Thursday, September 08, 2011


HJS COMMENTS: As usual, British leadership misses the point, as does the usual suspects in one of our political parties here. One Canadian chap said in defense of the British and Canadians banning firearms, that self-defense is no excuse for harming someone or taking a life. See, he missed the point also. Scenario 1: the Mason family, with harmless parents, sits down to a meal with their two children. The man has no violence in his background and abhors the idea of anyone’s having a firearm for any reason. With the new wave of violence enveloping the city, the police advise people to buy baseball bats for peace of mind. They do not recommend hitting anyone with the bats; just have them for peace of mind. The kids are being brought up the same way. Spike, Mike, and Ike, on the other hand, are three ex-convicts who do not much care for laws or for people in general. Each of them spent 5 or 6 years in prison for violent crimes, most of which time they were found in the prison yard lifting weights to build up their strength and also engaging in other forms of exercises, including boxing. They are pleased with their own strength and ability to hurt people and they have a long history of violence.

If you put the latter three characters in the same house with the Masons, one look at the 200-250 pound brutes with bulging muscles against Mr. and Mrs. Mason would be enough to say “Take whatever money there is, just leave us alone.” However, the brutes do not leave right away because they know right away that the money is theirs whether it is surrendered to them or not. What is more important? Now they find they have power over the family and can do anything they want. They demonstrate to the kids and to Mrs. Mason that they have no one to protect them and are completely at their mercy. Spike does this very quickly and easily by launching a very heavy blow to Mr. Mason’s jaw. I will not describe the result, except to say that in less than a second, the brute put Mr. Mason out of action for a long time and probably gave him a permanent psychological problem. It is quite possible that Mr. Mason was killed by the blow or by whatever came afterward. Meanwhile, Mrs. Mason and the two kids, a son and daughter, have no defenses against whatever plans formulate in the minds of the three criminals.

Is this the scenario that Leftist firearm-haters like to think about and dwell on while they are conjuring up these bills nobody needs? It must be; whatever else is there when you take away self-defense? Must we all sign up for a lifetime of weight-training and boxing? Well, even that training would not have helped Mr. Mason against three of them—perhaps not even against one.
Scenario 2: Now suppose the family lived in a Castle Doctrine state and had a CCW. With the right training, which is supposed to accompany CCW certificates, Mrs. Mason and the kids would hit the floor while Mr. Mason quickly eliminated the deadly threat to his family (and don’t tell me those three thugs were not armed—one blow from one of those people would be enough, even though some do not like to stop with one blow). I know some idiot Leftist who would read the second scenario in horror, which only proved that the first scenario was more to his satisfaction and closer to his philosophy than scenario 2. And I wonder if the dim-watts only look to prevent the second scenario and never the first one because it conflicts with their doctrine (which probably was conceived in a vacuum).

Look, Sam Colt added a little saying to his ads about handguns so long ago; it is rather cute and tells us exactly what handguns are.

The saying goes: “Fear no man, regardless of
size; just call on me and I will equalize.”

When you put Mr. Mason up against any one of the three thugs, physically he does not have a snowball’s chance in Casa Grande in July. Anyone, anyone who takes away his ability or any person’s ability to protect himself is a murderer as sure as if a politician had ordered Spike to hit his victim. And just as surely, that politician who pushed that law is just as guilty for whatever happened to the wife and two kids after the brutes dealt with Mr. Mason. If the family was brutally murdered, the politicians who pushed that law murdered the family. It is time we looked at these personal laws from mean-spirited politicians who want their way, regardless of the tragic consequences to others. We should look at those laws for what they cause, not for what politicians say they are trying to prevent. Pushing laws against self-defense is at least a hate crime, and can very well result in murder of the innocent. Remember, when seconds count—the police are only minutes away!

Thanks to Chris Cox for the following article.

Britain’s criminal utopia
By Chris Cox 10:03 AM 08/17/2011

If you want to see what a disarmed society looks like, look no further than England.

Thousands of angry, drunk, violent thugs running wild and stealing anything they can carry. Shopkeepers and homeowners crippled with fear, unable to defend their loved ones or their property. Innocent citizens forced to watch helplessly while their life’s dreams — everything they worked so hard to build and acquire — are carried out the door, or smashed to pieces, or burned to the ground.

Men, women and children forced to strip naked in the streets, while packs of criminals laugh and ridicule them before making off with their clothing.

The fact is, when British politicians stripped their citizens of their God-given right to self-defense, they robbed them of their freedom and their dignity.

Sales of baseball bats are up over 5,000% on This isn’t to mark the beginning of little league season. These are desperate homeowners and shopkeepers purchasing the best — and in reality, only — self-defense tool that the British government will allow them to own…at least for now.

If past is prologue, this flood of baseball bats into London will spark cries from government leaders for mandatory bat registration and a wave of new laws on how, when, and under what circumstances British citizens may carry or swing a bat. After all, this is exactly how British citizens lost their gun rights.

First came mandatory gun licensing. Next came a wave of restrictions on firearms ownership. Then came the outright gun bans.

It has been illegal to own a handgun in Britain for nearly 15 years. As a result, Britain’s violent crime rate has soared. In fact, Britain consistently clocks-in with the highest violent crime rate in all of Europe. Last week’s riots notwithstanding, you are six times more likely to be mugged in London than in New York. These are the inconvenient statistics that the gun-ban crowd likes to sweep under the rug.

As if banning handguns didn’t send a strong enough message to criminals that British citizens are ripe for the picking, the British government went even further in 1999.

Recall the tragic story of Tony Martin, the British farmer who was awakened one night to the sound of breaking glass and found two burglars in his home. Martin had been robbed six times before. This time, he went downstairs, retrieved a shotgun, and fired at the intruders.

For this, Martin received life in prison for killing one of the burglars, ten years for wounding the other thug, and one additional year for possession of an unregistered shotgun. The wounded burglar served just 18 months of a three-year sentence and was given $5,000 in legal assistance from Britain’s Legal Services Commission so he could sue Martin for violating his civil rights.

The British government goes out of its way to embolden the criminal element in society, and now British politicians look at last week’s riots in utter amazement, confused as to how such a thing could happen. As Britain’s Home Secretary recently said in an interview, “The way we police in Britain is through consent of communities.”

All Americans should pay close attention to the riots in the Great Britain, because this is the criminal utopia that gun-ban extremists at the United Nations, and in our own White House, want to impose on us.

Next year, the U.N. will convene leaders from various countries around the world to finish writing an international Arms Trade Treaty that could severely restrict or even outright ban Americans’ right to sell, purchase, carry or own a firearm. Anti-gun extremists have been working on this treaty for well over a decade. Now they’re closer than ever to realizing their dream.

Ironically, the British government is one of the strongest proponents of this latest U.N. scheme to destroy our Second Amendment rights. Evidently, British politicians think America and the rest of the world should enjoy the same the criminal utopia that was on full display in London last week.

The U.N. and its anti-gun allies incessantly campaign for the United States to be more like the rest of the world — especially disarmed Great Britain. As we watched the horror unfold in the UK, it has never been clearer: The rest of the world should be more like America when it comes to freedom.

Chris W. Cox is executive director of the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) and serves as the organization’s chief

No comments: