Would you 'send a gun to defend a British home'?

[spin]

The December 1959 issue of GUNS Magazine is now online, and it tells us the story behind the poster in the feature article "Guns in our bundles for Britain," by William B. Edwards. Here are some of the highlights:

"We shall fight them on the beaches, we shall fight them on the landing grounds, we shall fight them in the fields and the streets, we shall fight them in the hills-

"We shall never surrendah!"

And they say as the broadcast was momentarily interrupted by applause, Winston Churchill turned sadly and angrily away from the mike and said:

"But I do not know what we shall fight them with ...


http://www.examiner.com/x-1417-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m12d2-Would-you-still-send-a-gun-to-defend-a-British-home

Take yourself back to the year 1940. Hitler had launched his blitzkrieg hordes across most of Europe, and occupied France. The Nazi juggernaut paused and stood poised on the shores of the English Channel. On a clear day, you could see the white cliffs of Dover. The Luftwaffe owned the skies and German soldiers were toasting their victories with French wine in sidewalk cafes in Paris. Hitler danced a jig as the French signed the documents of their capitulation in the same little railroad car that saw the formal end of World War I.

On July 16 of that year, Hitler sent a top-secret directive to his military leaders: “Since England, despite her hopeless military situation, still shows no sign of willingness to come to terms, I have decided to prepare, and if necessary to carry out, a landing operation against her. The aim of this operation is to eliminate the English motherland as a base for carrying on the war against Germany, and if necessary, to occupy the country completely.”

****snip****

And the best part of the plan was this: the British people were, for the most part, defenseless. Decades of a culture that taught that guns were bad and should be eschewed had taken their toll. About the only guns extant in England were fowling pieces owned by the privileged gentry. The only tools available for the average British subject to defend his country were broomsticks, spades, and pitchforks. In other words, much like it is today in that country. What to do? Here was the most invincible arm of all time massed across the Channel, ready and willing to invade, rape and pillage a defenseless British populace.

Here, in bold capital print, emblazoned across the page, were the words “SEND A GUN TO DEFEND A BRITISH HOME.” The appeal went on: “British civilians, faced with threat of invasion, desperately need arms for the defense of their homes.” Appealed for were pistols, rifles, revolvers, shotguns and binoculars. In short, from Britain to America: “Help! Send any arms you can spare, because we haven't a prayer without them when and if we are invaded!”

The full-page ad has a lesson that is clear: Men and women without firearms are defenseless subjects of their government, and at the mercy of any armed opponent. Men and women with firearms are not subjects, but citizens. Citizens who can stand proudly and ably against any foe, foreign or domestic.

By the way, Americans did respond, with thousands of firearms and binoculars, freely and without hope of the return of their goods. We were, and thank heavens, still are the “arsenal of democracy.” And let it ever be so. The postscript to the story is that exactly none of these freely-sent arms were ever returned to their rightful owners. Most were melted as scrap after the war by a British Government that was too blind to see the object lesson.
http://www.twinbuttebunch.org/index.php?fuseaction=misc.sendguns.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

1. Too blind to see the object lesson is right.

It was England's organized, regulated and government run Air Force that held back the hun - not bubba (or the English version of bubba) and his pop-gun.

60 years later, how many hundreds of thousands died in THIS country due to gun violence? How many hoards were repelled or even intimidated by private gun ownership?

[Craftsman]

3. Gun ownership is a basic right, what other rights will you willingly give up?

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

7. "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."

This is one concept that kept invasions out of America in WWII.
A thoroughly armed citizenry (not just army) is essential if threat of invasion exists.
The Brit's would have had a hellish time stopping the spread of a Nazi invasion.
Once Hitler got past the brit's air and sea forces (possible) there was little to push him out.

To "win a war" you must conquer the land and people.
When attempting to invade/occupy a country, at some point, your troops' boots have to hit the dirt.
Troops physically must walk the beat, and secure the countrysides and cities.
You can control the air, sea and ports but until you control the ground you can never "win" the war.
Just look at wars in Iraq/Afghanistan, relatively primitive compared to the invaders.
This also certainly applies to a tyrannical government.

Say you wanted to invade America... think about it:
In America, there is nearly 1 gun per capita. Certainly more guns than able bodied fighters.
300,000,000+ american citizens. Nearly all capable of being of armed.
So you successfully nuked (with 100% mortality) the 100 most populated US cities and localities
Per the 1990 census, there are STILL ~250,000,000 americans to fight you off.
Your combat forces would need a kill ratio of 100:1 if you invaded with ~2.5 million troops.
Consider China's armed forces (the largest in the world) is about 2,255,000

[spin]

9. In the WWII time frame shooting was a popular sport in the United States...

many of the young men in our country were familiar with firearms and were good target shooters and hunters.

