Rights, Privileges, England, and Just Who Has the Guns?

[Narf]

March 27, 2004
by Jan Ireland

Self defense is a right given to humanity by God. Because it is a right, it cannot be taken away by man, state, country, or the United Nations. But it can be surrendered, which is what gun control bites are designed to bring about.

It is not necessary to believe in God to recognize the instinctive drive for survival in the human species. We see it in the recovery from illnesses that should have been fatal; survival from a high fall that should have killed; mothers lifting automobiles single handedly to rescue a child underneath. The drive to protect and continue the human race is inherent.

Part of the ruse in gun control is the language used to quiet that drive. Gun “owners” in England suffer from that ruse now. Perhaps we should clarify that the “England” many Americans refer to is a bit of a misnomer. The United Kingdom is made up of England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland. Gun laws are nuanced differently throughout those areas.

Full story here.

[MrBenchley]

1. "Making the Right Wing Sexy Since 2001"

http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/

Does the RKBA crowd ever read anything SANE people read?

[Low Drag]

2. Sure I do.

Question for you...
Have you ever gone out shooting with a anyone/friend?

There are lots of organized shooting clubs that have various types of competitions all around the nation. You may find it a great deal of fun.

[MrBenchley]

4. Gee, you mean

that if only I went to a shooting gallery, the racket and the fumes would make my head ring enough to have mens news daily seem honest?

[Wickerman]

3. Oh, Christ - that is the tag line for the paper!

Holy Koresh! I thought we were just seeing some more TM Benchley wit. Nope, that is the damn slogan for the crappy little news magazine that were it an actual paper I wouldn't degrade bullheads by calling ti fishwrap.

Not a damn thing I can do about it, but let it be known that I really, really wish that folks would consider that most folks here at DU are progressives and prefer to read their news at progressive sites. I find news that panders to the right wing objectionable. Come on all you librul RKBAers, I challenge you a third time now to something for publication in something resembling progressive so we can link to it with pride here in the gungeon.

*(^^#%$! it!

[MrBenchley]

5. Isn't it amazing?

"something resembling progressive"
Such a publication would likely require something by way of logical and fact-based argument....and the RKBA cause requires horseshit like "Them British people are slaves of the government and cannot even defend theirselves."

[demsrule4life]

6. Progressive thoughts?

Is that kind of like calling an entire state a rightwing cesspool and in essence then calling every single person in the state a right winger. That kind of progressive thinking?

[MrBenchley]

7. Yeah, progressive thoughts....

Tell us again that Ed Asner is a communist, dems...

[demsrule4life]

8. You claim to be a progressive

You claim I'm not, so quit being suprised by that.

[MrBenchley]

11. Gee, dems...I'm never surprised

that the RKBA crowd is peddling far right wing horseshit....that's all there is to the scummy movement.

[Wickerman]

9. Well I know I for one am much more outraged at the slavery

the Bush* mis-administration has foisted on me than to worry about UK's problems. Over there, at least, they didn't have the Orwellian named 1st Amendment zones when they wanted to protest their goverment's illegal invasion of Iraq.

I could go on and on about all the atrocities right here in the US of the crappy cheap labor conservatives, but, well, heck you can find that throughout these forums - that being the purpose of DU -to provide a refuge from Right Wing bullshit.

I really hope we can carry on our discussion of 2nd amendment rights without so much backhanded praise to the RW take.

[MrBenchley]

12. "a refuge from Right Wing bullshit"

Amen to that....

[Pert_UK]

10. You're quoting a source that says Ireland is part of the UK???

And are we expected to take the article seriously after that? Well OK....

"Self defense is a right given to humanity by God." - that's pretty big claim. Firstly, the author just ASSUMES the existence of God, the existence of objective rights, and that they can be "given to humanity" in any meaningful way. That's a nice start.

Is it worth talking about the New Testament ideal of "turning the other cheek"? Now you could argue that self-defense is still a right and that Jesus is asking people to forego that right, and instead offer no violence against violence. But even if this is the case, it seems bizarre to offer a Biblical/Theological basis for self-defense, when it seems to be rejected in at least one place.

This article also states that "removing self defense as a legal answer" has occurred in the UK. This is utter crap. Self-defense is still perfectly legal, but that doesn't make it open season on criminals. Predictably the article mentions the case of Tony Martin, conveniently failing to point out that he is a disturbed individual who killed a youth by firing blindly into the dark, rather than because he was under attack and fighting for survival.

Moreover, in the modern era guns have never been carried for self-defense in the UK, so it is highly misleading to suggest that removing guns from citizens of the UK has undermined their ability to defend themselves - the vast majority of the population has never had that means anyway, nor did they want it. Firearms certificates would be granted to collectors and sports shooters, but none would have been granted for the purposes of self-defense.

"I heard from a reader in England who misunderstood the difference in rights and privileges. He holds that he “owns” several guns, that there are more than a hundred members in his rifle club, and that none of them are criminals. I don’t doubt this at all.

But he also mentions a Firearms Certificate.

I have to contend – the state is letting him “play” with his guns. How would the state react if he wanted to use “his” guns in a way the state did not sanction? "

Oh my God no! Can it possibly be that I live in such a repressive society that the government might actually take guns (or anything else) away from someone who had broken the laws regarding their use? The horror! Obviously gun owners should have the final say on whether their own behaviour is appropriate, not the people who make the LAWS for the benefit of society as a whole!

I have seldom read a more ill-researched, poorly written or misrepresentative piece of journalism. The author has misunderstood the situation in the UK and the article is clearly their attempt to force the world to fit their views, rather than letting their views be informed by the facts. Rather than actually prove the conclusions she wants (God's existence and giving of rights to mankind, self-defense being one of those rights and guns being the most appropriate means of self-defense) she simply ASSUMES that these are all true from the start and basis further discussion on those assumptions.

Why should we be allowed to keep and bear arms? Why it's obvious, it's a right given from God, next stupid question..........

I've said it before and I'll say it again - I'm not particularly "anti-gun" and don't believe that a total ban on guns would work in the US. However, can you see why I find it so easy to argue on behalf of the "anti RKBA" side when the "pro" side comes up with such palpable gobshite?

P.