Good Lord, the author is such a damned WUSS.
Typical British provincialism. Sadly, I just had dinner with two friends from England who had just watched one of the John Adams episodes with Paul Giamotti (they had to turn on the subtitles, lol!) Anyway, my very nice friend said to me in a loud, proud voice: “You know, we’ve never heard of John Adams!” I wasn’t surprised.
That being said, the comments following this editorial show that Brits living in America really do get it.
"Trust but verify."
The fact that the Egyptian military chose not to support the octogenarian Mubarak is hardly a sign that the "revolution" is over and no violence is forthcoming.
There are a lot of well armed players who are intent on emerging from the current situation into a position of power and authority. Unfortunately, if it all goes south, the unarmed masses of Egyptian civilians will be caught in the crossfire.
Most gun control advocates are sublimating a fear of guns. Get them out to the gun range a few times, and it is amazing the change in attitude.
I have a lib friend that was an extreme anti-gun nut. She was introduced to sporting clays, she’s still mostly a lib but has a collection of shot guns and would fight to the death to keep her second ammendment rights.
Wonder when the BBC will come out with a similar article on the Swiss?
I grew up in rural upstate NY. Locks were a luxury.
But the old man always had the .22 and a loaded 12 ga in the bedroom, and I had my .22
Sleep tight. Don’t let the bedbugs bite.
The only thing that came in uninvited was a coon that snuck through the window...
In a response to our English friends, and I do mean “English”, I would like to point out the obvious.
In America, in the past, when a government has gone astray, and no longer upholds the social contract, when it no longer tries to protect and defend the people against criminals—or worse, when it supports the criminals in their assault against the people, the response of Americans has been vigilantism.
Much maligned, vigilantism has been roundly condemned by many, as it is seen as a tool of oppression and racism. And some of that criticism is indeed justified, but not always, and not in the case stated above.
This is not about oppression and racism, but about the failure of government to protect the people, and how Americans can and do respond to that failure.
Vigilantism of this sort never begins with violence, in fact it is the furthest thing from being a violent movement. Instead it begins as a petition to the government, requesting that the government do its job and act against violence and oppression. In the law, such a demand is called a writ of mandamus, that enforcing the law is not optional.
However, by the time such a peaceful movement has assembled, it is already obvious that the government is either indifferent or hostile to peaceful petition.
Many are the stages of vigilantism, which include efforts by the citizenry to form watch committees, that inform the government when criminals are afoot and up to no good. But these reports are ignored.
Then perhaps citizens try to intervene to defend themselves and others from attack. This often awakens the government, who condemn the citizenry for “oppressing” the criminals that attack them.
After that, either the criminals or the government or both turn on the public and violently attack them, maybe even kill some. The vigilantes are driven underground on threat of arrest, and perhaps some of their leaders are arrested.
By this time, the public is losing patience, and now wants to be done with the criminals, by driving them away. It has still not become murderous. But only then, if the criminals and the government decide to again attack or resist, does a vigilante mob form. And they are bent on ending the problem for good.
Criminals who do not flee are then traditionally hung or shot, and their political accomplices are driven out. When a superior government finally intervenes, it is usually long after the events in question, and their participation is unimportant in restoring order.
But this is how Americans do things. And what do the English do?
They submit to tyranny. They curse themselves for the sins of their forefathers, and blame themselves for the abuse heaped upon them. They do not stand up to criminals, brutes and tyrants like they once did, for they are a humbled people.
Perhaps were they to resist, which they cannot because only their criminals are armed, the streets of London would be occupied by continentals. Perhaps the French and German armies to keep what passed for order. But it would not be the English, for they have been cowed.
Without the rights of freeborn Englishmen, which includes the right to defend themselves, their families, and their nation, they are reduced to a subject, chattel state. Many of them would embrace this, out of disgust for what the British Empire once was, and revulsion at their own heritage. Why not?, for this is what they teach their own children.
So this is the future of Englishmen, to either be lorded over by uncaring Brussels bureaucrats, or to become a dhimmi people at the service and whim of their Muslim conquerors. Many would be satisfied with that, perhaps even being sold into slavery, or dying out as a people entirely.
But this is not the path of Americans. We will remember the English as our once wise forefathers, who were too ashamed to look themselves in the mirror and call themselves English.
Who sold their birthright for a mess of hummus.