Neil

      It’s quite the logical leap to assume that those 12,000 (I’ll just accept your numbers here for the sake of brevity) lives would NOT have been lost even if there were no firearms. People will always find ways to kill one another. Furthermore, it does not take into account the lives SAVED by Defensive Gun Uses (DGUs). Some studies have estimated this to be as high as 2.5 million individual DGUs per year in the USA. Not only that, but in the vast majority of DGU cases, the gun was simply used to scare off the perpetrator, so not even the bad guy got shot.

      So tell me, what might the cost/benefit be of taking all those guns away from the law abiding?

      • forgotten_man

        well, you are possibly right about the deterrent effect as the violent crime rate in the UK is highrt, substantially, than the US.

        “Peter Frohwein Liberanos • 2 hours ago
        In the UK there are 776 violent crimes per 100,000 people. …The US has a violent crime rate of 466 violent crimes per 100,000 residents.”

        However, the cost of reducing the violent crime rate down to US levels is to have more of the reduced number actually dying!

        The UK population is approximately 1/4 of the US so the UK equivalent annual number is around…..150….

        So the simple absence of availiable hardware makes the maximum rate here 1% of the US …even with the assistance of the DGUs.

        The count is 77 with 140 injured in the last 72 hours in case you are interested…
        http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/export-finished?filename=public%3A//export-a0cddbe9-befa-4f64-969a-82d04cc81d76.csv&uuid=1e1fc646-a270-420e-8b41-3f497794831f&return_href=last-72-hours

        • Neil

          “However, the cost of reducing the violent crime rate down to US levels is to have more of the reduced number actually dying!”

          What? Reducing violent crime rates results in MORE deaths? How do you figure?

          • forgotten_man

            Not hard really.
            Not sure what the difficulty is…

            in the UK , say 100 violent crimes wont equal 100 deaths , may be, say , 5 say.

            In the US , say, there are 50 fewer because 50 have been deterred by someone with a gun.

            So far , so good!

            of the other 50, because they all have access to efficient guns instead of having to use medieval bats, knives and fists 25 die.

            so you have half the violent crime instances and 5 times the mortality rate.

            The numbers are plainly to illustrate the point and indeed are understating the real ratio.

          • Neil

            There’s a big problem with that logic. As I said, in the vast majority (about 92%) of DGUs, the gun is only used to scare off the attacker. That is, no one even gets shot. Even in the remaining (about 8%) of cases in which the attacker is actually shot, only 1 in 1000 actually dies. So in roughly 99.992% of DGUs, no one dies.

            Yes, guns are much more efficient at killing than bats, knives, etc. It should be unsurprising then, that this is the very reason why most of the time, the mere threat of a gun is sufficient to end an attack. So the assertion that the mortality rate would be higher, is entirely unconvincing.

      • forgotten_man

        Responding to your reply that hasn’t shown up on this page.

        In my description I gave the violent crimes deterred a zero mortality rate so you are a bit more pessimistic than I.

        Of the ones not deterred, for whatever reason, the mortality rate is around 12,000/y which is, pro rata, about 100 times the UK.

        Major difference…very hard to get firearms, even illegally.

        Interestingly, since the big ho ha about certain people being ‘profiled’ for searches, and fewer searches taking place, the knife death rate has accelerated considerably….

  • Good advice in that last paragraph, Laura. Some that we often give, as well. And many are taking it, else why would you be able to buy many models in pink, now. Certainly doesn’t go well with my wardrobe. 🙂

  • Partridge

    So what happened to the well-regulated militia?

    • Right where it always has been, all able bodied citizens between 18 and 45, sometimes with both ends stretched, and now the inclusion of women. We have pretty much always restricted it to non-felons, however.

    • therealguyfaux ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

      It is conceded by all but the most vehement anti-gun people that the fair interpretation of that phraseology, based on what the American Founding Fathers were working with on the ground, and their understanding of what the rights of citizens are and had been under colonial rule, is that the 2A means, “In order that a militia which conforms to the Laws of War [what we today would consider Geneva Convention norms like a command structure and identifiability of combatants as such] may be formed, the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.”

