Monday, May 5, 2008

The British called, they want their guns back

A little bit too late tough...

This should serve as a warning to all freedom loving Americans. Before pulling the lever this coming November, remember: both Hillary and Obama support draconian gun laws aimed not at criminals (because criminals don't obey the laws anyway), but at law abiding citizens.

Also see my latest posts on gun control:
-The Clinton Gun Ban Story And A Warning For The Next President
-Chicago: Pediatric Doctors Call For Strict Gun Control As Murder Rate Approaches Records
-Gun free zone, it really works! (hillarious video, show it to your liberal friend)
-Charlton Heston: Today I want to talk to you about guns


Edelweiss said...

That video sent chills down my back, especially the man at the end who quoted Pericles--"Freedom is only for those who have the guts to defend it". That is a rapidly-dwindling group in this nation, even though our fore-fathers went to the trouble to specifically articulate our right to bear arms. Those had to be some of the wisest and most prescient men who ever breathed on planet earth. At least, thanks to them, we have a nail with which to hammer our cause, unlike the Brits.But all the words in the Constitution won't matter if we the people won't have the strength to defend them. Too many are apathetic, and that's what the politicians are counting on, just as they did in Britain.

Archana said...

It is horrible that a man has to be punished for defending himself! It is as if the law is saying let criminals rob, rape, and kill you! What about a man's right to protect his home and family? I personally don't liek gus, but we have one in our home and if I had to use it to defend myself, I would not think twice.

Anonymous said...

We freedom loving Americans stand with you freedom loving British. Time to take back your liberty

wstpwstp said...

Interesting in the sense that this is a slickly produced manipulative piece of propaganda - full of misleading information, logical sleight of hand, bait and switch etc etc.

Tony Martin, I gather from this film, shot and killed an unarmed teenager who had broken into his house. Yes -- the teenager was in the wrong. Very Wrong. However -- In Britain, mechanisms exist to deal with this sort of thing. They may not be perfect, they may not be macho, but they exist. Mr. Martin COULD HAVE run like a girl after telephoning the police to report a crime in progress. Perhaps the burglars would have taken his favorite things away with them, but, if the system worked as it was intended, those criminals would have been apprehended and brought to justice. Mr Martin would have gotten his stolen property back, the criminals would have gone to jail and no one would have died. Mr Martin, scared though he may have been, chose to shoot and kill a child (legally that 16 year old person was a child) who had made a dreadful mistake and and a very bad decision. This film plays down the angle that deadly force was used to protect 'stuff' from being taken. If these criminals had confronted Mr Martin with guns drawn, the video would certainly have mentioned that fact. 

Does a person have the right to shoot and kill if his property is in jeopardy? Burglary is a crime. Does he have the right to shoot and kill trespassers? Trespassing is a crime.

The video makes the case that disarming the general population did not reduce the number of 'gun crimes' in the country but seems to suggest that there is a connection between those two isolated facts. If 'gun crimes' or any other crimes have gone up in the UK - that is a failing of the police force - one that should be addressed and corrected. There's no proof whatsoever that, had the population retained their handguns, crime rates would have dropped. Following this 'logic' - would handing out guns to every single person then reduced crime to the lowest levels ever?

Shall we compare the number of gun related deaths in the UK to those in the USA?

 Gun deaths per 100,000 population (for the year indicated): 
USA:(2001) 3.98 (homicide) 5.92 (suicide) 0.36 (other)
England/Wales: (2002) 0.15 (homicide) 0.2 (suicide) 0.03 (other)

In 2005 the USA had 30,694 deaths by firearms.

The outlawing of fox hunting is somehow linked to hand gun ownership. English people do not hunt foxes with hand guns, or any guns for that matter. Foxes are chased down and torn to pieces by packs of dogs. No guns involved. This is an animal cruelty issue being compared to a gun issue.  Apples and oranges. This is probably here to fool American hunters into thinking that their rights to hunt deer or ducks is being threatened.

The YouTube page states:
This should serve as a warning to all freedom loving Americans. Before pulling the lever this coming November, remember: both Hillary and Obama support draconian gun laws aimed not at criminals (because criminals don't obey the laws anyway), but at law abiding citizens.
 This video suggests that 'all freedom loving Americans' should vote Republican. No presidential candidate has suggested that Americans be forced to turn in pistols, rifles, or shotguns, not Obama, not Clinton, not McCain or any other candidate.
 There may be some suggestions that people with mental illness or criminal records be barred from buying guns.
The idiot who shot people at Seattle's Folk Life Festival was schizophrenic and on mood altering drugs. He failed to mention that when he got his permit to carry a concealed weapon. Maybe providing proof of mental health might not be a bad idea before allowing mental patients to walk the streets with loaded guns.

