send-gun-to-british-home

Four police officers who were flagged down by a store manager as his colleague detained a thief,” telegraph.co.uk reports. “[They] allegedly said they were ‘not kitted up to help’ and drove away.” So much for fighting crime in the Piers Morgan “gun-free” paradise commonly known as the United Kingdom. A country whose subjects are barred from possessing adequate means of defense and punished when they attempt to defend themselves (e.g., farmer Tony Martin’s ongoing ordeal). Where those paid to respond to crime seem to have more urgent priorities . . .

This latest in a seemingly unending list of examples of national suicide across the Pond recalls a question inspired by an old GUNS Magazine article from the December 1959 issue, “Guns in our bundles for Britain,” by William B. Edwards.

“We shall fight them on the beaches, we shall fight them on the landing grounds, we shall fight them in the fields and the streets, we shall fight them in the hills. We shall never surrendah!” Edwards reminds us, quoting Winston Churchill during Britain’s darkest days. But that’s not the whole story . . .

“As the broadcast was momentarily interrupted by applause, Winston Churchill turned sadly and angrily away from the mike and said: ‘But I do not know what we shall fight them with,’” Edwards related.

We learn about the American Committee for Defense of British Homes, headquartered in New York City, that set about the task of appealing to Americans to “Send a gun to defend a British home.” We learn of the thousands of firearms the effort succeeded in collecting and shipping. And we learn how the possession of small arms led Bert “Yank” Levy, a “specialist in guerrilla and irregular fighting,” to “express…the belief that Home Guard defense was why ‘Britain can no longer successfully be invaded.'”

“Wherever the enemy may land, he will immediately be confronted by a nucleus of men born and bred in the district, knowing every foot of topography, fighting from every city, town village and hamlet, from every ditch, copse, wood, hill, and valley,” Levy declared. “The importance of the Home Guard idea in world politics is vast. For instance, this approach to war is proof that where a government trusts its people, its people trust and protect their government. “

Does that remind you of anything?

Sadly, outrageously, we learn that when the danger had passed, government trust in the people went away, guns were destroyed and the people for the most part, obeyed in the “cleansing of firearms.” Thus we find ourselves in today’s sorry state of affairs. Which leads me to a question for TTAG’s readership.

Knowing what we do now, noting the likely course the UK and its people seem determined to chart for themselves, if a similar plea for help went out today, would you send a gun to defend a British home – if you knew it couldn’t be traced back to you?

Addendum: The archive of classic GUNS Magazine issues from half a century ago provide a fascinating window into the past, from the articles, to the ads (and the prices), to political features, letters, etc. It’s quite a resource, whether you want to do research, skim over things, or immerse yourself into some serious binge reading. You can access them all for free by clicking here. By way of proper disclosure, I write the mag’s monthly “Rights Watch” column.

Recommended For You

215 Responses to Question of the Day: Would You Send a Gun to Defend a British Home?

    • I’d send one (or probably more). As a Christian, I believe in extending love and grace towards even the worst sinners when they repent. (although the Bible does warn against “casting your pearls before swine”). I own a lot of inexpensive guns. A Marlin .22, a Pardner Pump 12 guage, or a .38 sp Rossi revolver might make its way over. If I was really generous, I might even send my Mosin. The Glocks, and AK – No!

    • The problem is that’s about where you stop. You’ll get ny city and some other reread on the east coast. But they are barely worth having without the rest of the USA. You’ll start getting pretty good resistance in PA. I doubt you make it to TEXAS. If you do we are are ready. But I wouldn’t send my son to get so much as a paper cut to defend New Jersey either. In fact I kinda wish somebody else would take it off our hands.

  1. No. May as well throw them in the channel ourselves for all the good it will do. What is this, like the 3rd time in 100 years they’ve slit their own throats by disarming? How many historic family heirlooms have they dumped into the channel? **** them, clean up their own mess.

  2. If the UK were to fully restore their citizens gun rights, yes.

    But alas, chances are higher that a pig will learn to whistle “Thunderstruck” before the British guvment gets rid of their fascist gun-control laws.

      • uhmm, like, you know, they should have thought of that in the first place? why is it now our responsibility? this nation saved them twice before. look what happened.

  3. Sadly I doubt they have the motivation, or knowledge to use guns for defense, and the government will take them away anyway.

    I hate to see their country fall to brutal savages, but I would not waste one of my rifles sending it to them.

