Feature
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
Celebrity news from the United Kingdom: In April, Germaine Greer, the Australian feminist and author of The Female Eunuch, was leaving her house in East Anglia, when a young woman accosted her, forced her back inside, tied her up, smashed her glasses, and then set about demolishing her ornaments with a poker.
A couple of weeks before that, the 85-year-old mother of Phil Collins, the well-known rock star, was punched in the ribs, the back, and the head on a West London street, before her companion was robbed. “That’s what you have to expect these days,” she said, philosophically.
Anthea Turner, the host of Britain’s top-rated National Lottery TV show, went to see the West End revival of Grease with a friend. They were spotted at the theatre by a young man who followed them out and, while their car was stuck in traffic, forced his way in and wrenched a diamond-encrusted Rolex off the friend’s wrist.
A week before that, the 94-year-old mother of Ridley Scott, the director of Alien and other Hollywood hits, was beaten and robbed by two men who broke into her home and threatened to kill her.
Former Bond girl Britt Ekland had her jewelry torn from her arms outside a shop in Chelsea; Formula One Grand Prix racing tycoon and Tony Blair confidante Bernie Ecclestone was punched and kicked by his assailants as they stole his wife’s ring; network TV chief Michael Green was slashed in the face by thugs outside his Mayfair home; gourmet chef to the stars Anton Mosimann was punched in the head outside his house in Kensington….
Rita Simmonds isn’t a celebrity but, fortunately, she happened to be living next door to one when a gang broke into her home in upscale Cumberland Terrace, a private road near Regent’s Park. Tom Cruise heard her screams and bounded to the rescue, chasing off the attackers for 300 yards, though failing to prevent them from reaching their getaway car and escaping with two jewelry items worth around $140,000.
It’s just as well Tom failed to catch up with the gang. Otherwise, the ensuing altercation might have resulted in the diminutive star being prosecuted for assault. In Britain, criminals, police, and magistrates are united in regarding any resistance by the victim as bad form. The most they’ll tolerate is “proportionate response”—and, as these thugs had been beating up a defenseless woman and posed no threat to Tom Cruise, the Metropolitan Police would have regarded Tom’s actions as highly objectionable. “Proportionate response” from the beleaguered British property owner’s point of view, is a bit like a courtly duel where the rules are set by one side: “Ah,” says the victim of a late-night break-in, “I see you have brought a blunt instrument. Forgive me for unsheathing my bread knife. My mistake, old boy. Would you mind giving me a sporting chance to retrieve my cricket bat from under the bed before clubbing me to a pulp, there’s a good chap?”
No wonder, even as they’re being pounded senseless, many British crime victims are worrying about potential liability. A few months ago, Shirley Best, owner of the Rolander Fashion boutique whose clients include the daughter of the Princess Royal, was ironing some garments when two youths broke in. They pressed the hot iron into her side and stole her watch, leaving her badly burnt. “I was frightened to defend myself,” said Miss Best. “I thought if I did anything I would be arrested.”
And who can blame her? Shortly before the attack, she’d been reading about Tony Martin, a Norfolk farmer whose home had been broken into and who had responded by shooting and killing the teenage burglar. He was charged with murder. In April, he was found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment—for defending himself against a career criminal in an area where the police are far away and reluctant to have their sleep disturbed. In the British Commonwealth, the approach to policing is summed up by the motto of Her Majesty’s most glamorous constabulary: The Mounties always get their man—i.e., leave it to us. But these days in the British police, when they can’t get their man, they’ll get you instead: Frankly, that’s a lot easier, as poor Mr. Martin discovered.
Norfolk is a remote rural corner of England. It ought to be as peaceful and crime-free as my remote rural corner of New England. But it isn’t. Old impressions die hard: Americans still think of Britain as a low-crime country. Conversely, the British think of America as a high-crime country. But neither impression is true. The overall crime rate in England and Wales is 60 percent higher than that in the United States. True, in America you’re more likely to be shot to death. On the other hand, in England you’re more likely to be strangled to death. But in both cases, the statistical likelihood of being murdered at all is remote, especially if you steer clear of the drug trade. When it comes to anything else, though—burglary, auto theft, armed robbery, violent assault, rape—the crime rate reaches deep into British society in ways most Americans would find virtually inconceivable.