I'm not necessarily anti-gun, but I do resent this sort of attempt to manipulate people. If someone has an opinion on guns, state it, don't jerk people around with this sort of mind game.

glenn said...

Letting the authorities deal with robbery is about as asinine as saying adopting a cute puppy helps stop animal abuse. Whats to say that unarmed teenager didnt go down to a dark corner, buy a gun, and shoot you and your unarmed family. Anyone who doesnt believe in self preservation is an idiot.

Anonymous said...

wstpwstp is am idiot. It is because of people like that that we will lose our freedom. I am sending this to everyone I know.

Tinker45 said...

"wstpwstp" is obviously a liberal who does not own a firearm. In EVERY case in history where the government took away the people's right to bear arms, crime went up and the government gained more power over citizens it could not protect and that could not protect themselves. Think about it. Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Japan (WW2), and most recently Australia and england are suffering from more violence after taking guns away from it's citizens. wstpwstp needs to read the federalist papers and the documents by the founding fathers of our great country. In fact, wstpwstp would not have the freedom to speak his mind (which I think he should even if I disagree) if it was not for this country bearing arms against the British. WAKE UP! The second amendment is just as important as any other to a free country. The solution is more dterrence to crime, not taking guns away from law abiding citizens! Come in to my house to committ a crime and you will meet Mr. Glock I assure you! The fault lies with the criminals not those who were peacefully enjoying the solitutde of thier own homes! We can NEVERF allow the government to take our guns or any of our freedoms guranteed us by our consitution! We all need to realize this and stop being apathetic and think the government is capable of protecting us! I am sending this to my entire maililist as well!!

wstpwstp said...

Thanks for the thoughtful response (unlike glenn and bill07407 whose coments are kind of bone headed) Yes, I am a liberal and not a gun owner. But, NOWHERE in my post, do I suggest that Americans should be denied their right to bear arms, or support the idea of the US Government confiscating guns. Just to set the record straight. I have lots of respect for the US Constitution. The UK has the right to make their own laws, and right or wrong, thousands of people there are in favor of very strict gun laws.

I DO think that laws should exist to control access to guns and how they are used.

I have no objection to a sane adult owning a gun after mastering basic gun safety and legally obtaining a license.

It's like driving a car -- cars are useful, handy tools. However, in the wrong hands, a car is a deadly weapon that can be used to kill innocent people. Driving a car requires training and a license and sanity. When cars first were popularized a drivers license was as easy to get as a fishing license -- no test, no training, no requirements. Just plunk down a few dollars and away you go.

I don't believe that there is a god given right to drive cars and that anyone who can afford to buy a car should be allowed to drive it on the public roadways without jumping through all the hoops to help ensure public safety. Same thing with airplanes, for that matter.

I don't believe that any yahoo with cash and a copy of the Constitution in his pocket has the right to buy a gun and shoot anyone he wants whenever he gets scared or angry.

It's all a trade off -- responsibility for one's actions. You get a car to take you places etc. If you get drunk or scared or angry and run over someone with that car, you must assume responsibility for your act.

Mr Martin bought his gun and got a feeling of security from it. He got scared and killed a stupid kid. Maybe he could have scared him off with a warning shot, maybe he could have been a better shot and only wounded the kid. But, he killed him and must take responsibility for his action. That's the trade off for his feeling more secure. Maybe he could have gotten a little feeling of security by buying a can of Mace instead of a gun and still have driven off the burglars.

Yes - he was the victim of a crime, but his response was death-dealing, and there's a price for that. Had these guys attacked Mr Martin with a sword or a chain saw, the law would have allowed him to take a life to defend his life. To kill another human being to defend your television set -- not so much.

In the other case I mentioned, a mental patient waltzed into the local sheriff's office and walked out with a concealed weapon permit. The Sheriff's excuse was that the mental patient didn't mention that he was a mental patient at the time. This guy ended up shooting several people at a public festival filled with thousands of innocent people. Might have been MUCH worse.

Shouldn't there be a system that actually prevents this sort of thing from happening? In the UK, a person applying for a gun permit must submit two letters from responsible members of his community vouching for the applicant's character. Maybe that's not ideal, but it would probably stopped the mental patient from arming himself so easily.

My post was mostly about that crappy propaganda film. I wonder who produced it - the NRA or the NRC?

Jet-Eye said...

When a bleeding heart thinks that running out of one's own house is the right course of action to protect one's 'stuff' then it should be remembered that no-one knows the motivation of the burglar. Is it the stuff he is after, or an innocent life. As far as the death of the 16 year-old, that individual made the choice that breaking into a house was more important than his own life. Too bad. One less criminal out ruining others' lives as I see it.

sniper said...