England had a different view of firearms...

And the best part of the plan was this: the British people were, for the most part, defenseless. Decades of a culture that taught that guns were bad and should be eschewed had taken their toll. About the only guns extant in England were fowling pieces owned by the privileged gentry. The only tools available for the average British subject to defend his country were broomsticks, spades, and pitchforks. In other words, much like it is today in that country. What to do? Here was the most invincible arm of all time massed across the Channel, ready and willing to invade, rape and pillage a defenseless British populace.
http://www.twinbuttebunch.org/index.php?fuseaction=misc.sendguns

[Kolesar]

21. Britons had killed off their wildlife and had little reason for hunting arms

Was a prole from a working class neighborhood going to take a train to the countryside to bag a rabbit? Well, there was scant public land to hunt on. If I only had a few schillings left at the end of the month, I would spend it on food or a jacket instead of a useless firearm.

[eqfan592]

23. I guess the"proles" didn't have crime to worry about in the least, either?

Useless, indeed. And I'm sure they thought of them equally as useless when the threat of invasion was upon them, either. Oh, wait a minute...

[Kolesar]

32. see

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=272676&mesg_id=272903

[PavePusher]

40. Yes, hindsight is accurate.

Was that little fact known at the time? Could it have changes in a short time? It wouldn't take much to build a fllet of cheap landing craft for a 20-40 mile trip. Germany did have a navy of some repute.

[PavePusher]

8. And if that had not worked?

"It was England's organized, regulated and government run Air Force that held back the hun..."

It was pretty close there for a while. Had the Germans not had egomaniacal incompetant political appointees at the top level of strategy/tactical decision-making, they probably would have won the air war. I suppose then you would have had the Brits peacefully surrender and submit to one of the most tyrannical regimes ever...

If I was in that kind of situation, I would have wanted a fall-back plan, no matter how desperate. Do what you want, but I do not intend to ever "go quietly into that good night". Kicking, screaming, eye-gouging and generally making them work for it is more my style. :evilgrin:

[taurus145]

10. I suppose the availability of firearms to anyone and everyone

who wants one has made no difference to our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Granted, IED's and suicide bombers claim more lives and casualties, but ask any ground pounder about the small arms (it seems) everyone has.

[spin]

11. But not all the people with firearms are shooting at our troops...

nor are they shooting at those who are fighting us.

[taurus145]

19. True, but

it is a real concern for the troops. That's purely anecdotal coming from my kid who has 2 tours in Iraq and one in Afghanistan and a very close friend who is a contractor for training the Afghan forces who has been "in country" for over 2 years (he's retired U.S. Army).

[eqfan592]

12. What, nothing to say now? Just a drive-by BSing? (nt)

[Hassin Bin Sober]

20. I said my piece. I deal in reality. AKA - the way things really happened.

I'm not going to wallow in the mud with a bunch of gun nuts hypothesizing and speculating what MIGHT have happened or what MIGHT happen in the future. History has not been kind to your argument.

It's the same tack I take with freepers that want to speculate how the economy will collapse and we will all be marched out to socialist re-education camps if we get a 4 point bump in the top marginal tax rate ....... I tell them to look at the history of this country when the top rate was 50-90%.

[eqfan592]

22. Oh what a load of horse shit.

You deal in "reality" my ass. You seem to be of the impression that firearms all by themselves lead to the deaths of people. That's not reality in the least, it's fantasy of the worst kind.

And examining how things "might" have worked how and how they "might" work out in the future is part and parcel of rational thinking. Ignoring or dismissing these potential realities out of hand is living in a willful state of ignorance.

And exactly how has history not been "kind" to our argument? You did a great job at pulling some numbers out of your ass, but you failed totally to place them in any sort of context (or to even site a source for the numbers). "Reality" indeed.

You're just as diluted as those freepers.

[gorfle]

29. They way things really happened.

The simple fact is that history only barely happened the way it happened during the Battle for Britain.

The reason why the British won the air war had nothing to do with the exceptional abilities of the British Air Forces. It was, instead, a tactical blunder on the part of the Germans - they switched from hitting military targets to civilian ones.

If they had not made that mistake, the British Air Forces probably would have been destroyed, leaving the country extremely vulnerable.

If you want to plan for future strategies, you must speculate about what might happen in the future.

Our founders included the second amendment in our Constitution because they speculated about what might happen should the people ever need to revolt against their government again, as they had had to do.

Those who do not ponder the possibilities of the past and future are simply walking blindly through life accepting whatever comes.

