This Is What Happens to a Disarmed Populace: They Want to Arm Themselves

 (courtesy telegraph.co.uk)

It’s hard to imagine a scenario wherein UK subjects would regain their natural and civil right to keep and bear arms. Forget a political remedy. At this point in Britain’s post-Empire evolution, gun rights restoration would require a total societal breakdown, including the collapse of The Land of Hope and Glory’s extensive police state infrastructure. That’s about as likely as a Page Three Girl taking tea with the Queen. Naked. (The girl, not the Queen.) That said, some UK subjects still have the desire to tool-up—as you might expect from a country that tops the European league table for violent crime. An island not without its fair share of rational human beings. Exhibit A: a telegraph.com poll asking its [right-leaning] readers which Private Member’s Bill they’d support. Number one with a bullet: repeal the ban on handguns. How about that, then? [h/t NorthernBrit]

comments

  1. avatar jwm says:

    For all those wanting a repeal on the handgun ban. 3D printers and hardware stores. Nuff said.

  2. avatar Jeff the Griz says:

    and yet 248 want to be controlled some more… No spitting?

    1. avatar Lobby says:

      Amazing isn’t it? Some people have become so spoiled, stupid, and out of touch with reality that they think that they have the right not to be offended by others exercising rights, or even doing something as simple as spitting.

      I live in California (much to my shame and frustration I am stuck here), and I’ve met people so stupid they think they have a right to not be offended by the behavior of others, a right to some kind of guarantee of safety (a very nice idea, but impossible in this world). I’ve hear that “it is everyones’ right for life to be “fair” and equitable to them” some feel their pets have human rights, and the one thing all these people have in common? They all want to impose their beliefs on others and ban things like cursing in public, I’ve heard spitting too, and the list goes on.

      My question is how people twist their minds into reconciling the two completely opposite ideas of them having all these inalienable rights, yet they believe others’ rights are negotiable or deniable simply because they don’t approve of them.

      1. avatar Russ Bixby says:

        My pets do have human rights, and I back that up.

        If they go off and attack someone, they’ll likely get shot – just like a human.

        I’m not going to declaw or de-tooth them.

        If someone comes here and attacks them, they’ve a right to respond with as much force as they can bring to bear, including the right to protection by “the police” – namely me.

        Who here does not acknowledge those same rights in what are essentially wards of their own private city-states?

        1. avatar Ralph says:

          My cats would be p1ssed off at me if all they had were human rights.

        2. avatar Lobby says:

          I don’t believe that’s the same thing as human rights. I agree with your reasoning, and I respect the fact that you seem to treat your pets well, but that’s not what I’m speaking of. I won’t argue with any of what you said because I don’t disagree. But, what I’m talking about is people who think their pets ARE human, things like: they can’t be discriminated against by being refused service at a restaurant or entry into a supermarket, and I’m not speaking of guide dogs. Your animals do NOT have all the rights humans have in the same manner, even if YOU choose to afford those rights to them in your home. Just look at veterinary care for one example, you can choose to put an animal down when medical care may be hopeless or unaffordable, thankfully we haven’t really gotten there yet with humans, although there are sometimes sad exceptions to that unfortunately.

        3. avatar Russ Bixby says:

          I was being tongue-in-cheek.

          That said, they do have fundamental rights – not to be capriciously tortured, f’rinstance.

      2. avatar Roy says:

        Have you considered spitting on them?

    2. avatar MothaLova says:

      I think you are unaware of how far things have declined in England. The violence is far, far beyond what anyone realizes, and the police are both insufficient and encumbered by a pro-criminal mentality. And many violent offenders are slapped on the wrist and sent back on the street.

      If a no spitting law helps get the thugs off the street, then it’s a good idea.

      It would make no sense whatsoever in America, but England isn’t America.

      1. avatar Fred says:

        Have you read their self defense law, though? I don’t think even having an armed populace would do any good, they legally can’t use any force. As I recall if attacked you are allowed to push the attacker away but any further contact constitutes assault and you may be charged. “Equal force” is technically allowed but you may still be charged with assault if found guilty by the community.

  3. avatar Hal J. says:

    Bear in mind that this is an internet poll. Given that, it’s significance is pretty darn close to zilch.

    Heck, I voted in it, and I’m not even a citiz…I mean subject of the UK!

    1. avatar ZM 1306 says:

      Hey man, you are hashing on the positive waves man. I was getting all hopeful for the future of the UK and felt like I was gaining some faith in humanity.

      1. avatar Human Being says:

        For the future of the UK, look at the Woolwich video and how people just stood around and watched, then talked with the murderers. Watch how the murderers knew that’s how they would behave.

        See also: Eloi.

        But to brighten the mood: show me your other dog impression.

    2. avatar int19h says:

      >> Heck, I voted in it, and I’m not even a citiz…I mean subject of the UK!