I'll go one step further than bill07407, wstpwstp is a fucking, blithering idiot! Who cares who produced it? It's right on. You pansies have us gun toters to protect your sorry asses - so go have a latte & feel secure.

sniper said...

hey wstpwstp...I'll go one step further than bill07407, wstpwstp is a fucking, blithering idiot! Who cares who produced it? It's right on. You pansies have us gun toters to protect your sorry asses - so go have a latte & feel secure.

WolfMoon472 said...

Nix the fox hunting; it's barbaric! Give the Brits back their guns. I'll bet the Gov't didn't even pay them for the weapons in question. It is kind of slick to use a fox hunting demo to complain about gun loss, when they don't even use guns for it. They just let the dogs do the dirty work. Isn't that a little like dog-fighting, with the sides loaded? (oh yeah, I'm VERY opposed to that-it's for cowards and serial killers as entertainment). Tinker45 has a point; at my house, you'll meet Mr Ruger, Mr Smith and Mr Wesson (a lovely pair), Mr Winchester, Mr Moss, etc. Actually, I rather like the idea of running a human over hill and dale, then finding him. I'm sure you pull one out from somewhere.

jlg said...

wstpwstp said, "I have no objection to a sane adult owning a gun after mastering basic gun safety and legally obtaining a license."

Let's apply that idea to a reserved right other than the one covered by the Second Amendment. Start with the First:

"I have no objection to a sane adult operating a printing press after mastering basic English and legally obtaining a license to speak freely."

"I have no objection to a sane adult being religious, after attending a government-run course on tolerance, and as long as his church is legally licensed."

"I have no objection to sane adults associating together, after they have submitted their fingerprints to the FBI for background checks, informed local law enforcement that they are associating, and their group is legally licensed with the state."


"I have no objection to sane adults maintaining their privacy, after submitting a video montage containing their daily life routine, along with a list of their possessions, to the state, and obtaining approval for keeping these things private."

Or how about the Fifth?

"I have no objection to a sane adult refusing to incriminate himself of a crime, as long as he has fully informed the state of his actual state of innocence or guilt, and has legally obtained a Non-Self-Incrimination license."

Is any of this starting to make sense?

john said...

Let's just look at the comments from wstpwstp, you will see that liberal logic is birdbath deep and twice as filthy :

I don't believe that any yahoo with cash and a copy of the Constitution in his pocket has the right to buy a gun and shoot anyone he wants whenever he gets scared or angry.

Yes, I am a liberal and not a gun owner.

This is the kind of retarded thinking that falls forth from a liberals mouth as a brilliant idea. Let's just parse our comrades first dictum, yes you can own a gun with just cash and the constitution because........the constitution says so (you gibbering idiot). Once again we must parse the twisted verses and logic of the cloudy liberal brain to ordain the true depths of stupidity : This person did not shoot "just anyone he wanted", he shot an invader in his house and his intent was not known because he assumed room temperature before he could continue with his rudimentary business model. We don't know if he was a burglar, rapist, vandal or someone who simply steals the man's porridge and dashes the contents on the cobblestone roads of Britain....thus making him a cereal killer. Anger or fear can be interchangeable in such situations and are not the catalyst of the process but instead the byproduct of it.

Admitting you are a liberal negates the need for stating "not a gun owner", oxymoron. It's like stating that I am welfare recipient and own cold fusion technology or particle accelerators as a hobby.

Now to analysis a statement so profoundly stupid that simply by reading it should negate the need to critique the cavernous holes of logic.

Maybe he could have scared him off with a warning shot, maybe he could have been a better shot and only wounded the kid.

It's like trying to explain physics to a gerbil but the honor will be in the attempt :

So the mere presence of the handgun itself was not enough for this poor innocent child of nature to flee into the lush green landscape like Bambi, he needed to hear the thunderous roar of a hand cannon to perceive that mortal danger was present. Better yet, you are to shoot up your own house first or sling shell into the atmosphere and put some other shmuck in London in the path of an "incoming" rather than drilling the miscreant where he stands. Now for my favorite, where should I have wounded him? In the fleshy part of his head since so little is being used for thought? How about in the liver, a lifetime of dialysis would provide invaluable lessons in life, no....messy and someone has to pay for the dialysis. How about a nice leg shot? Well unless it hits a major artery in the leg and he bleeds out like a deer, guess that plan has more holes in it than a liberals skull. By the time a liberal has even made a decision to defend his silly house the thief has pawned the goods, copped a bag, got a bottle of malt liquor, has a mind numbing good buzz going and is coming back around to get the big screen TV that is playing the coronation of the ObaMessiah.