[proteus_lives]

16. The RAF was on the wire.

They were good but outnumbered. If Hitler hadn't stupidly switched tactics they would have been wiped out.

Then Operation Sea Lion would have happened and the Brits would have been fucked.

[DonP]

25. Excellent and historically accurate point

When the Luftwaffe switched from attacking the air bases and radar installations in the UK to the civilian terror targets, it gave the RAF time to recover and regroup.

Before that they were taking what the Air Marshall said were "unsustainable losses". A few more weeks or months and the Germans would have had control of the skies and an invasion might have become a reality.

The Home Guard, or "militia" was certainly ill equipped to deal with it if it did come to pass.

But why let actual history ruin a good gun grab mentality. Let's just go with the Mr. Mackey approach, "Guns r bad mmmm-kay" angle.

[eqfan592]

26. No no no Don!

You're not allowed to consider ANY sort of "what-if" scenario! The ONLY thing you are EVER allowed to take into account is what happened, no matter how close to "reality" the "what-if" scenario may be! No rational person would EVER take into consideration such trivialities as you just did!

Oh, and the ONLY "reality" you're allowed to believe is the one that says guns are evil. Anything else, and you're just an irrational freeper.

[Kolesar]

30. lame eom

[Kolesar]

31. The Nazis didn't have an invasion fleet

they did not have landing craft. Their only plan was to steal a bunch of French and Dutch small craft.

[PavePusher]

33. What is your point? n/t

[Euromutt]

34. Are you familiar with the 1974 war games at Sandhurst?

They tested how well a German invasion would have worked, based on available assets and assuming no German aerial supremacy. The short version is that the landings succeeded, and the Germans established a beachhead, but a subsequent attempt to break out of the beachhead foundered against the British "Stop" lines, giving the Royal Navy time to cut off the invasion force's supply lines.

Here's the kicker: the key element in the "Stop" lines? The Home Guard, armed with--among other things--those American-donated firearms.

[Mr Kilroi]

45. How many?

One of the main reason the Japanese did not invade mainland America was the belief that there was a gun behind every blade of grass.

Actually no one has died from gun violence...in any country. Unless of course you are suggesting that inanimate objects have the ability to become animate?

Great Britain has outlawed pistols no one may own one, their Olympic shooting team has to travel to France to practise.

Great Britain has become the most violent country in the E.U. 2 034 violent crimes per 100 000 pop. Gun control freak Canada, ranks in at #6 with 935 violent crimes per 100 000

Gun toting America the so called example of "What not to do" ranked in at #11 466 violent crimes per 100 000.

Blaming guns makes about as much sense as blaming pencils for spelling mistakes..If you follow the reasoning of banning objects because they are dangerous to its logical conclusion you would have to ban water because people drown in it and fire because it burns...

But you need to remember what the first 3 words in the Preamble of the Declaration of Independence says, "We the People" if you would like to keep "We the People" in charge you need private ownership of arms.

The source of the 2nd is the English Bill of Rights 1689. (U.S v Heller citation ?) The English Parliament put "the right of the subjects to keep arms in their defence" because the Crown maintained a standing army..The same is true of the U.S. Constitution, therefore the reason for the 2nd amendment is not foreign hordes but your own government.

[iverglas]

49. another card!

Actually no one has died from gun violence...in any country. Unless of course you are suggesting that inanimate objects have the ability to become animate?

Well duh, eh? Not that your implication -- presumably that they died from something like "people violence" -- makes any more sense.

They died of blood loss, that sorta thing, didn't they? I could go dig up my copy of the coroner's report on the Montreal Massacre post mortems and get specific about those deaths as examples, if you like. Very detailed descriptions of bullets banging around inside bodies, hitting this and that as they travelled ...

People don't die of H1N1, either. They die of pneumonia ... I mean: they die of fluid in the lungs ... or that would be: not being able to breathe ... or really, I guess: oxygen deprivation ... but I guess that might be cerebral hypoxia leading to brain death ...

H1N1, not a problem, people don't die of it, no need to worry.


Great Britain has become the most violent country in the E.U. 2 034 violent crimes per 100 000 pop. Gun control freak Canada, ranks in at #6 with 935 violent crimes per 100 000

You're new, so we'll give you a break, and an opportunity to redeem yourself.

Do cite the source of your figures -- and that source's source. Then tell us that the source's source says about using its national figures to make such comparisons. And then, for extra points, tell us why. Hint: tell us what crimes are included in those figures for each of the countries you cite. Big hint: find the offence of "rape" in the Criminal Code of Canada.


Or hey. Just keep on posting crap.



I'll just keep on fixing typos ...

[iverglas]

54. crap, you're doing badly so far

Yet another false one.