        • I have their .45acp carbine and it works great. Only had a problem with one magazine I bought, other than that, great gun for the money.
          Never shot their handguns, though, and those are more prone to magazine problems, but once you fix that issue, they seem to run great, too.

          If nothing else, they could throw the things at their enemies, it’d be just as effective. 😀

  4. No.

    Americans sent thousands of personally owned guns to England at the start of WWII (for FREE!), to help arm their Home Guard against a likely German invasion. The Brits needed these guns because their soldiers had left thousands of firearms behind on the beaches of Dunkirk during the mass retreat/evacuation of 27 May – 4 June, 1940, AND because Britain’s rulers had been disarming their subjects since the early 1900s.

    Of the thousands of firearms sent to Britain by Americans for their defense against the Nazis, the vast majority were confiscated at the end of the war, scrapped, dumped in the ocean or imbedded in concrete. They were NOT returned to the Americans who donated them.

    If the Brits ever find themselves with a desperate need for personal firearms to defend themselves against an invasion or an ISIS takeover, they can pay for them. In gold, since I won’t trust their currency. If they don’t like my attitude, they can get rid of their leftist politicians and eliminate their anti-gun laws.

    • I had a shooting instructor whose father donated a couple dozen of those. The son swears that the guns were a loan, not a gift, and is rather miffed that no effort was ever made to return the guns.

  5. Of course not. I might send food or relief monies, I might invite refugees temporarily into my home, and i might even go and fight to aid their defense against a common foe. But given this history lesson, sending a rifle would be a traffic waste.

  6. No.

    There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.

    Will Rogers

        • I almost peed on a electric fence. Being a northwest mountain boy, I parked my old beater truck off the road next to a fence. You know I had to go. I was taking a leak next to the truck and got shocked when I leaned against the truck while whizzing. The truck was just touching the fence. I think I splattered on my leg.

  7. Sure…Pistols start at $1,000 apiece and Long guns $750. There’s a cost to being stupid and short sighted. They could probably come up with the money by laying off some of the useless unarmed cops mentioned at the beginning of the article.

  8. I hate to sound like an ass, but in my most mocking Churchill mime, “they have gained SHAME and shall get CRIME!”

    Such is the bed they have made for themselves. To hell with them.

    Tom

    • I have great respect for British gun owners.
      Both of you.

      While compassion is a virtue, as ask you to give me a logical reason why we should bail you out. Again.

    • Well, what did you think folks were going to say? Don’t be so daft. We donated guns and weapons to save your asses at least twice and both times you threw them away. Didn’t even have the manners to say thank you. And when I can pick up one of your rags any old day and go through all the robberies, assaults, hot burglaries, and such it’s plainly obvious you’ve lost your country and will get whatever is coming.

      Like I said, I don’t want to be an ass. Nor do I want to be mean-spirited, particuarly on a personal level. But you can only just take so much stupid.

      And besides, I’m going to be needing what I got more than you will be.

      Tom

    • The British people let their government strip then of their inalienable right to self-defense as well as the means to exercise it over generations.
      Until I hear of a British organization organizing support for rolling back the laws that made this possible, I have little sympathy for the British people in that regard.

    • “…An English Person says:
      September 24, 2015 at 12:46 Such negativity… such lack of compassion. #Britishgunownersmatter…”

      Right on- you created the negativity when you surrendered your right to self defense… you showed no compassion for your own family and friends, your country or your race… Britishgunownersmatter only in their dreams, they don’t matter to me one whit.

      You people blame America for all your self created problems from air pollution to Kenyan lions, and expect us to bail you out every time you wet your diapers. It’s about time you learned we kicked the riff-raff Brits out of this country for a reason: we didn’t want your kind of government here. Now you’re learning why. Suck it up and cowboy up.

      • WOW!!!
        Such angst, and against someone who actually supports self defence.
        All previous replies have stated “you” this and “your” that, all the while forgetting that they don’t even know anything about the English Person… this English Person IS a gun owner.

        • If you’re a legitimate gun rights advocate, and had the need, I’d send you a gun.

          I don’t blame all Californians for the mess of our gun rights, nor you if you fight for freedom in hostile territory. Cheers.

        • And of course Americans never personally receive vitriol from non-Americans for what their government does, or for what America as a whole is perceived to be.