Madison said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Madison said...

wstpwstp...admit're a conservative AND a gun owner just pretending to be a retarded liberal? right? surely you can see the fundamental and terrifying flaws in your patriot logic?

Or has some creature like you really been produced after all these decades of intense communistic aka liberal, media culture brainwashing?
The ideal liberal citizen...a sheep

Liberals have this horrific fear of is so obvious when talking to them about gun ownership, they always launch into these "well thought out" monologues about gun deaths and all the "bad things" about guns and if nobody had guns there wouldn't be any death by guns...this is known as "tortured logic"

so perhaps the easiest way to snap the poor liberal bastards out of their trance is to replace "gun" with an equally deadly (dead is dead) thing...

so here you go...

1. In America everyday someone is injured in an accident involving a knife...

2. In America everyday someone is robbed, raped or murdered by someone using a knife...

3. Mass murders have been committed by people using a knife...

4. People who are crazy should not be allowed to own a knife...

5. You don't need a knife to hunt deer...

Therefore, according to the truly stupid ill-logic that is the apex of modern liberal thought...that means it's the best "argument" they can come up with...

People should not be allowed to own knives

Now let's hear all the "apples and oranges" arguments...they never get it do they? They just cannot.

That an adult man can even utter such an absurd argument as "he could have ran away" from the men who broke into his home, is evidence that at least one man in this country has been intellectually neutered by the bizarro freakshow feminist sheocracy that has become accepted as American culture

Madison said...

wstpwstp said:
My post was mostly about that crappy propaganda film. I wonder who produced it - the NRA or the NRC?"

crappy propaganda?

The Brits want there guns back PERIOD...doesn't matter what the video production was about you sniveling idiot

You think people have to be tricked into wanting common sense?

No moron, the people doing the propaganda are the liberal media
but YOU have an "issue" with a video about the largest rally in British history and whether IT was propaganda?

You are absolutely the most gutbuckety stupid, lame brained person I have ever come across ever!

You cannot be serious?

It might actually be a good thing that you are airing out your retarded liberalism online here for all to see...that way we don't have to put words into liberals came right out and argued in the most perfect liberal way possible...

so thanks really

eds777 said...

I'm always amazed at the number of people who are unable to see that crime is a direct result of an individual's lack of an internalized moral code. Without this internal moral code, morality must be enforced externally, like police for example, or my guns.

In the U.S., the saying goes that when seconds count, police are only minutes away. This is but one of the reasons why I arm myself.

Recently in the U.S., it was ruled that people do not have a Constitutional right to local police protection. This is another of the reasons why I arm myself.

According to the Virginia Citizens Defense League, 2.5 million crimes attempted against American citizens nationwide have been interrupted by armed citizens . . . another of the reasons why I arm myself.

I'm absolutely certain that I will remain personally armed at all times, until either I die, or Jesus returns!

Pat said...

Hi - Just read the bit on Tony Martin. Yes he was wrong however in the middle of the night in the dark he should have got the benefit of the doubt.

On the crime figures - I am a Brit living in Wyoming. Everyone has guns here - more guns than people in fact. Most people carry a knife of some sort too. However violent crime and murder per 100,000 population is less than Shire counties in England according to the 2006 figures. Manchester Longsight & Hulme though have a higher murder rate per 100,000 than Washington DC - guns are not allowed in either city.

huey212 said...

I am also British and living in the US 5 years (and a few other places along the way) and I am a gun owner / collector and freqaunt shooter. I was one of the very small number of shooters in the UK pre ban. The ban was an over reaction to a horrible school killing in Scotland. How ever, there is a complete under reaction in the US to the same things. I really can’t listen to the banal comments of news anchors as they report yet another school massacre. I am not for a ban, but let’s face it, your average small dicked nut case who does Robert Deniro-esque imitations in front of the mirror, has neither the guts nor field craft to carry out such an assault with a knife.

The title and content of the video is total B.S . WSTPWSTP was correct about the mislead in the article. The Brit’s aren’t even worried about the lack of “hand cannons” because we (the legal shooters) didn’t make up even a tenth of one percent of the population. The people on the march were trying to reverse the fox hunt ban, which is just for the arse hole aristocracy who like to trample your crops and bust your fences with their f#####ng hunt horses to rip a fox apart. The hunt ban is over whelmingly supported by the democratic public. These people banging on about apathy etc also are a very, very small group who work in that industry. To say they represent the majority or even a sizable porion of it is absolute junk.It is such a hack job. That journalist (I am being generous with that term) stated that the man who is suing Tony Martin is using tax payers dollars. We don’t use dollars; we have pound sterling (the first currency ever to be printed). Does the journalist not know this herself, or just think that the American public is too dim to understand. What an insult.