Great Britain has outlawed pistols no one may own one, their Olympic shooting team has to travel to France to practise.

Oh look, this news is only well over a year old:

http://www.shootinguk.co.uk/news/266949/GB_Pistol_Shots_to_be_allowed_to_train_in_the_UK.html

Britain’s Olympic pistol shooters are one step closer to being granted permission to train in the UK. On 8 July, Tessa Jowell, the secretary of state for culture, media and sport, was asked in Parliament under what circumstances people can practise in the UK for international pistol tournaments.

Ms Jowell responded that she has agreed to use her powers under section 5 of the 1968 Firearms Act to allow a small squad of elite GB Olympic pistol shooters to train in this country ahead of the Olympics in 2012. Scottish Ministers have agreed, in principle, to exercise their powers in a similar manner in relation to Scotland. In Northern Ireland, pistol shooters are free to practise their sport, provided that they have the appropriate firearms certificate from the chief constable of the police service of Northern Ireland.

The home secretary will also use her powers under section 5 to ensure arrangements are in place to allow competitors and officials at the Olympic Games in London in 2012 to possess their special competition pistols for the duration of the games and for any special warm-up events.

David Penn, of the British Shooting Sports Council, welcomed the move: ...

You're a Canadian, Mr. K. You must remember these.


http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2008/01/14/tto-shooting.html

John O'Keefe, the second homicide victim of 2008, died early Saturday morning as he headed home from a downtown pub.

According to police, at about 1:30 a.m. two men were kicked out of the Brass Rail strip club on Yonge Street south of Bloor. At about the same time O'Keefe left the nearby Duke of Gloucester pub, also on Yonge Street.

The two men ejected from the club returned and fired shots into a crowd outside, hitting O'Keefe. Seconds later the 42-year-old father was dead on the street.

Det. Sgt. Dan Nielsen said the two men kicked out of the strip club tried to shoot a bouncer and O'Keefe just got in the way.

The guy with the gun - the murderer - had a permit to possess a handgun, which he obtained in the usual way: by becoming a member of a gun club. The permit (i.e. the transporting permit also issued) allowed him to transport the firearm to and from the gun club. Not to and from nightclubs. But look there, that's what he did. A perfectly legal licensed handgun owner, committing the murder of a random passerby on a crowded block of Toronto's busiest pedestrian street, while trying to shoot an employee of an establishment who had perfectly lawfully evicted him from it. Huh, eh? What possible reason could there be not to just let anybody who claims to be a target shooter possess a handgun?


And of course:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2006/09/15/aftermath-shooting.html

Kimveer Gill was obsessed with firearms but followed the rules to legally obtain them, gun enthusiasts who knew him say.

Gill, 25, from Fabreville killed a woman before taking his own life during a shootout with police in the atrium at Montreal's Dawson College on Wednesday. Nineteen other people were injured in the rampage.

Gill was carrying three firearms with him when he entered the college, including a semi-automatic Beretta rifle and a .45-calibre handgun. All three weapons are legal and were registered in his name, Montreal police said.

He used the Beretta to commit the murder (and some very serious injuries) and the handgun to kill himself, as I recall. The Beretta was only in his possession because he had a restricted firearm licence ... because he was a member of a gun club and he did in fact spend time there shooting.


Being a target shooter means you'll never shoot anybody, right? So why would a society ever consider denying access to firearms like that to anybody who says they want to practise target shooting?

Remember what Dunblane (when Thomas Hamilton murdered 16 primary school children and their teacher with four legally-held pistols) and Hungerford (when Michael Ryan killed 16 people and himself with two semi-automatic rifles and a handgun) and the subsequent legislation
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7056245.stm
were actually all about? People in LEGAL possession of handguns and semi-automatic firearms using them to KILL PEOPLE.

[TPaine7]

2. Not while they looked down their noses at us "uncivilized" folks for our Second Amendment rights N/T

[Euromutt]

17. To be fair, it's not actually about the Second Amendment

Speaking as someone who is not British, but grew up partly in the UK and has spent a sizable amount of his life immersed in British culture, what it comes down to is that not even the most left-wing Brit can quite stomach the fact that World War II put the last nails in the coffin of Britain's status as a superpower, and the Suez crisis shoveled the dirt onto it. The British, not to put too fine a point on it, resent the United States for supplanting them as "top nation," and they'll seize on anything they can to feel at least morally and culturally superior. Private firearms ownership is just one thing; in the presence of an American, the usual bitching about the National Health Service suddenly gives way to near-lyrical praise, for example, not to mention how the British armed forces are so much better at counter-insurgency and "hearts-and-minds"ing than American troops (not that we noticed much of that in Basra and Helmand province).

