We are all familiar with the histories of governments depriving their people the Right to Bear Arms. They are stories of great suffering, going back hundreds of years. The outcome is always the same, where many innocent people have died while not being able to defend themselves against oppressive despots and their minions hellbent on controlling their subjects.
I look to our allies in Great Britain, who have been in the spotlight recently due to the pompous pouting of our smarmy friend Piers Morgan. He claims Great Britain is a model society with very little gun violence. The gun violence part is true, but all other forms of violent crimes are still being committed with other weapons, at a much higher rate than we live with here in the United States.
It's important to remember how Gun Control was slowly implemented in Great Britain. It did not happen all at once, making it easier for the general public to swallow it in little pieces.
It started at the turn of the 20th Century, with the Pistols Act of 1903. This "reasonable" legislation did not raise any alarm, as it made handguns sales prohibited to minors or felons. You were also required to obtain a license in order to purchase a pistol, and said pistols were registered with law enforcement. This database came in handy later.
The winds of change blew through Great Britain again after World War 1, prompting the Firearms Act of 1920. This expanded the mandatory licensing for not only pistols and handguns, but all firearms (excluding shotguns). This also made the requirements for obtaining the licenses more difficult to achieve for the average citizen. The database grew.
This held in place until laws passed in 1953 and again in 1967 banning private citizens from carrying any type of rifle or pistol, and mandated all shotguns be registered.
Twenty years later, in 1987, a mentally unstable man by the name of Michael Ryan of Hungerford went on a rampage. He walked down the street in his small town with an AK-47, pumping round after round into anything that moved. When the dust settled 17 people had lost their lives.
At this point, the 80 years of gun restrictions and demonizations of those who challenge the laws disarming the people by the MSM had them brainwashed into demanding even more stringent gun control. Generations of people had forgotten what it was to be a free and armed people, able to defend their homes and families from those who would do them harm.
The seizure of all privately owned firearms, rifles and pistols began. Most British subjects gave them up willingly, bringing their guns to the police, rather than waiting for the police to come knocking on their door with that huge database of registered guns the government had compiled since the enactment of the original laws in 1903.
In 1996, in Dunblane, Scotland, another mentally disturbed man named Thomas Hamilton opened fire in an elementary school, murdering 16 children and a teacher. Rather than seeing the evil in the man and his actions, the media looked at the instrument the killer played: a semiautomatic rifle.
Character assasinations of law abiding gun owners continued in the news. They were demonized as criminals, and portrayed as mentally unstable and/or unpatriotic. The media painted the picture of gun free utopias, in which there was no violence. The people bought it.
A couple months later, Parliament looked into what happened with the county's most recent tragedy.
Enter the Dunblane Inquiry, which concluded a total ban of the few sidearms, shotguns, and rifles you were still able to legally own was needed. Britain's citizens were now unable to defend themselves legally with firearms. You had 3 months to turn them in, or risk being visited by the authorities. When the authorities came with their lists, threateneing 10 year prison sentences to all those who did not comply, few objected. Law Enforcement agencies were quoted bragging about the 200,000+ firearms they confiscated from law abiding citizens.
The media again shaped the public view of those who decried the ban as vigilantes, claiming that to take the law into your own hands was not your job. The governement claimed 'self defense was no longer a valid reason to own a firearm"
People who defended themselves with firearms from criminals after the ban was put into effect were charged. The rapist, burglar or thug that perpetrated the crime more often than not went free.
A perfect example of this is the story of a Tony Martin, who lived in Emneth, Norfolk, England. His neighborhood was plagued with crime after the full ban took effect. Criminals were emboldened with the ban, realizing there would be little to no risk of real bodily harm to start robbing and burglarizing all over Great Britain.
Lawless behaviors were documented up and down his block. Elderly neighbors were beaten and robbed, businesses and houses were vandalized. Some homes were hit more than once by burglars. Mr Martin's own house had been robbed of some of his prized antiques, which he loved dearly.
On the night of August 22, 1999, he was awakened by the sound of intruders breaching his door with a crowbar. He grabbed an old shotgun, leveled it on one of two career criminals rummaging through his things, and pulled the trigger. One burglar died, the other escaped wounded, but alive.
Long story short, his unregistered shotgun got him in a lot of trouble. He was arrested and charged with 1st Degree Murder and Unlawful Posession of a Firearm. The gun ban hungry media played to the 'poor defenseless victims'. Tony was portayed as crazy gun zealot, a vigilante who was out for revenge. The burglars were portrayed as good people, down on their luck. Anyone the press interviewed that knew the criminals could find no faults in them. In the brainwashed court of public opinion, Tony was guilty before he even set foot in the courtroom.
He is currently serving a life sentence.
Do you see the parallels?
Controversial Gun Control measures are being pushed on us here in America today. In the the wake of the tragedy perpetrated by a madman in Connecticut, our media has been whipped into a gun grabbing frenzy. They froth at the mouth, creating misnomers for gun types and focus solely on the weapons used in the crime. They ignore the mental issues the killer had, what medications he was on, or how the ACLU destroyed inpatient programs that could have helped him (or at least harbored him in a controlled environment).
Some people just want to watch the world burn, and will stop at nothing to light the match. This kind of evil cannot be contained by any law. Taking away our 2nd Amendment does not mitigate the damages incurred from those with evil intentions or tyrannical governments. It only places more innocent people in harm's way.
We need to learn from Great Britain's example:
If a government legislates enough laws, we can all be criminals.
No comments:
Post a Comment