I was in the UK during the Tony Martin case. What happened to him was wrong, very wrong. How ever a lot of the sting was because he wasn’t defending himself or his loved ones. The little shit was climbing OUT of the window to get away, hence no threat. He was shot in the back. I feel for the people in the rural areas, who really have no police cover.

Also, please stop whining about your freedom. If you are worried about freedom, look at your patriot act (the UK (Britain) has the public order act), not gun control. That is a freedom killer. There are lots of subtle ways your freedom is being truly eroded. Buying a gun isn’t freedom. If you have to have some measure of suitability or criminal check before buying a gun, so what. I am a foreigner, but walk out with loaded kit with no checks. What a farce. I have heard several people I shoot with, say they would choose their voting preference based on who was more lenient to gun owners. Come on, guns are a lot of fun and legitimate tool in many ways, but it’s just a tool or a sport. If I said I was voting based on the candidate who was most in supportive of table tennis, you would think I’d been in the sun too long.
As a previous Brit mentioned, are a couple of real hotspots in the UK, where there are an increasing number of gun deaths. It is very limited. I would suggest that the increase in armed police is largely due to anti terrorism measures as well as gangs, Jamacan yardies, Russian mafia in particular. The hard facts are that if you look at comparable non armed populations, the gun death rate is really small. 1994 England, Scotland and Wales had rates of about 0.5 per 100,000, Germany 1.57, Japan 0.07 compared to 15.22 in the US.
(Firearm-related deaths in the United States
and 35 other high- and upper-middleincome
EG Krug, KE Powell and LL Dahlberg )

More guns do not make us more safe. Don’t ban them, but have some filter for the small dicked wackos.

Transsylvania Phoenix said...


Here is what I just wrote to UK's Guardian editor after he published an article calling the US Second Amendment "a law made by people who believed the Earth is flat". My email applies to the contribution you made on my blog as well:

"A little about me: I was born and raised in a communist country in Eastern Europe. At the age of 36 I emigrated to America. Living in both systems, I think I have a little bit of insight on the subject.

I have to agree with the author: guns are making the society less safe.
I mean, I can clearly remember how wonderfully safe everybody felt under the communist dictatorship, when only the army and the police thugs who were keeping the population under strict control had guns.

My father who went through a communist forced labor camp, told me that the first law passed by the Communist government after taking the power through falsified elections was a law requiring all citizens to surrender their guns in the name of public safety. They promised safety, social equality and prosperity for everyone (these promises sound strangely familiar with the ones made by the Democrats in the US or the Labor Party in the UK). So my grandfather and father believed these promises. They went to the newly installed local authorities and surrendered an old hunting rifle and a Luger pistol found on the railroad tracks - probably dropped from a train transporting German troops on retreat a few years earlier.

Fast forward one year: 1951.
Communist secret police knocked down the door of my grandfather home, arrested him for being a "capitalist pig and a counter-revolutionary" He was in fact a simple farmer with no political affiliation. That day my father was away from home to the big city market selling some produce from the farm. He learned about his father arrest from a relative and that the communists thugs were looking for him too. He never came home and for the next 5 years lived in the shadows under an assumed identity, until they caught up with him, arrested him and sent him in a forced labor camp for the next 5 years. That's where he received the news his father died, a victim or those who promised "safety , equality and prosperity for all" in exchange for surrendering their guns.

My father told me: without guns to defend ourselves, we were like fish in a bucket for the thugs who came after us. He said: millions of our countrymen like me and your granpa were rounded up, imprisoned, worked to death or just summarily executed. That would have never been possible if we would have refused to surrender our guns. Never forget that, son.

So dear author, please excuse my skepticism when you write that "America isn't safe because of the guns".

You see, I prefer the "unsafety" of living in a society that guarantees the right to owns guns and to protect yourself against criminals or a government that can go against the people. I'll take that anytime over the false safety of a society like Britain where the government takes your guns while promising he will keep you safe".

Janet said...

My father told me that being able to own a gun in America was a wonderful thing...because whenever someone was thinking of breaking into your house, they would not be sure whether you'd be armed and ready to resist.

I think that it's an interesting theory.


sholomgootzeit said...

The solution to the problem is obvious, politicians should live in the solutions they come up with. Their homes should be as "safe" as their constituents. They should get no additional police, so when their homes are broken into, they will understand the problem. When they set themselves apart, they lose touch, and have no clue as to the daily horror that people are living with.

speleonerd said...