[spin]

28. Does the British army even carry firearms anymore?

[iverglas]

36. pretty unbelievable

Talked to any actual average Brits recently? I do it daily, on this wonderful internet thing.

Anyone young enough not to have a clue what you're talking about -- and that's a majority of the population now -- is likely to have swallowed the koolaid and dream of nothing but moving to the great USofA. Two of my young English cousins did it in the last decade. One of them married a scientologist in California ...

[TheWraith]

37. Good for them. We welcome them to an actual free country.

One where you don't have spy cameras peeking over your shoulder and the rest of the "Big Brother" routine.

[iverglas]

38. yeah, it must be quite a thrill

knowing that a really unbalanced 22-yr-old (ever played host to a "vegetarian" whose diet consists of chocolate bars and baked potatoes dripping with cheese? all the major food groups! brown fat, orange fat, white sugar and starch!) was so entralled with your native land that she married a scientologist to get there.

I kinda think she did it to avoid having her family figure out the enormity of her problem (they really didn't seem to get it, bowled me over), and avoid ever having to get psychotherapy. Scientology immunizes you against that, you know.

But hey, you're welcome to her! I can only begin to imagine what she's going to be costing that public option a few years down the road ...

Meanwhile, seems there just aren't quite so many people of actual interest heading in that direction these days, eh?

The people you actually want to come -- not that there's anything wrong with anybody coming, but any society needs a good helping of innovators and such -- want to go to places that value culture and offer diversity, more than anything. Like, places that guarantee equality under the law to same-sex couples, e.g., and more broadly, embrace difference rather than arming against it. I'll bet you can think of someplace not too far away that answers to that kind of description ...

The empire is in decline, young man. Decay and decrepitude and other ugly things, including the tools of intimidation y'all love so dearly. Intimidate enough people, and you may win temporarily, but you're just a big old loser down the road.


If you don't think you have spy cameras peering over your shoulder ... oh, no point in completing that sentence, since you know perfectly well you do.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

48. I live in the UK

I lived in America for about 25 years before moving here to the UK. I play on a darts team and sometimes I talk to people who ask me, "Why did you move here? It's so boring, America must be so exciting!"

I then say, "I'm wondering if you like the NHS?" And they say yes. I add, "America doesn't have a system like that."

Puts them off visiting America.

Frankly, I don't mind the cameras. You have the same thing in the US, lots of surveillance in the shops and I've seen a lot in MN, where I'm originally from, on lots of buildings. It's funny when I see people criticising the UK's overindulgence of cameras, I point out that the same is occurring in the US.

If we have a shooting here in the UK, just as in the case of Rhys Jones, it's BIG NEWS! The Rhys Jones case was plastered all over the papers after his murder. Something like that in the US would go unnoticed because there is so much gun violence in the US that people are desensitized by it. People here now don't like the idea of visiting a country that has CCW all over the place, they feel that, as visitors, they wouldn't be safe.

[Mr Kilroi]

46. State of denial

The trouble is they forget that they had the same right. in fact it is the source of yours.

They have made a pigs breakfast of their once great nation, but they still want to feel it is great...so they put down the U.S.

They put us down all the time. and stuck up are arses in WWII but if not for both our Countries Great Britain would have been Berlin west...

[spin]

4. My initial reaction was to vote "No" on the poll...

and so I did.

I have to admit that I was surprised to find that 66% of the responders agreed with me.

I seriously doubt that the private weapons that citizens of the United States provided made any real difference to Hitler's planning of an invasion.

Perhaps this extract from "Hitler and the English by Fritz Hesse", best summarizes why Hitler didn't invade Endland.

For the reader to understand this, I must repeat that Hitler, according to my own observations, was inspired by a strange love-hatred of England. He admired the British empire and repeatedly pronounced it the greatest wonder-work every wrought by God. He was convinced the British were permeated through and through by Germanic conceptions of honour and that they would be his allies some day. He attributed the hostility that they felt towards Germany and his own person, and, in particular, towards the National Socialist party, to American and Jewish machinations.

Even while we were working on the peace proposals, Ribbentrop asked me if I thought the British would fight on if the invasion succeeded. I told him I was convinced that the British would fight to the last man. It seemed to me that Churchill could never be forced to give way even by a successful invasion. From the reports of our agents, I gathered that, if the invasion succeeded, Churchill would transfer the government to Canada and continue the war.

I also told Ribbentrop that, in my opinion, the invasion might lead to intervention on the part of the US, so that it would be no more than a pyrrhic victory and perhaps not worth the sacrifices it would cost us. I expressed the view that only a war of attrition, lasting for years, with ever-renewed willingness to come to terms, could, in the end, compel the British to recognise our ascendancy on the continent and make peace with us.