I cite those celebrity assaults not because celebrities are more prone to wind up as crime victims than anyone else, but only because the measure of a civilized society is how easily you can insulate yourself from its snarling underclass. In America, if you can make it out of some of the loonier cities, it’s a piece of cake, relatively speaking. In Britain, if even a rock star or TV supremo can’t insulate himself, nobody can. In any society, criminals prey on the weak and vulnerable. It’s the peculiar genius of government policy to have ensured that in British society everyone is weak and vulnerable —from Norfolk farmers to Tom Cruise’s neighbor.
And that’s where America is headed if those million marching moms make any headway in Washington: Less guns = more crime. And more vulnerability. And a million more moms being burgled, and assaulted, and raped. I like hunting, but if that were the only thing at stake with guns, I guess I could learn to live without it. But I’m opposed to gun control because I don’t see why my neighbors in New Hampshire should have to live the way, say, my sister-in-law does—in a comfortable manor house in a prosperous part of rural England, lying awake at night listening to yobbo gangs drive up, park their vans, and test her doors and windows before figuring out that the little old lady down the lane’s a softer touch.
Between the introduction of pistol permits in 1903 and the banning of handguns after the Dunblane massacre in 1996, Britain has had a century of incremental gun control—“sensible measures that all reasonable people can agree on.” And what’s the result? Even when you factor in America’s nutcake jurisdictions with the crackhead mayors, the overall crime rate in England and Wales is higher than in all 50 states, even though over there they have more policemen per capita than in the U.S., on vastly higher rates of pay installing more video surveillance cameras than anywhere else in the Western world. Robbery, sex crimes, and violence against the person are higher in England and Wales; property crime is twice as high; vehicle theft is higher still; the British are 2.3 times more likely than Americans to be assaulted, and three times more likely to be violently assaulted. Between 1973 and 1992, burglary rates in the U.S. fell by half. In Britain, not even the Home Office’s disreputable reporting methods (if a burglar steals from 15 different apartments in one building, it counts as a single crime) can conceal the remorseless rise: Britons are now more than twice as likely as Americans to be mugged; two-thirds will have their property broken into at some time in their lives. Even more revealing is the divergent character between U.K. and U.S. property crime: In America, just over 10 percent of all burglaries are “hot burglaries”—committed while the owners are present; in Britain, it’s over half. Because of insurance-required alarm systems, the average thief increasingly concludes that it’s easier to break in while you’re on the premises. Your home-security system may conceivably make your home more safe, but it makes you less so.
Conversely, up here in the New Hampshire second congressional district, there are few laser security systems and lots of guns. Our murder rate is much lower than Britain’s and our property crime is virtually insignificant. Anyone want to make a connection? Villains are expert calculators of risk, and the likelihood of walking away uninjured with an $80 television set is too remote. In New Hampshire, a citizen’s right to defend himself deters crime; in Britain, the state-inflicted impotence of the homeowner actively encourages it. Just as becoming a drug baron is a rational career move in Colombia, so too is becoming a violent burglar in the United Kingdom. The chances that the state will seriously impede your progress are insignificant.
Now I’m Canadian, so, as you might expect, the Second Amendment doesn’t mean much to me. I think it’s more basic than that. Privately owned firearms symbolize the essential difference between your great republic and the countries you left behind. In the U.S., power resides with “we, the people” and is leased ever more sparingly up through town, county, state, and federal government. In Britain and Canada, power resides with the Crown and is graciously devolved down in limited doses. To a north country Yankee it’s self-evident that, when a burglar breaks into your home, you should have the right to shoot him—indeed, not just the right, but the responsibility, as a freeborn citizen, to uphold the integrity of your property. But in Britain and most other parts of the Western world, the state reserves that right to itself, even though at the time the ne’er-do-well shows up in your bedroom you’re on the scene and Constable Plod isn’t: He’s some miles distant, asleep in his bed, and with his answering machine on referring you to central dispatch God knows where.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (45) | Leave a comment
Related Articles
More Articles by Mark Steyn
More Articles From Feature
http://spectator.org/archives/2013/01/11/in-the-absence-of-guns
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
MelvinNC| 1.11.13 @ 6:41AM
Joe Biden says, "A consensus is being reached, on measures of gun control." Oh Joe you man that phony circus your presiding over? The decision of gun control was made in 2008, the Bolsheviks merely had it sitting on the shelf until it was needed that is why it is moving so fast.
Washington D.C. Fascists are not smart enough to do anything on the fly so that prepare legislation before hand much like Obama Care.
