One of the issues which brings out a stark contrast in opinions between Americans and our cousins in Britain is the issue of the American ‘right to bear arms,’, per our Second Amendment.
I see that Theresa May, British Prime Minister, is now lecturing Americans, attempting to shame or browbeat us into adopting restrictions on firearms, along the lines of the British laws. With all due respect, she should keep her opinions to herself. Britain itself is not the safe country it once was, and the allegedly ‘conservative’ Ms May should clean up her own backyard before meddling in the affairs of other countries. Didn’t the pakistani Mayor of London recently tell his constituents that violence/terror attacks were ”part and parcel of life in a big city” in the current year?
I don’t agree with Khan’s cavalier attitude about violence, or his blasé acceptance of danger as normal. In a civilized society that kind of violence — or the kind of violence we have here in the U.S., should not be acceptable.
It’s well-known by most people, at least most people who are not deluded leftists, that countries which have gun control (Canada and Britain for example) are not peaceful utopias as the gun control advocates want us to believe.
“Areas of higher gun ownership rates correlate with areas of lower rates of violent crime, and areas with strict gun laws correlate with areas high in violent crime [source: Malcolm].
Does this mean that guns prevent crime? Not necessarily. After all, the most violent areas are also the most likely to pass stringent gun laws. It’s a chicken-and-egg problem: Which came first, the violent crime or the gun laws? There’s no simple answer. It does appear that high gun-ownership density does not imply high rates of violent crime, and that stringent gun controls do not reduce murder rates across the board [sources: Kates and Mauser; Liptak; Luo]”
I have found in discussing this issue with British people that many of them are vehement about gun control; they believe their country is better and more civilized by having such restrictions, and conversely that Americans are backward and barbaric because in general, most of us strongly support our right to bear arms and to act in self-defense should the need arise. Many of our British kinsmen can’t or won’t understand our point of view, and get visibly irate at our insistence on our right to bear arms. To be fair there are English people (and people in the rest of Britain) who are dissident rightists, English nationalists (yes, they do exist) and others. They would like to see their right to bear arms reinstated and their right to self-defense recognized, not punished, as in the case of Tony Martin, a British farmer imprisoned for shooting a burglar in his house.
But Britain was not always a pacifistic, gun-phobic country. In times past gun ownership, if only for sport, gun ownership was widespread.
The piece linked above gives us a good summary of how Britain was disarmed.
“In 1900 the British government trusted the people with firearms and to be their own guardians. Prime Minister Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, the Marquess of Salisbury said he would “laud the day when there was a rifle in every cottage in England”. However in 1903 Britain passed its first ever “gun control” law, a minor one requiring a permit to carry a handgun and restricting the age of purchasers. It was the first toe over a slippery slope towards complete firearms prohibition.”
It was done gradually, incrementally, over the space of decades, starting around the turn of the 20th century and continuing unto the present day. We can learn a lesson from what happened in Britain: beware of these little restrictions that too often lead towards a complete ban. The leftists always work this way, although in recent times it seems that they are impatient and are speeding up their efforts to eliminate our freedoms. It seems they are feeling emboldened and are ready to stop soft-pedaling their agenda and to drop any pretense of being ‘moderate’ or reasonable.
Sadly it seems that decades of socialist/leftist programming has changed the traditional attitudes of the English/British people so that they actively oppose their time-honored freedoms in many cases, and they truly don’t understand why we Americans want to retain ours.
“One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offense to keep arms.” – Constitutional scholar and Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, 1840
The English love of liberty is often alluded to by many idealistic writers; I once thought that we are our father’s progeny and that the love of liberty was part of our genetic inheritance. Our American Founding Fathers, aware of their English ancestry, spoke of the ‘rights of Englishmen’ as part of their birthright. Now if only the English could shake off the leftist programming and determine to reclaim their rights as Englishmen.
But our English cousins, like us, lack good leadership. There seems to be no political party that represents the rightful people of England or Britain, just as White Americans have no political party that truly represents us and defends our interests. We have no leadership worthy of the name; no charismatic statesmen or orators, no ‘Grey Champions.’
Just as with Americans, I think what is needed for the British is to reclaim their history and their identity as a people; as the rightful heirs of Britain and not as second-class subjects in a multicultural, polyglot globalist province.
Disarming a people does something to their spirit and psyche, I think. The following quote is from a British republican tract, Political Disquisitions, published in 1774:
“No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave.”
And Joel Barlow said this, of disarming the citizenry, that it
“…has a double effect, it palsies the hand and brutalizes the mind: a habitual disuse of physical forces totally destroys the moral [force]; and men lose at once the power of protecting themselves, and of discerning the cause of their oppression. ” from Advice to the Privileged Orders, 1792-93