Skip to comments.Is Defending the Second Amendment akin to Supporting Slavery?
Posted on 09/25/2013 6:05:05 AM PDT by Kaslin
The English are an interesting tribe. There is much to like about their country, including the fact that repeatedly elected Margaret Thatcher, one of the worlds best leaders in my lifetime.
On the other hand, the United Kingdom has veered sharply to the left in recent decades, and Thatcher must have been very disappointed that her Conservative Party now is but a hollow shell, controlled by statists who actually think people should voluntarily pay extra tax to support wasteful and corrupt government.
And the politicians openly pursue Orwellian tax-collection tactics!
No wonder the country now faces a very grim future.
But the thing that most irks me about the British political class is the fanatical embrace of anti-gun policies. Consider some of these examples.
Given these example of anti-gun zealotry, you wont be surprised to learn that some English pundits think America is primitive and backwards for retaining an individual right to bear arms.
You may be thinking, so what, they have their bad laws and we have our good laws. But it seems at least some Brits want to disarm not just their own citizens, but Americans as well.
Writing for the UK-based Guardian, Henry Porter asserts that it is time for the United Nations to somehow undermine private gun ownership in the United States.
what if we no longer thought of this as just a problem for America and, instead, viewed it as an international humanitarian crisis a quasi civil war, if you like, that calls for outside intervention? If this perennial slaughter doesnt qualify for intercession by the UN and all relevant NGOs, it is hard to know what does.
Mr. Porter doesnt specify how the United Nations and other non-governmental organizations are supposed to accomplish this task.
Does he want Obama to ram through the U.N. treaty that leftists hope would trump the Second Amendment?
If so, all I can say is good luck trying to enforce gun bans. The American people would engage in widespread disobedience if our own politicians tried to take away our constitutional freedoms.
And if a bunch of U.N. bureaucrats tried to do the same thing well, thats such a ridiculous notion that Im reminded of my fantasy about what might have happened if the United Nations had tried to stop Texas from executing a child murderer who originally was from Mexico.
But the call for UN intervention is not the most absurd part of the article.
What could be sillier, you ask? How about the fact that Mr. Porter implies that gun owners are akin to slave owners. Its not an explicit accusation, but you can see in this excerpt that he wants readers to draw that conclusion.
Half the country is sane and rational while the other half simply doesnt grasp the inconsistencies and historic lunacy of its position, which springs from the second amendment right to keep and bear arms, and is derived from English common law and our 1689 Bill of Rights. We dispensed with these rights long ago, but American gun owners cleave to them with the tenacity that previous generations fought to continue slavery.
So if you cleave to your guns, youre on the same level as the people who defended slavery. I guess this is the U.K. version of Obama accusing some Americans of clinging to guns.
Ironically, Mr. Porter self identifies as a journalist specialising in liberty and civil rights. But I guess he doesnt specify what side hes on, so I guess we can assume he specializes in undermining liberty and curtailing civil rights.
P.S. The Guardian is known as a left-wing newspaper, but Ive always had a special place for them in my heart ever since one of their writers accused me of being a high priest of light tax, small state libertarianism. He meant it as an insult, of course, but I think of it as the nicest thing ever written about me. Even better than this.
It is OPPOSITION to the Second Amendment that is the same as supporting slavery.
THIS is how America stays stupid ... we're given a stupid question to answer or mull over, and you'd THINK that the excersizing of our ability to think and explain, we'd be better for it, but ... apparently the opposite happens.
Instead of our convincing others of our position, we find ourselves watered down by the enemies idiot mentality as they attempt to smugly retort to us.
My home page ... the dirty kid and clean kid.
It is no secret why England turned left. The last Labour govenement let in massive numbers of immigrants from the third world and now a real Tory cant win. Do we learn from their expereince? Now you know how utterly dangerous McCain and Graham are.
The MSM tells us so every day.
And THIS is the people to whom Winston Churchill proclaimed,”We will fight them on the beaches, we will fight them in the hills, WE WILL NEVER SURRENDER!”
It appears the FEW have become the NONE.
Looks like A. Hitler moved too soon.
Sorry, Winston, there will NOT “Always be and England.”
Apparently he doesn’t get the errors and inconsistencies in his arguments. Every place that enacts strict gun control experiences an increase in violent crime rates. Well duh! Criminals quickly realize their victims are now far less likely to be able to defend themselves. Gun control isnt about safety, because it makes us less safe. It isnt about guns because the criminals will still have guns. It is about fascist like control, and only about control of law abiding citizens.
Maybe Obama sent the Churchill bust back to England to inspire the British people. Nahhhh.
Uh ... sure it is. It’s also the same as barbequeing babies, raping blind nuns, and endorsing cancer.
I considered trying to cobble something erudite together, but all this article deserves is, hmmm ... isn’t this Lord Douchebagge?
In discussing the matter with liberal acquaintances I like to agree that no one needs a firearm. But they should take away the firearms incrementally as there are so many out there. Lets start with disarming all blacks. When they point out that that is certainly discriminatory I ask why the Democrats wanted to do that after the Civil War? And why do they want to do it now? Armed blacks make the work of a Democratic organization such as the Ku Klux Klan a lot more difficult. And when they say that they don’t want to just take away the firearms from blacks but rather everyone an easy response is that they have just admitted that they want to take away the firearms from blacks. Quite racist if you ask me...
Start taking them away incrementally from the demographic groups that commit the most crimes with them.
There is no slavery as long as there is a Second Amendment.
Technically, he is correct.
He actually compared the degree of tenacity, which is indeed similar, not the validity of the causes.
He was, of course, implying a similarity of causes without quite having the nerve to say so explicitly.
In a sane world, the wannabe mass killer would be the second person killed. But not in the “gun free” zones.
We are not “subjects”. We are free men, and there in lies the difference.
Good luck with that! While I agree you, even here there are some who climb up on the ACLU highhorse and employ the lefty practice of name-calling at anyone who proposes cops should be able to stop and frisk ‘gangstas’ in high crime areas where they have a reasonable suspicion—even objective belief, due to the piece ‘printing’—that the lethal little thugs are strapped.
IS PRAYING TO GOD THE SAME AS SUPPORTING satan?