Wednesday, November 19, 2008

[the right to bear arms] in a changing society



You'll recall the 2003 Canadian law requiring all firearms to be registered and Canadians' reluctance to do so:

The grace period to register rifles and other long firearms ended yesterday with about 1.6 million shotguns and rifles — about one of every five such weapons in the country — still outside of the national database. But the federal government is not rushing to track down and charge people with unregistered long weapons.

Despite being past the deadline, Canadians will not face punishment if they voluntarily contact the Canadian Firearms Centre to register a weapon in the coming weeks. They run the risk of a fine or jail sentence only if they are caught by police with an unregistered weapon.

Canadian law regarding firearms can be seen, in summary, here. My reading of the government strategy is that they must bend over backwards to show reasonableness in this matter before they start the prosecutions. There can be little doubt that the ultimate purpose of the registrations is to enable the weapons to then be surrendered. Australia has already begun proceedings this October. Britain started down this road in 1999, utilizing the Dunblane Tragedy to demand gun surrender.

In the U.S.A, the situation is a little different. They've ended the gun-surrender program implemented by former HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo, on the grounds that it was too costly and might have been illegal. Americans are openly discussing not only buying in weapons but which ones:

I’m thinking a 9mm since that is standard issue around the world and the bullets would be cheap for practice. Anything you’d recommend? I’m leaning towards a sub-compact because I like the element of surprise. I’m looking at this

The Americans are even taking an interest in our situation:

It's interesting to note that as recently as 1996, there were fewer than 600 annual homicides in Britain. Once more, and in direct contrast to the assertions of the gun control crowd, it is demonstrated that fewer legal guns indicates more crime. In this case, 30 percent more lethal crime. Britain would have done much better to keep its guns and ban the migration from the third world.

This is logical. If a citizen wants to kill someone and guns are legal, then that would be his weapon of choice. If you ban guns, then the whole thing moves one rung down and people start using, say, knives. The difference is that a knife is far easier to conceal and explain away if you were found with one. Ban knives and then people would take to acid or poison or whatever.

You're not going to stop a person determined to kill anyway but that's not the real point of the government. The difference between the gun and the knife is the citizen militia. That must never be, say the government and significant portions of the population, who believe the government is on their side, cite the British tradition of not carrying firearms.

Philip Luty was the test case over here and he was jailed for possession. Apparently it is legal to advertise plans on how to build your own gun but illegal to build and carry one from those plans.

Returning to the U.S.A., the right to bear arms means, in Bob G's words:

I feel safe when taking care of my own protection, something they cannot assure. To listen to this bunch, the NRA [not the rifle association but the regulatory authority] makes the Illuminati look like pikers.

The increase in weapons sales since Obama got in illustrates the American view that patriotism means loyalty to the flag and constitution but not particularly to the government of the time. To carry weapons in defence of yourself, your family and the people is a second amendment right.

This blog is certainly not advocating it and its owner can't remember when he last saw a gun but it seems, as the British people observe more and more the resemblance of their nation to a police state, that more and more they are probably going to start thinking about the necessity of the right to bear arms.

14 comments:

  1. If you ban guns, then the whole thing moves one rung down and people start using, say, knives.

    Actually, if you ban guns, that just means that the criminals still have them but law-abiding people don't. A sufficiently-determined person who doesn't care about breaking the law will always be able to get hold of a gun.

    The mass shootings we occasionally suffer here in the United States (such as at Virginia Tech) almost always happen in places which have declared themselves gun-free zones. The killers aren't fools -- they know that in such places, their victims will be defenseless and they will be able to kill a large number before the police can arrive.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yep, suspected that. I'd like to hear more from Americans on this matter as well as how fellow Brits would take to a right to bear arms.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I don't own a pistol or a rifle, yet I'm thinking of getting one for self protection.
    You are correct: a person with murder in their hearts well find a way to accomplish that goal.
    The true intent of banning guns is just another way to make people more dependent on the government.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Long ago I sold my rifle and let my firearms certificate lapse. Daftest thing I've ever done, I sometimes think.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The time is probably coming not too far down the track where they'll be needed again.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I'm not sure if the UK would really embrace a right to bear arms; the cultural differences are wider between the UK and the US than most people realize, except on the eastern coast of the US, and California. Those states, not unlike the UK, tend to look at rights as something granted by the government. Those of us in the middle and western US don't see it that way; to us rights are inherent, and we have them in spite of the government. Those of us in the middle part of the US don't want a nanny government; we're used to taking care of ourselves. You tend to see a lot of cultural difference just in the US, let alone between the US and the UK. I believe their are many in the UK with a similar outlook, but I think the majority would rather (like the blue areas in the US) trade individuality for a semblance of security. To some degree it is the way that people are raised and taught from childhood, but ultimately it's a question of personal choice; some people are citizens of their country, some are content to be subjects of their government.
    Just my opinion.

    “The possession of arms is the distinction between a free man and a slave.”
    – Andrew Fletcher, Discourse on Government (1695)

    "Civilized people are taught by logic, barbarians by necessity, communities by tradition; and the lesson is inculcated even in wild beasts by nature itself. They learn that they have to defend their own bodies and persons and lives from violence of any and every kind by all means in their power!"
    -Cicero

    "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater... confidence than an armed man."
    -Thomas Jefferson

    ReplyDelete
  7. I think we are sleepwalking to oblivion, Bob. It seems to me that the easterners you write of will meekly surrender and go under the yoke, to suffer later. The mid-west will fight and will be terminated that way. Which way is better is a question for debate.

    One thing that will not be possible is for people to be left alone to get on with their own lives. This pesky thing, the pledge of loyalty is going to crop up sooner or later.

    People who are saying today that people like me have taken leave of my senses because it is too early to warn of these things - will they be saying this in ten years?

    ReplyDelete
  8. "People who are saying today that people like me have taken leave of my senses because it is too early to warn of these things - will they be saying this in ten years?"

    It's never too early.

    “This book was a warning, not a blueprint.”

    ReplyDelete
  9. Criminals will always obtain firearms. Taking them away from citizens makes the citizens subjects (to paraphrase Thomas Jefferson).

    Having had the experience of someone trying to break into our house, the police not knowing our address and hanging up, assuring they'd be right there, we felt ok. We had a pistol, the crooks went elsewhere. Before every major slaughter of a government to its citizens in history (China, Germany pre-WWII, Cuba, etc.), they take away the citizens' firearms.

    ReplyDelete
  10. No more terror. No more islam.
    Watch internet page,
    http://www.mohammedt-shirt.com/
    Its from Sweden and read the info.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I'm not sure if the UK would really embrace a right to bear arms; the cultural differences are wider between the UK and the US than most people realize, except on the eastern coast of the US, and California.

    Don't forget, Bob, that until the early 1900's, people of the UK did indeed have the right to bear arms, so for the majority of it's existence, the UK did have a culture of self defence and responsibility. The only people who benefit from a disarmed population are criminals who no longer get shot while robbing and raping, and governments, as you can't take the piss out of an armed population (exactly why they introduced gun control after WW 1).

    James ~ I would recommend hunting down 'More Guns, Less Crime' by Prof John Lott

    ReplyDelete
  12. To have a reasonable country it's important that no one -- particularly the government -- has a monopoly on arms.

    ReplyDelete

Comments need a moniker of your choosing before or after ... no moniker, not posted, sorry.