In case some of you are interested, I am on a largely-British forum and here is an example of one of my posts. There is a very long thread on US gun laws and most of the regular posters seem to think that British-style gun laws would work over here and they don't understand why we have the type and quantity of guns that we do.
I had made the comment earlier that UK and Aussie style laws would be an American gun-owner's worst nightmare
Many of you in the UK don't really care that much about guns so you can afford to be, shall we say, cavalier, about those of us that do. What's the big deal? you seem to ask. It's just guns. Right? This reminds me of the quote by German Pastor Martin Niemöller.
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
Now, lest some here think I am a paranoid obsessing about black helicopters and the New World Order, I am not. In fact, I think most conspiracy theories are rather silly. But please think about this: once the push to give up basic rights starts, where does it end?
Self defense, I think we would all agree, is such a right. And yet, without the means of exercising the right, it is meaningless, nothing more than a pious platitude designed to placate the public. Here in the US, I agree; it is not going to happen. Guns, for better or for worse are here to stay, even semi-automatic arms. And even in the so-called liberal states, such as New York, California and Connecticut, all of which which passed laws restricting semi-auto rifles, the non-compliance rate is extremely high. The reason is simple: the owners see what happened after Hungerford and Port Arthur, and they realize that if the government doesn't know about their rifles, it is much harder to take them away.
And that is the point. Over here, people are very resistant to the idea of gun confiscation like what happened in the UK and Australia, especially if they have done nothing wrong.
Getting back to my point about basic rights; why not do away with the right to trial by jury? After all, the people who would use this right are mostly criminals already. Just think how much safer that would make us. Or, if that is not the right that is suitable for the scrap heap (for now), how about religious liberty? After all, isn't one religion implicated in much of the terrorism sweeping Europe or the US? No? I have it! Freedom of the press!! Yes, that's the ticket, isn't it? After all we can't trust the media, therefore we must pass laws that mandate only the Truth shall be disseminated. Who defines the Truth? Why bother with small trivial details like that when the public must be protected?
Now, I will state what I hope would be obvious: the preceding paragraph is hyperbole, and is a deliberate exaggeration made to make a point. For the record, I don't advocate doing away with any of the rights that I mentioned.
But, by the same token, neither do I advocate giving up the right to arms.
I had made the comment earlier that UK and Aussie style laws would be an American gun-owner's worst nightmare
Here is my response.
Many of you in the UK don't really care that much about guns so you can afford to be, shall we say, cavalier, about those of us that do. What's the big deal? you seem to ask. It's just guns. Right? This reminds me of the quote by German Pastor Martin Niemöller.
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
Now, lest some here think I am a paranoid obsessing about black helicopters and the New World Order, I am not. In fact, I think most conspiracy theories are rather silly. But please think about this: once the push to give up basic rights starts, where does it end?
Self defense, I think we would all agree, is such a right. And yet, without the means of exercising the right, it is meaningless, nothing more than a pious platitude designed to placate the public. Here in the US, I agree; it is not going to happen. Guns, for better or for worse are here to stay, even semi-automatic arms. And even in the so-called liberal states, such as New York, California and Connecticut, all of which which passed laws restricting semi-auto rifles, the non-compliance rate is extremely high. The reason is simple: the owners see what happened after Hungerford and Port Arthur, and they realize that if the government doesn't know about their rifles, it is much harder to take them away.
And that is the point. Over here, people are very resistant to the idea of gun confiscation like what happened in the UK and Australia, especially if they have done nothing wrong.
Getting back to my point about basic rights; why not do away with the right to trial by jury? After all, the people who would use this right are mostly criminals already. Just think how much safer that would make us. Or, if that is not the right that is suitable for the scrap heap (for now), how about religious liberty? After all, isn't one religion implicated in much of the terrorism sweeping Europe or the US? No? I have it! Freedom of the press!! Yes, that's the ticket, isn't it? After all we can't trust the media, therefore we must pass laws that mandate only the Truth shall be disseminated. Who defines the Truth? Why bother with small trivial details like that when the public must be protected?
Now, I will state what I hope would be obvious: the preceding paragraph is hyperbole, and is a deliberate exaggeration made to make a point. For the record, I don't advocate doing away with any of the rights that I mentioned.
But, by the same token, neither do I advocate giving up the right to arms.
