Saturday, 12 January 2013

PROTECTING THE 'RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS' AND UNCOVERING THE SHOCKING STATE OF MODERN BRITAIN


Might I ask you this?  Do you own a firearm?  If so, would you ever consider shooting a close relative, before heading into the nearest school to commit mass-murder? 

NO MORALS: Apparently Britain doesn't have a 'culture of
violence' like the USA has - well if that's so why is that
villainous youth making a gun gesture at the then Tory Party
Leader, David Cameron?
The answer is most probably no.  And that is the point.  The vast majority of people who own guns will never even dream of committing to such an action.  Why, then, must these people be punished for crimes others have committed? 

I fear that we are seeing the beginning of the end of gun freedom in the United States of America.  The latest story floating around is that of a shooter in a school in California, who, had he not been calmed down, might have committed a mass-murder on a similar scale to that seen in Newtown.  Interestingly, the question most journalists were shouting was: ‘were members of staff armed?!’  This is, of course, an attempt by the Left to cripple the pro-gun argument, put forward by the National Rifle Association, that there would be less mass-shootings in schools if only teachers could carry firearms. 

The NRA’s proposal could well work.  I don’t know.  To be honest, I don’t really care.  It would be sad to see schools stocked with weapons just to protect the students.  Who would have thought fifty years ago that children would need protecting with firearms in schools?  The idea is positively scary. 

However, I am also pro-gun, and a serious believer in the ‘right to bear arms’.  So, I don’t think it is ‘wrong’ to allow teachers to carry weapons, I just don’t think it would solve the wider problem. 

That problem stems from several things. 

First, a general lack of authority on the streets and in the police stations – criminals are not scared of the police any more.  When it comes to murder, the deterrent system does not respond quickly enough with the death penalty.  The death penalty should never be abolished.  If it functions correctly it can easily deter people from committing crimes (as it did in Britain before its abolishment in 1965 by the Labour government).  Law and order must be stressed at all times.  If this is not so, crime will take place, guns or no guns. 

But the police and the death penalty are not, by themselves, enough to deter crime.  The reason crime has increased dramatically over the last fifty years is because we have lost the invisible web of Christian morals.  This was not provided by the State.  It wasn’t an authority written on paper.  Instead, it came from a God-fearing mentality, written on the hearts and minds of the people, people who had a conscience, people who felt morally responsible for their actions.  We’ve lost that invisible web – the powerful utilitarian movement has all but crippled it – and now we are left without a uniting moral force. 

It was because of this ‘invisible web’, that Victorian Britain had such low crime rates, despite having extremely relaxed gun laws.  In 19th century Britain getting guns was even easier that it is in the US today, but that didn’t mean that Victorian London echoed to the sound of gunfire.  The Sunday schools, and the authority, found not in the regulations of government, but in the private realm of the married family, were enough to instil in individuals a desire to do good and avoid evil.  This, coupled with a visible police force (which, interestingly, were unarmed) and the death penalty, turned Britain into a safe haven. 

But now, alas, that safe haven has eroded.  The forces that once gave society its structure – Judaeo-Christian morals, an efficient police force and the death penalty – have all vanished from British life, and the result is this: a fallen nation, once great, now defaced, with the people looking mindlessly at government to ‘help’ them fight the killers and the thieves, and a government that looks at them and tells them to open out their hearts to the criminals, because ‘they are victims too’.

This is *no* exaggeration.  In February 1999 in Somerset, England, Rebecca Trebble discovered that her car had been vandalised.  She contacted the police, but they refused to send an officer to the scene, considering the crime only a ‘minor matter’. 

She then wrote to them, complaining about her treatment, only to receive a shocking reply from the local police chief, Superintendent John Snell, who argued that the villain who’d damaged her car was deserving of sympathy, as well. 

This is what he had to say:

‘Whilst I have every sympathy with you being the victim of crime, the position regarding victims is not limited to those who suffer as you have done. 

Many of those who are responsible for . . . such minor crimes could be considered to be victims themselves.’ 

Now, here’s the important part, where Snell gets ideological:

‘To my knowledge some of our prolific offenders are heroin addicts who live in the very worst of housing conditions in our area in relative poverty.  It is also true many of them are from broken homes and really have miserable family backgrounds.’

ROBERT MONTERO: 'America, keep your guns, defend
your constitutional right to bear arms, and make sure
that that right is never infringed'
This is pure socialism.  The Superintendent is basically saying that the criminal vandalised that car because he or she was probably a ‘heroin addict’, who ‘lived in the very worst housing’ and who ‘came from a broken home with really miserable family backgrounds’.  The solution, then, is not to punish the criminal, but for the Big Daddy State to come in and give him or her a hug, along with some benefits, a lovely council flat, ‘prescription drugs’ and comprehensive education.  What is worse is that the victim must now view herself as the villain, for at least she has a car – the poor criminal probably does not (if he does, he’s had to steal it, the poor dear!)  He took out his rage on her car because he is a member of the ‘oppressed’ underclass who is trying to rise up and overthrow his oppressors. 

This is BS, but what do you expect from socialism? 

Britain is not the wonderland that Piers Morgan and other liberals make it out to be.  I’m from Britain so I can tell you that much.  America, keep your guns, defend your constitutional right to bear arms, and make sure that that right is never infringed, because if guns were outlawed you would not be any safer.  Instead, you would be a helpless victim.  




 *******************************************

Please like us on Facebook - MAKE A STATEMENT.  TAKE A STAND.  SUPPORT, PROUDLY CONSERVATIVE.


No comments:

Post a Comment