In-your-face stuff from an opinionated
rural north Idaho housewife.
Hi Patrice,What's particularly ironic about your English correspondent's alarm at America's love of guns is that he doesn't even recognize his own country's history with America's gun enthusiasts.Back at the beginning of WWII, when the British Army was driven into the sea at Dunkirk, the British Army at that point almost ceased to exist as a fighting force -- and the entire British Empire was seriously threatened. Those brave men at Dunkirk barely escaped with their lives. They ended up leaving virtually all of their weapons behind.So, British politicians sent out a plea to their friends "across the pond" and thousands of Americans sent their personal firearms overseas to help arm the British Army for the expected attack by Hitler.It turns out that Hitler didn't respond with an immediate attack, and the British Army didn't need those arms lent to them by American citizens.The point is that British citizens were not capable of defending themselves because of their own anti-gun laws at the time, so they eagerly turned to those who embraced a freedom mindset and who had the means to protect that freedom.Of course, the irony is completely lost on those like your British correspondent. In fact, all of the countries in the British Commonwealth have again enacted draconian anti-gun laws, and have suffered a corresponding increase in crimes against the person.Oh, by the way, most of the American citizens who loaned their personal firearms to help save the British Empire never got them back.Also, remember Katrina. The hurricane. After Katrina hit New Orleans the police chief went door to door to confiscate firearms. He was using a list from the mandatory gun registration law in place in New Orleans.Can't happen here? It already has. And I doubt that was the last time we'll see that happen.Dave
What follows is the most profound--and succinct--explanation for the existance of the Second Amendment:"The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed--where the government refuses to stand for re-election and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake free people get to make only once." -- Justice Alex Kozinski, 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals
:) Glad to be of service.
Very good article. I agree with your assessment that it's a liberal/progressive issue rather than a British one but sad to say I think Britain is lost at this point. They'll be hand wringing and singing kumbaya as they are forced under sharia law once the balance shifts enough over there. What I find to be the most delicious of ironies though is that when push comes to shove, as it always does in the end, those very people rush to the ones with guns for protection. I just don't get them.
I don't think progressives have faith in their fellow man, which is why they want our weapons. But they do have a blind faith in the government to protect them and stop any one from harming them.
SpyGuy I sure appreciate your post. Can you furnish us a date for that ruling? I'd read it before, but would like to have it in my 'keeper file.' It's a real gem.And Dave, your post is a sobering reminder (to all, one would hope....) of the value of discretion. Gun registries create easy targets, and make it hard to help one's friends and neighbors in times of need.I pray for America and a government with a healthy fear of its people.A. McSp
God, guns, guts made America great. Guns don't hurt people, people do. More people die in America from medical mistakes than from guns. More people die or are injured on the roadways in America than are by guns. Whenever anybody says they want our guns "for the sake of the children," you can bet they care nothing about the children. Instead, they care about destroying the rest of the Bill of Rights. ...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Anonymout TwitUSA
So, have I got this right; you need guns to protect the right to have guns? How would you imagine this might work out in practice if, sometime in the future, your Government gets a democratic mandate to strike out the 2nd Amendment? A whole series of Waco style sieges, or would all you irate gun-owners take to the hill and become a resistance movement?Supposing the 2nd Amendment was constitutionally struck out but the Government prudently decided to take no immediate actions to enforce it? Would you go out and shoot up a few Federal Offices as a protest?Sorry, all questions, but it shows the extent of my transatlantic bafflement :)
Gun control is a 2" group at 800 yards. Keep the varmints, two or 4 legged, at bay from a long distance.Ken
Let me see...You say that Americans need their guns in case their government gets out of control. That'd be why you've assassinated or attempted to assassinate several presidents, would it?The British at Dunkirk left all their guns on the beaches, and that's why you Yanks had to come to our rescue? That's very funny.More people die on the roads than by guns, so guns aren't nearly as dangerous? Well, since you have almost three times the number of fatal road accidents per head of population than we do, I'm not sure that's anything to be proud of.But this isn't just about guns, and who does or doesn't have them. The Swiss have one of the highest levels of gun ownership in the world, not so that they can challenge an out of control government but because it's a legal obligation for Swiss men to have had military training against foreign aggression, and to keep their guns under lock and key. In spite of this, the rate of killings or attempted killings is only about one for every quarter million people annually. Guess the Swiss just aren't trigger happy.
Blimey, another Limey. Apparently quedula needed backup. ROFLOLAnonymous Twit USA
Margaret: Ir matters not what you think about guns. Our founding fathers knew what would keep the government in check so they put this as numner two in the Bill of Rights. History had shown them about the fallacies of pure democracies...the quickness of their demise. The Founders desired to have protections against that happening here so they wished that the populace would stay armed as in "When people fear the government, there is tyranny, when the government fears the people there is liberty."When our government respected the rule and guildelines of our constitution, our republic grew at an unprecedented rate to become an economical powerhouse in just a hundred seventeen years since the end of hostilities between our nations. We needed not an empire to grow but freedom to trade with whom we desired to which benefits us. At the end of WWI, Britain was forced to disarm becauwse of the Treaty negotiated with the help of our most evil preisdent, Woody Wilson, a progressive that hated our constitution and did everything he could to thwart it. Anyway, in this idiots mind, the world had to come under one government not one of freedom but one under force. Not one of choice of leaders but under beaurocrats from the League of Nations just like the United Nations. WOuldn't you know it, they want to control our guns to. Guns are evil they tell us so we must shed out rights to them.Of course when liberal/progressives mean evil they mean the enemy of their freedom killing agenda. Think about it for a moment(yes, I know it's sometimes difficult to, not your fault because of schoolastic indoctrination) when a criminal of the government believes that the victim or citizenry is armed, they are more likely than not to curb their desire for your property or unchecked power.If we surrendered our guns, Obama and the Progressives would walk all over us surrendering our sovereignty to the indignant UN and what could we say or do to stop him/them?With that said, as the only republic in the world in which clearly states that our rights are given to us by Nature's God and not the government, if that disappears then the world is set back into tyrrany from a tiny minority that truly believes that political power comes from a gun, Mao Zhe Deng was a cool guy, Stalin wasn't that bad and worst yet Sharia law could be a good thing. Need I go on, it's all connected in one way or another.