Edited extract from Hitler and the English by Fritz Hesse, translated by FA Voigt (1954). Hesse was a press attaché and diplomat at the the German embassy in London
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/06/hitler-invasion-of-britain

[oneshooter]

5. In 1945 the British Goverment took the "loaned" weapons, and dumped them into the sea. N/T

[spin]

6. Another reason to vote "No"....

They should have made an effort to return the items.

I may be willing to loan you a tool, but I want it back when you re done with it.

[Francis Marion]

42. Other loaned rifles were embedded in footings as concrete reinforcement.

No, I wouldn't send anything. People who disrespect the implements of Liberty are better off without them, or so they say.

[cowcommander]

13. What, and let them end up in the hands of these guys?

Hell no.

[Katya Mullethov]

14. Says they are prepared

to do quite a few nasty things , and apparently , to a large number of people .

[mrbarber]

15. Wait, what's with the "Fantastic 4 are on their way!" sign?

I know marvel's quality has been slipping lately, but there not that bad.

[cowcommander]

24. lol no

Actually they're referring to the four London subway bombers in 2005. That picture took place shortly afterwards when a bunch of asshats came out to show their support for them.

[Euromutt]

18. What would be the point?

These days, I can't imagine a foreign occupier being a greater threat to British freedoms than their own government already is.

[spin]

27. Good point. (n/t)

[The Green Manalishi]

39. When cricket bats are outlawed

only outlaws will have cricket bats.

This situation below is what I believe some of the devotees of eliminating the right to self defense aspire to.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article6956044.ece

[Euromutt]

47. And the England eleven will presumably have to practice overseas

Maybe they can get a package deal with the British Olympic pistol team.

There were some hearteningly sensible observations in the comments section to that Times article. Scorn was rightly heaped on the judge who opined that:

If persons were permitted to take the law into their own hands and inflict their own instant and violent punishment on an apprehended offender rather than letting justice take its course, then the rule of law and our system of criminal justice, which are the hallmarks of a civilised society, would collapse.

Given that the burglar who received the beating had 50 prior convictions and was supposed to be under a "supervision order," and yet was at liberty to break into people's houses and threaten the inhabitants, I think it might have behooved Judge Reddihough to acknowledge that the criminal justice system of England and Wales might have a teeny bit of a credibility problem.

[iverglas]

35. did you happen to notice what actually happened?

Maybe you can give an instance during WWII when a firearm in the hands of a member of the public in Britain would have had some effect.

http://www.museumoflondon.org.uk/archive/exhibits/blitz/index.html

Have a browse. I doubt that 1% of the US public has any idea what happened to Britain during the war ... the war that was going on years before Pearl Harbour.

http://www.museumoflondon.org.uk/archive/exhibits/blitz/frames.shtml?bigstory.html

# The first German bombs fell on central London on 24 August 1940. Reputed to be a mistake by German bombers aiming for the Thames estuary, RAF retaliation on Berlin was followed by the bombing of London on 7 September which started 'the Blitz'.

# The London Blitz lasted from 7 September 1940 until 11 May 1941

# On Saturday 7 September 1940 348 German bombers escorted by 617 fighters attacked London in the late afternoon, forming a 20 mile wide block of aircraft filling 800 square miles of sky. 448 people were killed.

# London was bombed every day or night from 7 September until 2 November.

# The Anderson Shelter was named after Sir John Anderson, Minister for Civil Defence, and 2,250,000 were supplied free to people on incomes less than £150 a year.





# 10 May 1941 was the worst night of the Blitz (and the last). 3000 people were killed in London that night.

# 40% of housing in Stepney was destroyed during the Blitz.

# 3000 unexploded Bombs (UXBs) were dealt with during Blitz.

# 1,400,000 people were made homeless due to the Blitz.

# Just over 20,000 people were killed in the London Blitz.

I think the British would have been a little more appreciative of a few fighter and bomber planes. Oh well, you got around to it eventually.

Guns to defend their homes? Yeah. Good joke!

[spin]

41. I believe that in WWII, the Brits would have resisted an invasion...

with any weapon that was available.


Remember this famous quote:

We shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender.
Winston Churchill
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/w/winstonchu161337.html

The British did have a Home Guard, the LDV.