Make no mistake about it, anyone who advocates further gun control measures is advocating disarmament. Anyone who thinks otherwise needs to read two books: "The Federalist Papers" and "Dial 911 and Die." The first outlines what the Founding Fathers really meant when they were drafting articles like the Constitution. The second book uses confirmed, real-life cases to demonstrate what happens when we rely on the government, and that includes the police, to protect us. As other posts have stated, it cannot be assumed that the burgler was simply after "stuff." I will never run from my own home because of the poor decision of a "child" who would more than likely become a repeat and violent offender. As for wstpwstp, I sure hope the cops come when you call. "Dial 911 and Die" will show you what a foolish hope it is.

ghostmaker said...

you need to go live over there for a little while wstpwstp and see what it's really like, i have friends from there who come over here and are planning to relocate here soon because of the high crime rate, london is now considered the most dangerous major city in the world.

ghostmaker said...

wstpwstp no where in the BOR does it say you have to have a license, and the 2nd as with all the others are rights not granted but but owned, the BOR puts clamps on the government not the people, it states what the gov can not do.

JJR said...

Glad to see there are at least a few Britons concerned about their lost liberties. I agree whoever produced this film has an agenda and a definite point of view, but the most powerful aspect of the video is simply letting ordinary Britons speak for themselves.

In many States in the USA, not only would Mr. Tony Martin have been ruled as having fired in self defense, the surviving accomplice would've been charged with *murder* for being criminally responsible for his partner's death. That may seem harsh, but that's the law in many states in the USA. The accomplice could still sue in US civil court, but he'd have to pay his own attorney, or find one willing to work pro bono, and most American juries would not look favorably upon such lawsuits by criminals against law-abiding homeowners. In any case the accomplice would not be out free in just three years, but put away for a very long time.

If the older criminal had been killed and the 16 year old survived, the 16 year old would still be charged with murder for being criminally responsible for his partner's death (because although shot by the homeowner in self-defense, the robbery itself created the deadly situation) and most likely tried as an adult by most US district attorneys.

In more recent news, a prominent British anti-gun activist was stabbed to death by her own grandson, who had been arrested earlier that same day for stabbing a railway employee but evidently released, enabling him to kill his grandmother. In the USA, someone arrested for assault with a deadly weapon is going to have to post very high bail and isn't going anywhere fast.

I can find no independent corroboration that the shooter in Seattle was mentally ill. He was in the wrong, though he was in fact struck first, and pulled his Glock pistol to use as a club; this was stupid and the shooting was accidental. He should rightly be stripped of his CCW license.

There are already laws barring felons and the mentally incompetent from purchasing firearms in the USA. Most states conduct very thorough background checks before issuing a concealed carry license. Statistically, concealed carry license holders are even more law abiding and better behaved than police officers on average.

The negative British commentators here so far are missing the point--this is not about sports, this is about a fundamental, basic human right to self defense. Something we upstart Yanks learned by reading very wise British scholars who would surely weep were they alive to see the state Britain is in like Blackstone, et. al.

I would also like to see the USA Patriot Act repealed, but since such a horrendous piece of legislation does exist, it's all the more important that the 2nd Amendment to the US constitution be strengthened and defended. I think the U.S. Supreme Court is poised to do just that in the upcoming DC v. Heller case.

The path to the USA Patriot Act was paved by draconian anti-drug laws; "the War on Drugs" made the rights-destructive "War on Terror" possible.

Unfortunately, as my Irish friends never hesitate to point out, the UK is still a Monarchy with its "unwritten" constitution, thus you all have a much harder fight to regain lost liberty, having no written constitution to appeal to, only legal tradition. The Crown seems to have no opinion on the matter, at least not publicly, but why should the Monarch care--the guards at Buckingham Palace will always be armed and staffed by the very best of the British Army.

I don't like McCain OR Obama, for a whole lot of reasons and am not going to vote for either one.
But I will be renewing my NRA membership and my GOA membership, same as always. And I will renew my Texas CHL when the time comes.

I am actually very Left wing/populist (Socialist/Green with a touch of old school anarcho-syndicalism) but am rabidly pro RKBA all the way. Self-defense is a basic human right, that shouldn't be a matter of partisan debate. Eric Blair aka George Orwell favored private gun ownership among the working class, as did Eugene V. Debs in the USA.

Thanks again for posting this video, it was eye opening and informative. Perhaps Britain is starting to wake up--we can only hope.

Central WI said...