    • Neil

      It’s defined in 10 U.S.C Section 311. It’s more or less all able bodied adult citizens, as well as those who intend to become citizens. So even IF we accepted the idea that the 2nd Amendment applied only to the militia, that would still include almost everyone.

      • Pase’ Doble

        I love quoting 10USC311-313 to some younger city folks when they blanch at the word militia…. I then offer to help them select their personal firearm and help with training… hehehe, they turn whit as a ghost.

    • Laura Perrins

      Partridge, I’m looking forward to the second series, and I know it will feature a militia and I am pretty sure that militia will be armed.

  • Liberanos

    Annual gun deaths US: 39,000
    Annual gun deaths UK: 37

    • Peter Frohwein

      In the UK there are 776 violent crimes per 100,000 people. …The US has a violent crime rate of 466 violent crimes per 100,000 residents.

      • Dant e

        I would be interested to know what the rates were 20yrs ago

      • I didn’t know that, but have now made a note of it. Actually, I thought we were about equal, although in America we may be more lethal.

    • Ulyssees

      Pretty sure the clitoridectomy, honor-killing, and teen sex abuse (a la Rotherham) rates in the UK dwarf those in the U.S. I’ll take our issues and my right to bear arms–they can keep theirs.

    • Tyler Ward

      The UK has a fraction of the population of the US, and even when u could freely buy a gun in the UK, “gun deaths” were still far lower than that of the US. So in otherwords, gun crime in the UK has always been far lower than in the US. Not to mention that 20,000 of the annual gun deaths in the United States are suicides, not murders. In conclusion, the numbers you have cited here lack context, are misleading, and do not tell the whole story.

  • Ms Thomas

    Except in The HandMaid’s Tale all women are oppressed

    • Tyler Ward

      Lol, did u not read the article? They r oppressed because they had no means of self defense

  • StopIslamofascism

    It works great in America but… “the widespread keeping of arms in the UK would be an unmitigated disaster”

    Are you saying UK citizens are not as capable as Americans at keeping control of their firearms? What is different? Itchier trigger fingers?

    • forgotten_man

      The violent crime rate here is actually higher than the US per whatever unit.
      If we had american gun levels we almost certainly would have american death rates…possibly more.
      I’m sad to say..

    • Pase’ Doble

      Cultural differences more than anything. A large portion of our country has been raised around firearms. Many of my friends have rifles and pistols/revolvers from their g-g-grandparents. They use them for hunting or sport shooting regularly, stress regularly. They belong to shooting clubs, hunting camps and other groups that practice with firearms as a routine matter. Living a life w/o firearms would be unthinkable, it would earn you the side eye. Having said all that, it would be wonderful to see more countries that solidified arms as a natural right, particularly the UK.

      • Yep, and for most of us they came with a very serious lecture on the damage they could do. The very first round out of my new rifle (for my tenth birthday, I was a ridiculously conscientious kid) was fired by dad, a .22 std velocity hollow point into a watermelon. I can still see that watermelon exploding. It also carried the warning that the rifle would go away forever if misused. I believed him. It is a culture thing, although some of my nieces have become carriers also, even if raised in the Philadelphia suburbs. Now when I’m out for Christmas, we go shooting.

        • Pase’ Doble

          Of all the people I’ve met and places I’ve been, the firearms enthusiasts I randomly meet at ranges on a good sunny day are some of the best. A good sunny day with low wind of course 🙂

          • They are, and it’s really funny sometimes when some open minded neophyte shows up, often enough, anymore, a woman. They end up having more fun than I suspect they ever did before, and really enjoying the company. Always helps to have low, or at least steady, wind. And if you really want to see them wide eyed, take them someplace where they can fire a title 3 weapon. Well, me too, as long as I’m not buying the ammunition! 🙂

      • Dr. Heath

        Wonderful? Nightmare, you mean.

        • AngularMerkilled

          In your opinion. But it’s fine. You don’t need to own a gun. It wont ever be mandatory.