Initially the LDV were poorly armed, since the regular forces had priority for weapons and equipment. The LDV's original role had largely been to observe and report enemy movements, but it swiftly changed to a more aggressive role. Nevertheless, they would have been expected to fight well-trained and equipped troops, despite having only negligible training and only weapons such as pitchforks and shotguns (a solid ammunition for shotguns was developed for this purpose) or firearms that belonged in museums. Patrols were carried out on foot, by bicycle, even on horseback, and often without uniforms, although all volunteers wore an armband that said "LDV". There were also river patrols using the private craft of members.<27> Many officers from the First World War used their Webley Mk VI .455 revolvers. There were also numerous private attempts to produce armoured vehicles by adding steel plates to cars or lorries, often armed with machine guns.<28> Some even had access to armoured cars, though these were makes no longer in service with the regular army.<29>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_Guard_%28United_Kingdom%29#Equipment_and_training

Had the Germans been able to pull off an invasion (questionable at the best), the firearms sent by Americans would have made little difference in the outcome. Still, the Brits would have fought and died to defend their homeland.

Invading the United States was a far different matter.

Why The Japanese Did Not Invade After Pearl Harbor

In 1960, Robert Menard was a Commander aboard the USS Constellation when he was part of a meeting between United States Navy personnel and their counterparts in the Japanese Defense Forces. Fifteen years had passed since VJ day, most of those at the meeting were WWII veterans, and men who had fought each other to the death at sea were now comrades in battle who could confide in one another. Someone at the table asked a Japanese admiral why, with the Pacific Fleet devastated at Pearl Harbor and the mainland US forces in what Japan had to know was a pathetic state of unreadiness, Japan had not simply invaded the West Coast. Commander Menard would never forget the crafty look on the Japanese commander's face as he frankly answered the question. “You are right,” he told the Americans. “We did indeed know much about your preparedness. We knew that probably every second home in your country contained firearms. We knew that your country actually had state championships for private citizens shooting military rifles. We were not fools to set foot in such quicksand.”
http://twinbuttebunch.org/index.php?fuseaction=articles.japanese

But that was then. Today, I don't see major invasions of countries being used as much as economic warfare.

[logjon]

55. well, i can't do that

i can think of an example where a few lightly armed jews held off the nazis for a significant amount of time. but bringing up the warsaw ghetto doesn't fit into your worldview, so it must be contrived.

[X_Digger]

43. You know what? I still would.

Even knowing what happened to the last ones, even knowing how their public officials treat guns and gun use.

I can still shake my head and give a hand to someone with whom I disagree.

[Mr Kilroi]

44. not quite true.

"And the best part of the plan was this: the British people were, for the most part, defenseless. Decades of a culture that taught that guns were bad and should be eschewed had taken their toll. About the only guns extant in England were fowling pieces owned by the privileged gentry. The only tools available for the average British subject to defend his country were broomsticks, spades, and pitchforks. In other words, much like it is today in that country. What to do? Here was the most invincible arm of all time massed across the Channel, ready and willing to invade, rape and pillage a defenseless British populace."
this is actually incorrect

Bill of Rights Richard Munday

"When Britain introduced her first Firearms Act in 1920, the Bill of Rights provision was respected: the normal "good reason" for the issue of a licence for a pistol was self defence. This remained the case following the Firearms Act 1937; a change of policy was only indicated when the Home Secretary stated in October 1946 that he would "not regard the plea that a revolver is wanted for protection of an applicant's person or property as necessarily justifying the issue of a firearm certificate".(9) Perhaps because applicants were advised that other "good reasons" were open to them, this shift of policy went unchallenged. But if the right to weapons for defence fell in abeyance. it was not thereby extinguished: In 1913 it had been ruled in Bowles v. Bank of England that "the Bill of Rights still remains unrepealed, and practice of custom, however prolonged, or however acquiesced in on the part of the subject can not be relied on by the Crown as justifying any infringement of its provisions"."

http://www.rkba.ca/
http://libertypages.webs.com/Bill%20of%20rights%20munday.pdf

[iverglas]

50. uh

Did you actually just cite yourself?

(edit - no, forgive me, you cited the work of an obscure UK gunhead whose paper you have reproduced at what appears to be your personal blog)

http://www.freewebs.com/libertypages/Media%20page.htm

http://www.freewebs.com/libertypages/index.html

You've read the basics about this website, have you?

Dief will be spinning in his grave to see you abusing him this way. But hey, you do sound appropriately USAmerican, citing long-dead people whose thoughts about life in our millennium are entirely unknown, since they never had any.