From wstpwstp
" have no objection to a sane adult owning a gun after mastering basic gun safety and legally obtaining a license." Why should I, as an American, be required to get a license to exercise a RIGHT. Do you have a license to exercise your First amendment right? Did you receive the "required training" ? Why is it O.K. to restrict and limit the secomd amendment but not the first. One of our founding Fathers was quoted as saying 'a government that is afraid to have its citizens armed, is not of and by the people'.

Terri said...

It's sad because people are pretty willing to give up their rights for what they perceive to be safety and/or convenience. I'm a gun owner myself but I think I'm more disturbed by the fact that that guy was punished for defending himself than I am by the gun ban. Obviously, being a woman, I'd like to have some kind of equalizer in hand if someone broke into my place but the very concept of being told that the police would rather that I die as a victim than live killing someone in self-defense is a chilling thought,

Terri said...

By the way, @central wi: It really isn't a right in the first place. If it were, you should be able to make the government pay for your gun if you couldn't afford one. I'm very willing to admit that the licensing system is imperfect but it's really not all that much trouble and weeds out a few morons in the beginning.

Nef Cam said...

As I write this, the Supreme Court has settled once and for all that the right to bear arms is an individual right and membership in a militia is not a precondition.

Even so, there are twenty to thirty years of litigation ahead of us. Already the anti-rights enthusiasts are injecting quibbles and exceptions and doubts into the Supreme Court ruling.

diver said...

Naive morons like wstpwstp have just got to stop rationalizing for hardened criminals. Which includes 16 year old miscreants who have lost the right to live in free society. And UNFORTUNATELY, this happening was INEVITABLE, not mere "chance" or a "tragedy" as this dolt wants to make anyone believe.

This IDIOT thinks that this story about a 30 yr old (34 convictions mind you!) and a 16 yr old (another 29 convictions!) in a house burglarizing it is a "slickly produced manipulative piece of propaganda - full of misleading information, logical sleight of hand, bait and switch etc etc". So let's ask just how he arrives at these NAIVE conclusions? A little more "bait and switch" maybe, wstpwstp?! I guess the "MECHANISMS" to deal with these thugs "in Britain" somehow DIDN'T HAPPEN in the previous 63 convictions of the two Schmucks--and the whole idea of the "mechanisms" is nothing but a dismal FAILURE. And just how fast can wstpwstp "run"? I'll just bet you this is a fat, lazy, and complacent pablum eater who would "negotiate" as the two guys cut his throat (or maybe removed his testicles--which likely has already happened). Or maybe wstpwstp would just sit there and cry (rather than run!) "like a girl".

But what this idiot then says takes the cake, in complete contradiction of his whole rambling babble--"but, if the system worked as it was intended, those criminals would have been apprehended". This idiot cannot seem to understand that "IF the system worked as intended that these two cretins wouldn't have had the chance to be apprehended 63 times!

Wstpwstp and those like him need to keep smoking whatever contraband they are smoking when they write crap like this. He needs to add some fish oil to develop some brain cells.

diver said...

this is for the moron wstpwstp

since this IDIOT thinks that this story about a 30 yr old (34 convictions mind you!) and a 16 yr old (another 29 convictions!) in a house burglarizing it is a "slickly produced manipulative piece of propaganda - full of misleading information, logical sleight of hand, bait and switch etc etc", let's ask just how he arrives at these NAIVE conclusions. I guess there are "MECHANISMS" to deal with these thugs "in Britain" that just somehow DIDN'T HAPPEN in the previous 63 convictions of the two Schmucks. And just how fast can this wstpwstp "run"? I'll just bet you this is a fat, lazy, and complacent pablum eater who would "negotiate" as the two guys cut his throat. Or maybe he would just sit there and cry (rather than run!) "like a girl". But this idiot says it all, in complete contradiction of his whole point--"but, if the system worked as it was intended, those criminals would have been apprehended". This idiot cannot accept that they HAVE been apprehended (63 times!) and it hasn't done a bit of good.

Keep drinking koolaid, you dumbbell--but add some fish oil to develop some brain cells.

Scouse said...

Tony Martin was a Farmer? Why did he need a shotgun? Hullo?

The two gypsy brothers had robbed the same farm many times before.

Watch a Police Video on how some faceing you with a gun, gets shot in the back? they turn in a flash, the trigger was pressed!

The Cops in England refuse to carry guns on majority! If they did they would not die, when faceing a nut case with a knife or gun quite so often.

Rob Parsons said...

That makes me sick. The government and criminals have way too much power if you take away guns from the law abiding citizens. Concealed Carry is one of the best things the government can do to allow citizens to protect themselves.

BMW-Dick said...

Looks as if the Liberal thought police at You Tube have taken down your post about the British and guns.

korey said...