      • StopIslamofascism

        Very true. A long time ago it used to be standard for most English people to know how to use a bow. Gun ownership can also become cultural too. In fact, it might even become a necessity very soon.

    • Dr. Heath

      The arming of civilian populations around the world, the US included, has proved an unmitigated disaster. Gun ownership in Japan has been almost entirely eliminated and penalties are draconian for breaking the laws there. I don’t think anyone in Japan finds this unacceptable. There are plenty of ways in which people can defend their property that do not keeping in their homes fifty-calibre handguns or, worse by far, military spec assault rifles.

      If people like to play with guns, they should be perhaps allowed to do so to their hearts’ content outside of cities and with the weapons they own under the strictest control. None of us is allowed to own TNT or chemical or biological weapons on the pretext that these might help us defend against child molesters or burglars. Arguments that we need massively powerful army equipment to do this is insane, as the citizens of Canada, Japan and the UK are largely aware.

      • Colonel Mustard

        You’d soon change your tune if you and your family living in rural isolation became the victims of a violent home invasion and any police help was at least two hours away.

    • Dr. Heath

      I don’t reckon the UK population will be, as lunatics in the States imagine it ought to be, armed any day soon with any sort of weapons beyond what they more deranged amongst them can find in their kitchen cutlery drawers. Life in a city where scores of thousands of weapons are floating around, many of them owned by borderline-psychotics, the emotionally handicapped, drunks and potheads is, to most people here, the epitome of a very bad nightmare. A few people have firearms certificates for rifles and shotguns [farmers, gun club target shooters] but the overwhelming majority of people would no more want neighbours with Desert Eagles and 450 rpm assault rifles than they’d want Dracula or whackjob crazies with dynamite next door.

  • Dan Daniels

    The truth of the matter is that more people in the U.S. defend themselves with a gun each year than are victimized by people with guns. Don’t take my word for it, ask the CDC.
    http://www.nationalacademies.org/hmd/Reports/2013/Priorities-for-Research-to-Reduce-the-Threat-of-Firearm-Related-Violence.aspx

    The truth of the matter is that gun control is counterproductive. Don’t take my word for it, ask Harvard.
    http://www.theacru.org/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/

    The truth of the matter is that the crime rate, including “gun crimes” and gun homicides is at a 30 year low (in the U.S.) despite the sunset of the “assault weapon ban”, liberalized concealed carry, steady gun ownership, stand your ground laws, and ignoring the DEMANDS of the “gun control lobby”.

    Everyday U.S. leadership has an opportunity to look at the root causes of crime and violence such as poverty and lack of opportunity and education, the War on Drugs, our revolving door justice system including plea deals, as well as mental health and the role of SSRI drugs and enact policies to address these issues.

    It’s time for America to move on from “gun control”.

    It’s time to remove any politician that won’t.

    • Dr. Heath

      Would you advocate mass gun ownership, say, for the populations of Japan, Canada or the United Kingdom, places where the murder rate is a very tiny fraction of what it is in the US?

      • Phil R

        There are certain communities in Britain that, depite being smaller than 15% of the population are responsible for 50% of the crime. That puts the crime rate in these areas way above US levels.

        • Dr. Heath

          How is this an answer to my question?

          • Phil R

            Averages are just averages. They hide huge crime rates in some areas.

      • Dan Daniels

        As far as I’m concerned every Right in the U.S. Bill of Rights are Rights of all people. Every law abiding person on the planet should be able to exercise their Rights. Also, Canadians already own a lot of guns.

    • Phil R

      I agree, drugs both perscribed and illegal are the main issues.

      Clearly no-one should be able to own a gun under the age of 25, if they have mental health issues (even minor), take drugs (or has taken drugs in the past), been expelled from school and I would also add is unemployed.

  • SteadyOn

    It’s a crap show – not least in terms of its cinematography. I’m sorry, it’s simply a question of taste.

    Guns or no guns, we’ll fight.