Michael Coren, well, I'm sure he's flattered (and I'm sure he granted reproduction rights).

http://www.freewebs.com/libertypages/the%20nannycometh.html

"Socialists made eugenics fashionable
Michael Coren, National Post Published: Tuesday, June 17, 2008"

... ah, the lying filth never tire of telling their filthy lies about Margaret Sanger, do they? But Tommy Douglas, wow, that's a good one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_Douglas

M.A. thesis on eugenics

Douglas graduated from Brandon College in 1930, and completed his Master's degree (M.A.) in Sociology from McMaster University in 1933. His thesis entitled The Problems of the Subnormal Family endorsed eugenics.<11> <2> The thesis proposed a system that would have required couples seeking to marry to be certified as mentally and morally fit. Those deemed to be "subnormal" because of low intelligence, moral laxity or venereal disease would be sent to state farms or camps while those judged to be mentally defective or incurably diseased would be sterilized.<12>

Douglas rarely mentioned his thesis later in his life and his government never enacted eugenics policies even though two official reviews of Saskatchewan's mental health system recommended such a program when he became premier and minister of health.<13> By that time, many people questioned eugenics after Nazi Germany had embraced it to create a "master race".<14> Instead, Douglas implemented vocational training for the mentally handicapped and therapy for those suffering from mental disorders.<15> (It may be noted that two Canadian provinces, Alberta and British Columbia, had eugenics legislation that imposed forced sterilization. Alberta's law was first passed in 1928 while B.C. enacted its legislation in 1933.)<16> It was not until 1972 that both provinces repealed the legislation.<17>

It's just so hard for you right-wing intellectuals to distinguish between early 20th century efforts and writings by thinkers and activists seeking to alleviate suffering, by preventing the transmission of what were then entirely untreatable conditions like epilepsy and virtually uncomprehended conditions like intellectual disabilities and mental illness, and slightly later efforts by some of the worst specimens the human race has ever produced, Nazis and fascists, to eliminate whole segments of human populations by murdering people and otherwise violating fundamental rights. Isn't it?

Where was compulsory sterilization implemented? Nothing nanny-state about sterilizing people thought unfit to reproduce, in the interests of society. How about the US? How about the famous Buck v Bell decision of the US Supreme Court -- Oliver Wendell Holmes himself, no less? --

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=274&invol=200

The judgment finds the facts that have been recited and that Carrie Buck 'is the probable potential parent of socially inadequate offspring, likewise afflicted, that she may be sexually sterilized without detriment to her general health and that her welfare and that of society will be promoted by her sterilization,' and thereupon makes the order. In view of the general declarations of the Legislature and the specific findings of the Court obviously we cannot say as matter of law that the grounds do not exist, and if they exist they justify the result. We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. ... Three generations of imbeciles are enough.

Huh. I was in law school when that Virginia statute was repealed, I see.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

Although the U.S. state of Oregon didn't repeal its forced sterilization law until 1983, the last known forced sterilization there was performed in 1978.

http://www.freewebs.com/libertypages/More%20cherrished%20rights.html

Now. What say you take some of your stuff out for a walk in some other forum of DU?

Or maybe just let's see what some of our colleagues here have to say about some of it, and the company they are so gladly keeping. I would really, really like to hear their thoughts on some of the issues you address in those pages, so here's their chance, eh?

[iverglas]

51. now, I find myself wondering

how much of an intellectual you actually are.

This is entertaining:

http://www.freewebs.com/libertypages/More%20cherrished%20rights.html

You quote the section of the Criminal Code you then discuss. I'm going to reproduce it, and it probably won't be necessary for many readers, but you seem to need a bit of emphasis to direct your attention, so I'll add it:

Disarming a peace officer

270.1 (1) Every one commits an offence who, without the consent of a peace officer, takes or attempts to take a weapon that is in the possession of the peace officer when the peace officer is engaged in the execution of his or her duty.

Now here's your scenario -- kind of a law school exam question, eh?

Now imagine if you enter a shop only to find an "Officer of the Peace" robbing the shop with his sidearm. Lets say that you manage to disarm him and place him under citizens arrest. When Police arrive they arrest their fellow officer, charge him with armed robbery.

Alrighty. So far so good. Then you seem to lose your focus:

Then charge you with section 270(1) of The Criminal Code. The constable will likely get one year while you will get five years should you plead not guilty. This is an example how poorly worded law can damage your rights and in fact how poorly worded laws do pass. If the phrase 'Without lawful excuse" were included then your actions are justified.

Actually ... if the words "when the peace officer is engaged in the execution of his or her duty" weren't there, you might have yourself a hobbyhorse. Sadly, this one done gone lame.

Yeesh. Is robbing a shop (I think you meant a shop owner, or employee, or some such) something a peace officer does in the execution of his or her duty?? You say you live in Canada? I've managed to miss that all these years. I often see peace officers in the local 7-11, but I've just never seen them holding up the clerks at gunpoint ...

[jeepnstein]

52. No.

They can buy their own if they need one.

[spin]

53. Unfortunately, their government frowns on firearms...

But they do have superior heathcare.