I think it's funny how whenever you morons that want to take away gun rights try to use facts to do so even though there are no crime facts that back up ANY antigun legislation. You can't just have it through "homicide" and "suicide." Try adding self-defense shootings through robbery or burglary... those numbers are the truth. Also, no man, woman, or child should have to run from HIS OR HER HOUSE if someone invades it... it's your castle... defend it. British... fight for your right to have arms.

The UN can try to get the US to legislate guns out of existance, but I GUARANTEE that they'll never succeed in disarming Americans b/c we know what that could turn into. Days after the first shots of the Revolutionary War, the Brits made a town of colonists hand in all of their weapons with the promise that they'd give them back... letters going to Gage and other military folks said otherwise. They fell back on their words and wouldn't let folks leave the town. Stay frosty and don't let your guard down.

Uncle Ben said...

Uncle Ben said;
The libs have it wrong as usual. Check the death rate in the cities where guns are "not allowed" in the hands of honest people. Then check the rate where honest people can "carry". DUH!!
Someone breaks into my house or threatens me anywhere, they will meet Colt 1911 or Winchester "defender". My rule; I will give up my gun when they pry my cold dead fingers from around it. 2nd amendment says it all.

Thomas Jefferson said...

What a travesty that that poor man ended up in prison. And simply for defending his LIFE in the face of a multi-pronged (multiple person) home invasion. Easy for some monday morning quarterbacking, criminal apologist, second guessing socialist dickwad to explain away the circumstances in a way to make it seem as if the poor farmer is to blame! But this is the mindset of the totalitarian left, isn't it? The state is (or should be) all powerful, and everything and anything goes as long as it's in the name of "safety". Did you know that there's a movement afoot to outlaw pointy knives in England now? Won't be long before the citizens, er...."subjects" will all have to wear government approved safety mattresses so they wont be accidentally injured - for *safety's* sake of course. Un-fucking believable! Where is this shit going to end??

As for the intelligent, clear thinking people out there - always remember that it is a natural right for you to be able to defend yourself! Firearms allow you to do that. They allow a smaller, weaker person to defend themselves against a larger, stronger person. They allow you to put food on the table in the event there's an interruption of the food supply (not so unlikely, especially if oil is cut off!) They allow you to defend and protect your life and property in the event of civil unrest due to societal and/or governmental breakdown (be it temporary or permanent, localized or widespread). Anyone see what happened to law abiding citizens in New Orleans after the flood? Anyone see what happened to Korean store owners during the LA riots? And above all, firearms allow a person (or more importantly, *persons*) to resist a corrupt government. In fact, simply by their mere presence they keep potential tyrants in power at bay and in check - fearful of armed flyback should they overstep their bounds. The writers of the American Constitution understood this perfectly clearly. That's why they wrote it into our constitution - it is one of the fundamental checks and balances on governmental power. And it has nothing to do with the right to have and bear sporting goods! (or any such frivolous meaning) It's a last ditch ace in the hole in favor of THE PEOPLE. The government has a large organized military and police force, and the people have their own arms - just in case. It is a fundamental liberty that is directly tied to the preservation of ALL of our liberties - it must be kept sacrosanct! Don't let FOOLS talk you out of keeping your guns fellow citizens! Know your rights and understand where they come from and who wants to take them away. Take action locally and make your voices heard. Let freedom and LIBERTY ring!!!

Uncle Ben said...

wstpwstp said let the police handle it. It seems the "kids" did it several times and the police did nothing meaningful. How many times should a good person have to be victomized befor he or she can defend themselves? Also, how long do you wait to see if the dirtbag has a weapon, til you are hurt? If a society can not or will not protect the good people then they have a right to protect them sekves.

poconojon said...

I can't believe anyone would criticize the shooting of someone breaking and entering the house while it's occupied. If a person breaks into my house they have a very slim chance of making it out alive. If all criminals realized that all houses were like mine, break-ins would drop drastically. Guaranteed~!

Anonymous said...

wstpwstp, you make about as much sense as a light bulb in the middle of the forest! How is this guy (or anyone) suppose to know the "robbers" don't intend to kill or seriously injure him? If someone breaks into your home are you going to "assume" they just want your stuff while you suck your thumb with that liberal intellect?

(-_-) said...

So sad. This could easily become America's future if we don't fight for our rights. Remember, guns don't kill people, stupid/crazy people with guns kill people.

us drugstore said...

Hi. I think, that laws should exist to control access to guns and how they are used.

Kamagra said...

thanks for the share

brand balenciaga said...

Nice review. I'm always amazed at the number of people who are unable to see that crime is a direct result of an individual's lack of an internalized moral code.

Transsylvania Phoenix said...

English please.