I don't know about the rest of you. Americans who do not share the Progressive ideology have backed up so far and given to the Bolsheviks so many times it has become a deathly habit.
My fellow Conservatives, we're running out of road and their is a cliff behind us, that the Progressives, Socialists, Fascists want to push us off of.
The Republican leadership, well frankly they're a bunch of gutless, spineless pussies. We're on our own on this one.
AlanKneeJerkLiberalBrooks | 1.11.13 @ 1:12PM
I want to keep my gun, so if the need comes someday to execute white nationalists and their ilk, a bullet in back of each head will be possible-- allowing for plentiful ammo.
MelvinNC| 1.11.13 @ 2:10PM
Alan buddy, I truly have missed your witty sarcasm. It does become you. Much anger in there is, not very good for the blood pressure. Tends to make one suffer from premature aging and all that.
By your post Alan you've watched Django Unchained waaaaayyyyyy to many times. fantasizing about murdering White folks, even you an educated Black man talking that way. You ain't in the hood no more homes, you can't go around espousing violence and all, your respectable now.
I've enjoyed my musings with you Alan, you must really control that blood pressure, I do care about you as a fellow America, I would not want you to leave this earth prematurely.
Good day to you Alan
markenoff| 1.11.13 @ 2:20PM
Good to know. I have plenty of ammo available for the zombies, I mean Obama voters but being the sporting type I will allow them to attack first and not execute them Che style which is apparently all you have the cojones for.
AlanKneeJerkLiberalBrooks | 1.11.13 @ 5:36PM
Oh so Rightists don't get angry and their blood pressure doesn't go up and they don't yell or get nasty, eh?
Sho nuff!
Nick Shaw| 1.12.13 @ 9:58AM
Yes, you're correct, Alan. Those on the right do get angry and their blood pressure does go up and they do yell and sometimes get nasty but, very few of them advocate lining up black folk and putting a bullet in the back of their heads.
In fact, that's a very leftist tactic.
Sadly, you don't know who your real enemy is.
Will| 1.15.13 @ 2:26AM
Since when has lining up black folk and shooting them in the back of the head been anybody's tactic? (apart from the KKK)
Nick Shaw| 1.12.13 @ 9:52AM
If you are talking about Nazis I would gladly join you on the firing line, Alan but, you're not, are you?
What's hilarious about your comment is the fact that you would be more inclined to shoot other black people (assuming you are black and have access to guns and plenty of ammunition) statistically speaking.
So, would you go for the "house negros" first?
spike59| 1.18.13 @ 5:41AM
nerf guns don't count, twit
TLP| 1.11.13 @ 7:01AM
What a wonderful story about Fairy Olde England. Land of the Weak and Home of the Homos. A veritable Exhibit A of things to come if we continue on the Primrose Path that President "I don't need no steenkin Constitution" has us on now.
Perhaps Mark's mates should remind themselves of one of the most Profound pieces of Backwoods Country Wisdom that has ever come out of the mouth of Man: I'd rather be Tried by Twelve, than Carried by Six.
I hope that most of you are preparing for the next four years. This 4 years is fixing to be the last 4 years on Steroids. The Halfrican will seek to to run over our Founding Documents, AGAIN, in an effort to achieve the Liberal's version of The Triple Crown. Single Payer Soviet, Nazi, Cuban Style, Cradle to Death Panel Health Care. Taxing the American MIDDLE CLASS out of existence, and now, the End of the Second Amendment, and the beginning of the end of the world's Third Great Republic, and its Last.
The writing is on the Wall. It's written in the Fallen Marble Columns of Ancient Athens, and Ancient Rome. It's written in the Stories of Homer, and the News Reels of the Berlin Wall. We saw its Face in Hitler's Death Camps, Lenin's Gulags, and Stalin's Purges. In Mao's Mass Exterminations of millions of Chinese, Pol Pot's Killing Fields, Castro's Dungeons, and every Muslim Country on the Planet.
The only way for Evil Men to succeed is for Good Men to do nothing.
And taking away their Guns has always been Step 1, in insuring that.
Albert Constantine Jr.| 1.11.13 @ 8:04AM
Contest today?
TLP| 1.11.13 @ 10:48AM
Yeah, at Kaminsky's drek of a story.
John Navratil| 1.11.13 @ 8:58AM
TLP,
Mum's from England and I went to school there for a year in 1969. If you want to see the U.S. in twenty years, look to England today. It was true then and now.