      The proper term is “UK citizen” (or “Commonwealth citizen”, since not all subjects of the British crown are UK nationals) since 1949. The modern definition of “British subject”, in fact, is a very narrow category that specifically excludes citizens.

  4. avatar OkieRim says:

    The poor UK subjects are a few years too late..too bad that the lazy-ass citizens of the USA dont understand just how important that 2A really is…

    1. avatar MothaLova says:

      That’s the real problem – so many don’t understand how close we are to becoming Britain…

  5. avatar Bob Wall says:

    “That’s about as likely as a Page Three Girl taking tea with the Queen. Naked. (The girl, not the Queen.)”

    Robert – When Kate is queen, you’ll be eating those words.

    1. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

      camel toe. nice

      1. avatar Leo338 says:

        Moose knuckle… not so nice.

    2. avatar Totenglocke says:

      After being engaged for about six months, Kate started going downhill fast. No thanks, I say keep her fully clothed and away from the cameras.

    3. avatar Meridia says:

      Kate won’t be Queen.

      Hell, Queen Elizabeth’s husband isn’t King. He’s Prince Consort.

      She will most likely be Princess Consort. King and Queen titles are gained by heredity, not marriage into the family.

  6. avatar Ralph says:

    I vote for no more opinion polls. Ever.

  7. avatar John S says:

    I voted at the range last night.

    1. avatar MothaLova says:

      +1

  8. avatar Accur81 says:

    And since they disarmed themselves, they are SOL. The powers that be want to stay that way. I’m sure *important* people can find exemptions, but the commoner is definitely buggered. I imagine its hard to feel free when you must prove to the government that you are worth protecting. Unfortunately, many of the blue states in the US are headed the same way.

    1. avatar Human Being says:

      And tha’s why we call ’em slave states.

    2. avatar Ropingdown says:

      The game in the UK is really not so different from the game here, and it is traditional: The upper class provides the lower sorts free rein to intimidate the middle classes, who are the only ones with enough brains, education, and money to reduce the power of the upper class, the 1/5%. Spanish nobles used to let gypsies have the run of their territory for a few weeks. The urban rich in the US focus on disarming the law abiding suburbanites, rather than holding repeat violent offenders in jail. The point is to make the middle classes want police around, the 1/5%’s police. It’s simple, customary, and it it generally works, because the middle classes get confused, afraid, and don’t have the time or money to conference over the issue in Anguila.

  9. avatar Russ Bixby says:

    We should take a lesson from this, but unfortunately for most Americans no threat is real ’til it’s in the past.

  10. avatar Randy Drescher says:

    I guess that would be a better option than hiding behind david bowie’s purse, Randy

  11. avatar MothaLova says:

    Unfortunately, the views of the readers of the Telegraph are representative of probably no more than a third of the British populace. So what’s 72% of 33%? A permanent minority.

    1. avatar Human Being says:

      About the proportion of colonial Americans who were willing to fight Britain in the Revolution.

      1. avatar MothaLova says:

        Give or take, that’s what I’ve heard, too. But that was a rather different kind of the population. Not only were they practiced in self-governance, they were led by a group of tremendously experienced and intelligent political leaders, and, above all, they were willing to fight.

        1. avatar Lucubration says:

          And they had a few months lead time on the government they were opposing.

  12. avatar g says:

    Wow, is spitting that big of an issue over there in the UK?

    I guess if 248 people care to say so…

  13. avatar Alan Rose says:

    How long before Britain faces another invasion and they ask us (again) for guns? History always repeats.

    1. avatar Human Being says:

      After what they did with the last batch (dumped them in the channel rather than return them) I’m going to suggest saying “no”.

    2. avatar DisThunder says:

      Hey, I’m in! I bet there’s still crates of Civil Defence Thompsons out in the hill-country. I would gladly take a couple as payment.

  14. avatar BLAMMO says:

    Voted. Let’s kill this.

  15. avatar JLR says:

    You guys realize that internet polls are not statistically valid polls, right? Furthermore I’d be willing to bet that most of the people voting in that poll were Americans who were linked from some pro-gun site.

    1. avatar ChuckN says:

      So what? The MSM has been cherry picking their poll information
      for decades. They and other anti-rights groups even blatantly
      ignore polls not in their favor. They’re impervious to facts and
      logic so why not use it to atleast annoy them?

    2. avatar Ropingdown says:

      They aren’t valid, but they are amusing. “Oh, don’t it just go to show that you don’t know what you’ve got ’till it’s gone.” Joni Mitchell. Paved Paradise

  16. avatar BrokenForks says:

    More like this is what happens when a news site has a poll and someone finds it and posts every pro-gun website they can think of. I saw this on /k/ earlier today, still, it’s funny!

  17. avatar lolinski says:

    If spitting was banned I would probably be in prison long time ago (seriously something as simple and innocent as spitting?)

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email