Britain Needs Guns

Yes, it does.
http://www.britainneedsguns.co.uk/index.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2656875.stm

(Above: Finland's good sheeple promote gun control.)


In a nation where you go to prison for carrying a knife, it's time (if not too late of course!) to promote responsible weapon ownership, and get people to understand why armed citizens are so vital - to safeguard those precious few liberties which have been handed down over the years, because they were paid for in blood and if they are allowed to be stolen, they will have to be paid for all over again at some future date.

What was it that made England, and later the United Kingdom, be at the forefront of the fight for individual freedom during the Renaissance era? The main answer to that question is the prevalence of individual firearm/weapon ownership, following the English tradition of the Militia. Did I say English? That's right, the American concept of Militia was adapted from the old English way of running things.


From the Wikipedia entry Militia (English):

Up until the Glorious Revolution in 1688, the Crown and Parliament were in strong disagreement. The English Civil War left a rather unusual military legacy. Both Whigs and Tories distrusted the creation of a large standing army not under civilian control. The former feared that it would be used as an instrument of royal tyranny. The latter had memories of the New Model Army and the anti-monarchical social and political revolution that it brought about. Consequently, both preferred a small standing army under civilian control for defensive deterrence and to prosecute foreign wars, a large navy as the first line of national defence, and a militia composed of their neighbours as additional defence and to preserve domestic order.

Consequently, the English Bill of Rights (1689) declared, amongst other things: "that the raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with consent of Parliament, is against law..." and "that the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defense suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law." This implies that they are fitted to serve in the militia, which was intended to serve as a counterweight to the standing army and preserve civil liberties against the use of the army by a tyrannical monarch or government.

Sound familiar to you? Sounds a lot like the Founding Fathers to me.

My, how we have strayed.

Tougher sentences for knife offenders. 'Offender' btw means you CARRIED this deadly weapon, nothing related to using it.

Kill this gun culture! Having a gun culture is very much a good thing, it means having citizens who own guns and know how to use them to preserve liberty, however apparently the only gun culture that exists is bustin' caps and packin' nines, braap braap.

Defending yourself is a crime. Call the police instead. And wait three hours while the bad guys order a pizza, fill their van with your electrical goods (and you, if you're unlucky), and hey, maybe they'll leave your kids alone?

You don't have a natural right to defend yourself if you're attacked, but the state has a right (not just a privilege) to gun you down and then get away with it, because they're above the law. No, they ARE the law.

The funniest thing is, all the "oh eugh guns and knives take lives" zombies weren't all outraged at this use of guns by government. Why should government keep its arms if we cannot? Governments and government orders kill a lot more people than individuals do. Why should the police get to run around with MP5s getting all up in everyone's business, while I can go to prison for just carrying a weapon of any kind?

When citizens become civilians and give up their weapons and rebellious attitude (the two go together after all), it's a historical fact that only slavery can follow.

http://www.richeast.org/htwm/Greeks/Romans/slavery/slavery2.html
http://www.georgiacarry.org/cms/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/racist-roots-of-ga-gun-laws.pdf
http://www.jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/GCA_68.htm