Longplay| 1.17.13 @ 10:14PM
That's the year after I left. I was at London Central High in Bushey in 68 and loved the country. I have Relatives there and up until recently wanted to return for a visit. Sadly, now I'm not so sure I'd enjoy it.
Von Mises Jr| 1.11.13 @ 9:20AM
Paraphrasing Edmund Burke is a nice touch in an article that describes Britain so different from the time of the Old Whig that supported the American Revolution. Spot on, old chap.
The next four years will certainly be filled with OMisery and perhaps Onarchy. We may see the "Coming Insurrection" or a replay of 1776 Omerican Revolution.
But make no mistake: we are not Brits. Wyoming announced that any attempt to confiscate guns will be met with by their armed Militia. While we fret over ObamaCare, only one-third of the States agreed to set up Exchanges and many are already refusing to extend Medicaid.
Appleseed is conducting weekend rifle marksmanship training while 100K people joined the NRA in the last eighteen days. Many of us sleep with plenty of fire power next to our heads and would not have to chase the perpetrator like Tommy "Top Gun" since the Perp would be Swiss cheese if he came though my door.
Thank you Mark Steyn for ruling out Britain for me if Omerica becomes unlivable.
MelvinNC| 1.11.13 @ 9:52AM
My wife of 30 years is a victim of martial law from her birth country. She asked me, "What are we going to do when they kick are door down?" I replied, "We're not going to be the first door they are going to kick down whoever they is. But if they kick the door down, to be sure they will be carried out."
Pecos Pete| 1.11.13 @ 10:02AM
I just upgraded my NRA membership to Life Member.
The 2nd Amendment guarantees freedom. If the government takes the public's guns, they will then take everything else.
KyMouse| 1.11.13 @ 11:15AM
I learned how to shoot through an NRA program at summer camp when I was about 13. I joined NRA during the Clinton Administration because I was worried about Clinton’s anti-gun sentiments, and rejoined last year because of Obama’s.
When I get my copy of NRA’s "America’s 1st Freedom" magazine, I make photocopies of the “Armed Citizen” column, and then sneak them into magazines in waiting rooms at doctors’ offices, etc.
That way, people get to read short accounts (from newspapers all over the country) about citizens who have protected themselves and their families with firearms
.
I also recommend Chris Bird’s book "Thank God I had a Gun," which is available through Amazon.com; it has plenty of other examples, including a harrowing chapter about the aftermath of Katrina in New Orleans.
Job| 1.11.13 @ 11:32AM
waiting until someone is in your house is too late, better respond when your hear them at your neighbors.
dunno who's Darth Vader and whos the dark lord in this scenario.
TLP| 1.11.13 @ 11:56AM
And, might I suggest a DOG, to go with that Gun.
Man's first line of Defence.
MelvinNC| 1.11.13 @ 12:02PM
I own a pain in the ass Walker Hound but he is my early warning system. Nothing outside get past his ears and nose.
ArmyAviator| 1.11.13 @ 1:58PM
Banning firearms may well change the hardware killers use, but it will not stop the violence and the killing. Criminals will still get guns and will be much freer to victimize an unarmed populace. Lunatics will continue to go on rampages knowing that nobody will stop them. In the 15 minutes it takes for police to respond to an incident, a loony can murder many victims. He'll either use a firearm of some kind, or a number of Molotov Cocktails, firebombs for the uninitiated. Other means of killing will be fomented and used by the loon as well as the criminal. Drive-by shootings may well become drive-by firebombings. It's not hard to get an empty beer bottle, 12 oz of gasoline and a small rag. Obama and Biden claim that they only want to limit firearms as to protect us all from lunatics and criminals. What they REALLY want to protect is their own POWER. They don't fear angry crowds with torches and pitchforks, but they do fear law-abiding citizens with firearms. ConservaPhobes across the Liberal
Socialist spectrum FEAR any opinions or ideology that is not in LOCKSTEP with their own. An armed citizenry poses the ultimate THREAT to the coming Socialist system being imposed on us. It will be a Stalinist system at the best, a Hitlerist system at the worst.
Louis Jenkins| 1.11.13 @ 3:54PM
Crying over jolly old England and 75 cents may get you a cup of coffee. Waiting for the weak Republicans to stand of this issue is waiting for it to rain. They'll fade on this issue like they have on everything else. Mark my words.