  • DespiteBrexit

    I don’t support a right to bear arms (at least, I don’t think I do) but it does of course tilt the balance in favour of the criminal. It may be time to allow people once again to bear at least non-lethal, mainly defensive weapons, such as pepper spray. It might have given the poor sods on London Bridge and in Borough Market a bit of chance.

    • Phil R

      “poor sods on London Bridg”

      How is pepper spray going to stop a guy in a car?

      .44 magnum or even better a .50 Desert Eagle.

      My father used to test these guns for the MOD. With the right rounds a small entry hole in the body becomes a massive exit hole as the round does its work. You don’t even need to hit the guy anywhere vital for it to do it job, just hit the body somewhere.

      They are called “man stoppers” in the US I am told.

      I could have done with one of these in Africa (see below) and they would give you some protection against street vilolence here, particularly if a group of you were armed.

  • Phil R

    A lot of comments here about the fact that the UK is “safer” than the US and we do not need guns etc.

    I live in rural Wales. Crime is rare, very rare. However, my daughter who is 8 and blond, loves to play in our garden. My wife has noticed a few cars slow down and a couple of occasions actually stop on quiet road past our house and men in the cars are clearly looking at our daughter play and growing things in our garden which gently slopes away from the road and so much of it is visible.

    At the cost of many £1000s (since it is a very big garden), we now have an 9 foot fence around our garden made of 2 inch thick timber and stout locks on all doors. I now understand why old country houses had 12ft walls around their estates!

    We don’t like dogs but a big dog (to live in our garden) might be the next purchase

    • Colonel Mustard

      There was of course an innocent and perfectly natural delight in watching the joy of children at play before the hysteria that all men have predatory instincts. I think you are wise to exercise caution but we are in a sorry state if every man who looks at a child is suspected of malevolent sexual intent. And unfortunately we are in that sorry state.

      • Phil R

        In a nearby village we were “honoured” to be given paedophile who was given a “new life” after “prison” and “treatment”.

        Taxpayer funded of course but hey houses and rents are reasonably cheap here in Wales.

        We were not told, but some of the women were concerned, that he was a bit odd. I was in Germany at the time, but I think he was “unmasked” by the Daily Mail list or similar.

        Now everyone is suspect, because we are not told who is/was a paedophile.

        Like witches of old in reverse. Every single man is suspect.

  • logdon

    Seattle introduces gun tax.

    Gun crime doubles.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AsOCVD5TAas&feature=em-subs_digest-vrecs

    • And tax receipts go down. When you interfere with a market you always create a black market.

  • chizwoz

    Good article. Although you should’ve gone into more detail on why you think it’s good for the US but not the UK.
    I’d ideally like the UK to decentralise to more local government in the future as well. The only permanent difference between the 2 is the size of the countries. The US often has a more legitimate argument for self-defence because of how much of the country is detached from reliable police protection.

  • wisestreligion

    The Government needs to be more afraid of the British people. At present they are terrified of Muslims and they pander to every demand they make and to every demand they think Muslims might make. They are also terrified of the liberal broadcast media and are concerned to voice approved PC responses in any interview. The British people, on the other hand, can be pushed around and have centuries-old freedoms removed, all justified in the name of Equality or Diversity.

    Reading Douglas Murray’s excellent book on the Strange Death of Europe, I am beginning to think it would have been better if the government of the day had been more afraid of the National Front in the 1960s. The working-class aggression to immigrants might have seemed ugly but it revealed deep, national loyalties which ultimately we ignore at our peril. How much happier a country would we now have if, instead of choosing Heath, the Conservative Party had opted for Powell with his instinct for the natural tribal feelings that we are told to suppress.

    Remember 1642. The British rose up against a ruler who overstepped his authority – authority which is derived from the people and from God. 368 years after the demise of King Charles should we erect another scaffold at Whitehall, just as a reminder and warning to our ruling elite?

    • Well, Banqueting Hall is still there waiting.

      • wisestreligion

        And Oliver Cromwell’s statue stands prominently outside the House of Commons. That should in itself serve as the required reminder to those of our rulers who would disrespect Britons and their freedom. But we have grown used to it since its erection in 1899.