Gun bans do not remove guns from society. All they do is take them away from the peaceful, law abiding citizens. The bad guys still have guns, illegally obtained. They are the ones who commit the crimes whenever they feel like it. If more good people had guns and knew how to use them don't you think it would reduce crime??I hear your question and no, you can't rely on the cops to save you. I'm sure you can take comfort in the thought that they'll do a full and thorough investigation into your death though.Amanda
Margaret, using your illogical "rational" statement, I guess all Brits are like Guy Fawkes or Robert Catesby, right? Afterall, a couple of guys try to snuff out a king, so that must make all Brits guilty of the crime. That's what you're saying about American gun owners. We own guns, so we are all guilty of killing presidents. You aren't very rational, for a "rationalist." You lost this round. You'll lose the others, too.Anonymous TwitUSA
This post was orginally about guns & the 2nd amendment and I'm still waiting to hear who you are going to shoot when your government gets too uppity.
I think the founding fathers might have been considerably wiser to have inserted, "when the need arises" after, "the right to bear arms".
I would advise everyone here to refrain from rising to the poisonous bait being dangled by the Quedulator. This applies most particularly to the 9:33 p.m. post above.We've already seen this person conjure and sling a false accusation of being 'threatened' by gratuitously taking one poster's comment completely out of context. This is a common tactic used by lefties, and I for one am inquedulous that someone with such views and tendencies finds the need or the time to haunt a site populated by folks whose values and opinions are so anithetical to his/her own.This poster would not be the first false flag agitator I've encountered in the past few years. Pretending 'not to get it' is a red flag...and asking 'questions' like the ones above (9:33 and 11:19) is, I believe, done with provocative ill intent. It may not be my place to say so, but I have to wonder if Mrs.Quedula and Malicious Margaret don't need to find other bridges under which to troll...like a bridge to nowhere.A. McSp
A.McSp, a BIG thumbs up! Please run for President in 2012, I'd vote for you at least 13 times (got the idea from ACORN). Anonymous TwitUSA
Only if you'll run with me! I'll vote 13 times for you, too!We can establish a new political party, the Party of Political Incorrectness and run on a platform of Plainspoken Truth and Constitutional Adherence. Our agenda: Repeal the Healthcare overhaul & HIPPAReverse Rowe v. WadeSecure our borders, stop illegal immigration and deport all illegals and their anchor babiesMake anyone with more than one child born out of wedlock ineligible for public assistance. Once is a mistake. More than once is a lifestyle, IMHO.Slash government spending & reduce the national debtLower taxes and administrative burdens on small business Lift all oil exploration, drilling and refinery construction moratoriaDe-fund the EPA Eliminate congressional pensions and largess...and then in our second month.... lolOK your turn, A.T! A. McSp
Now it's my turn to ROFLOL.
I quote A.McSp above."I would advise everyone here to refrain from rising to the poisonous bait being dangled by the Quedulator. This applies most particularly to the 9:33 p.m. post above."Why do you advise that A.McSp? I genuinely wanted to know. Don"t you have an answer?
Becuase as I have had discusions with you before. You continue to push with "good intentions" of wanting to understand but when you get the answer and you do not like it you get offended. Don't ask the question if you cannot handle the answer ( See our multi post discussion a few months ago about Atheist and Christian mindset) or the question is are you really seeking answers or only one this website with a differing view of yours to argue and stir up?Lets get real who is going to say they would go shoot anybody. We want our 2nd amendment rights to protect us from the criminals and to have a defense to protect anyone who would come to take our property or endanger the lives of our family.Steve from NC
As I have posted about this before here and for all who want to know, as all blogs, forums, newsgroups, all internet communities, etc face every day and world-wide,quedula is a "troll".Do not feed "it"."it" doesn't care if you have an intelligent response to it."it" doesn't care if you are considerate or aggravated toward it.One can never tell what gender or nationallity a troll is."it" has claimed to be an englishwoman elsewhere on this blog but does not respond as a woman (most women tend to express themselves intelligently on blogs)nor does it phrase itself as a Brit would.This troll is just another anti-Constitutional, progressive, 'entitlement' liberal who trolls the internet searching for blogs such as this.Your BEST response to it is to NEVER respond to it."it" will go away if you DO NOT FEED it.Never EVER try to converse with it.There are many good folks on here with which you can have good, wholesome, honest dialogs. Don't pick a troll to talk with - you won't succeed.If you want to know more, google 'internet troll'.cheers
Sees Trolls, yours are good words.A.McSp
As I saw earlier on another blog, "I carry a gun because a police officer is too heavy."
While I don't want to get 'grouped' with Quesadilla her question is one that I've wondered myself.Proponents of guns say they are there to keep the government in cheque but if the government passed a totally constitutionally abhorrent bill tomorrow (lets say something like a ban on churches) what would you do? What are you going to shoot with them to show your disapproval of this vile law?