I cannot stand and strongly suggest that Biden et. al. go F--- themselves, but they will not get what I have rightly earned. It can go no further.
The 2nd amendment is a great part of the Constitution, but it goes further than that. It is man's right to defend himself, his wife, and his children, by what ever means possible. This right comes from God, not from the Constitution, certainly not from the Vice President, nor from the amamzing number of puke eating cronies on his committee. (Nee, from Philadelphia I think, who is on the committee has a son who is in jail for conspiring to commit mass murder.) So don't tell me I have the potential to commit murder, not when Bite Me has a committee member with much more intimate experience in the matter.
Don't shake your finger at me you bunch of maggot pukes from Hollywood. Not when every other movie you're in is full of guns, death, and mayhem. Dejango? Give me a break you bunch of meally mouth bast---s.
Let's get one thing straight Obama, et. al., you've got to come and take them. Sounds easy and you may kill me and harm my family, but I'll get my share before you set one foot in my house. Remember it.
KatieLuther| 1.11.13 @ 9:27PM
This was an excellent article on the right to defend oneself. However, since you mentioned the 2nd amendment, I would add that the second amendment is not about the right to defend oneself against ordinary criminals. It is primarily about the right to defend oneself against a tyrannical government. When liberals ask, "Why do you NEED a machine gun to defend yourself?" The answer is not that we think machine guns are fun to shoot (even though they are) and it's not just because we have the right to own things we don't need. We NEED big weapons to defend ourselves against a tyrannical government. Unfortunately, that right has already been taken away from us with gun control laws. If the US government decided to use force to make us do evil things-- we would not be able to match their fire power. So much for the second amendment.
imaginarynumber| 1.13.13 @ 8:44PM
The government has nuclear weapons, should individuals be allowed to own them? Should foreign states be allowed to own them too, lest your government does indeed turn to tyranny?
irish19| 1.18.13 @ 3:18PM
Okay, I'll play. First off, not even the current regime is stupid enough to nuke its own people.
Second, from a militia standpoint, militias were ususally organized on a company level. Therefore, any weapons system present at that level should be ownable (I will grant that there needs to be extra training for things that make extra big booms).
Nick Shaw| 1.12.13 @ 10:23AM
Another excellent piece, Mr. Steyn!
Unfortunately, liberals are ruled by the heart and seem to have not a clue as to the depravity of human nature. They think making a rule and having happy thoughts will eliminate all conflict. Sadly, this has never been the case much as we would all wish it were true. Some, in fact, would kill you just because you have happy thoughts!
Just as they thought poverty was the basis of all crime and that throwing money at it in the form of welfare would alleviate the problem, nothing trumps the need of some people to take what they want. Whether it be property or lives.
In the larger sense, only an armed public can prevent the government from taking what it wants. If they wish to remain free.
Again, sadly, that's another conundrum. Human nature also dictates that we are willing to give up freedoms for the velvet chains of perceived government protection from all the bad things in life.
Too late we realize the velvet only covers the iron beneath. And a very thin covering it is for those who rule are but humans themselves.
imaginarynumber| 1.13.13 @ 8:53PM
"only an armed public can prevent the government from taking what it wants"
Only if the public are unified. Otherwise you, potentially, end up with a bloody civil war, neighbour killing neighbour, as was evidenced when the Gov wanted to take away the "right" of free men to keep black people as slaves.
The 2nd contributed to the bloodiest chapter of America's history.
What you see as tyranny your neighbour might see as common sense policy, and visa-verse.
Longplay| 1.17.13 @ 10:19PM
But then of course, one of you is wrong.
John Shepard| 1.12.13 @ 10:24AM
It is all well and good to look at the statistics pertaining to the use of guns for good or ill, but it risks losing sight of the fundamental issue(s). A couple of articles that go to those issues:
"Gun Control: Controlling the Government's Guns" by George Reisman:
http://georgereismansblog.blog.....-guns.html
"With Gun Control, Cost Benefit Analysis is Amoral" by Harry Binswanger:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ha.....is-amoral/
Nick Shaw| 1.12.13 @ 12:28PM
Excellent piece by Reisman, John. Thanks for that.
Longplay| 1.17.13 @ 10:23PM
I've never understood how those who oppose capitalism and rail against big corporations fail to see that the government is the biggest "business" of all, and the only one that has guns and the power to use them behind it.
imaginarynumber| 1.13.13 @ 8:38PM
That the author regards Tony Martin as a victim speaks volumes.
Tony Martin was a bitter and twisted loner and a nazi sympathiser who had bragged about wanting to kill a burgular. He actively encouraged the two burgulars to break in, then waited for them and shot one dead with his illegal firearm as they were fleeing through a window.
I am glad that we have “proportionate response". Some 20% of all crime in the UK is vanadalism, whilst unsightly it hardly justifies being shot dead by an irked homeowner.
Th overall violent crime ate in the UK is indeed much higher than the USA but this largely because the rates include incidents that don't result in actual violence, such as purse snatching and threaterning bahaviour. USA violent crime stats are far more selective and thus not directly comparible.
Never-the-less you are 4 times more likely to be murdered in the USA and 400 times more likely to be murdered with a firearm.
Kudos to Tom Cruise (1998) for coming to the aid of the defenceless lady but
Dai Alanye | 1.16.13 @ 12:57AM
It takes an imaginary person to consider purse-snatching and threatening to be non-violent crimes. Each is assault.
Will| 1.15.13 @ 2:23AM
As the previous comment said, Tony Martin was a loon who shot both barrels out of his window at a fleeing man. By the way, Norfolk is statistically the safest place in England.
Hate to let facts intrude but the US homicide rate is 4.8, compared to 1.2 in the UK. US had 386 violent crimes per 100,000 last year, whereas England & Wales had 16. Scotland and Northern Ireland would bump that up slightly, but its still a huge difference. Even the burglary rate is much lower. I have lived in a poor part of South London for 2 years now, and have never even witnessed a crime worse than a punch-up outside the pub.
spike59| 1.18.13 @ 5:45AM
you MAY have neglected to mention the fact that, even before the British gun ban, the homicide rate was lower than here
Jimbobogie| 1.17.13 @ 3:52PM
What do:
1. Germaine Greer
2. Phil Collins’ mother
3. Anthea Turner
4. Ridley Scott’s mother
5. Britt Ekand
6. Michael Green
7. Bernie Ecclestone
8. Anton Mosimann
9. Rita Simminds
10. Tom Cruise
All have in common?
None of them were shot and killed by criminals while being robbed.
How many of you knew the answer?
spike59| 1.18.13 @ 5:47AM
one more thing they have in common; they were all left defenseless by the Socialist nanny state. and none of them need to have been victimized at all
Jimbobogie| 1.17.13 @ 4:12PM
I saw the following words the other day...
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...”
...but I’m darned if I can remember where they came from. Anybody know?
spike59| 1.18.13 @ 6:01AM
reply is below ToneDepth...
ToneDeph| 1.17.13 @ 7:48PM
An Amusing and enlightening 13 year old story.
Unfortunately if you follow up on many of these stories you will come to a conclusion contrary to the aricles intent.
Example: The Tony Martin story. What you interpret from reading this article and what your opinion of the case will be after reading the ensuing facts will be polar opposites.
spike59| 1.18.13 @ 5:53AM
You left out the most important part:
"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
------------------------------------------
Now, as to whatever silly 'point' you may have been attempting to make, I offer this quote from George Mason, considered the "father of the Bill of Rights":
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials."
spike59| 1.18.13 @ 6:00AM
the above was supposed to post as a reply to Jimbowhoever-thanks, TAS
Jimbobogie| 1.18.13 @ 2:26PM
Thanks for reminding me. :) Unfortunately, recent Supreme Court decisions have served to eradicate the significance of the first part of the Second Amendment-an interesting question was asked last night on a certain TV show-if the possession of firearms is necessary in order to combat a tyrannical government, then shouldn't the public be packing the same kind of weaponry as the armed forces-who, one assumes would be protecting the tyrants?
spike59| 1.21.13 @ 6:12AM
not necessary; IF (and i can't imaging this happening, although it's not beyond the realm of possibility) the people were threatened by a tyrannical Federal government in a military sense, it's unlikely that they'd be lobbing nukes into North Maple Grove; they'd send in the nearest National Guard unit, which WOULD be vulnerable to a a group of determined hometown folks armed with .30-06 deer rifles, Remington shotguns and Glocks-replicate that in town after town...not to mention the difficulty of finding local 'weekend warriors' willing to turn arms against their neighbors at the insistence of Washington...and how many of our top brass would decide that the honorable thing to do would be to go the Bobby Lee route-men who have access to the top civilian command?