          I can have a great deal of compassion for someone in a real pickle, but that does not translate into an automatic obligation to help them, especially if the mess was of their own making. And especially if repeated bailouts have only trained them to never deal with problems themselves.

  9. Sad to see what was once such a great nation and a fine ally be eaten alive from within. However, the only gun I’d ever send over there is a broken airsoft rifle. They don’t really deserve to be sent firearms because when all is said and done, they will just destroy them all again. They should of never banned them in the first place, same goes for Australia. I love the British and Australian people, but their politics are absolute garbage and if the time comes for them to need help as far as the need for weapons, they are on their own. The old saying is ‘You reap what you sow’.

  10. If the UK overlords adopted a 2nd ammendment situation and they were genuinely in need of guns for defense from Nazis, yes. In the current climate, no.

  11. Of course I would!

    Or at least that’s what I thought before I went to the comments section. After further speculation, I have changed my mind. Sending rifles now would be the same as giving an addict another hit so his withdrawal symptoms would go away. So, no, I would not send them rifles. I would send them an outline for how we preserved (and are attempting to recover) our gun rights though.

    • We have manufacturers who would be glad for the brit govt to pay for a new factory in Britain, or to simply contract for 10,000 semiauto rifles and 10 million rounds of ammo. Give them anything? Not only no, but hell, no. I would say the same about other countries, like those who hand over 2500 uparmored HUMVEEs to their religious buds, costing us billions, or places where we spent $500 million to train 54 men, 30 of which have mysteriously disappeared, I suspect they are using their training and equipment for the other side! Our country being taken for granted as a bunch of complete idiots, and proving that analysis to be correct, over and over, makes me wish I paid fewer taxes.

  12. nope.

    they have the government they deserve. why should we do anything to wake them from their fantasy world?

  13. I’ll send them a photo of one that was in the UK, got sent to India, imported back to the U.S., and is now in my safe.

    • “I’ll send them a photo of one that was in the UK, got sent to India, imported back to the U.S., and is now in my safe.”

      I’d like to hear more about that one.

      Do you have enough for a short article TTAG can run?

  14. Yes I would. Proudly. I’ve known too many Brits, and have traveled widely in Britain several times, and love the people and the place. Not their policies, mind you, many of which I find deeply offensive. But many of the people… tremendous folk.

    Damn right I would provide weapons were nothing to come back on me, or at least a low likelihood of it. I think our 2A struggle in the US is simply one instance of freedom-loving people saying “no more” to the threat and pressure from overbearing government. People vs. the State is a battle everywhere, every nation, every continent.

    Besides, it would make me feel good to send a couple of “loaner” Enfields back to their homeland.

    • PLUS 1, Yes I would, BUT ONLY if there was some kind of proof they would go to a families in Need and not the government, where they’d be working with our government, another way to steel our gifts only to be chopped/cut up!…?

  15. i would generously supply the british with turk busters if only obama would tell me where to bring them for drop off.

  16. Sure. I could drum up a little cash for one of the budget guns out there. You can bag an old h&r single barrel for like $100, right? It’d do them more good than me methinks.

    • Being the Anglophile I am, I might pony up for some Hi-Points, Lorcins, Jimenezes, and the like… but I don’t think I’d shell out more than that, nor would I send any of MY guns.

  17. No. We have generously furnished britains the templates for solving the situation. All they need do is pass common sense No Invasion laws. Post every possible entry point with no invasion signs. These invasion free zones will take care of the situation.

    Works for us, right?

  18. Naw, giving implements of self-defense to people who believe in neither is a fool’s errand. If they think guns are so icky, let ’em use harsh language and dirty looks. Fool me once, shame on you . . .

  19. I bought most every gun I own because I appreciate its mechanical design, overall aesthetics, or both. They are tools, but tools I enjoy on several levels; as such I would not have them casually destroyed.

    So … Sell? Perhaps depending on what was needed.

    Give? No – not based on what happened last time around.

    Of course i say this now when there is not a threat of imminent and sudden invasion, and the current government is what it is.

  20. Mosin-Nagant rifles are cheap enough that I would send mine, since apparently I have to aim two feet left to hit anything.

    • They often shoot left of they were originally zeroed with the bayonet in place, although I have no idea why they work like that. Drift the front sight to the left.

  21. While the initial instinct is to say “No, screw them, they’ve screwed themselves 3 times now in one century. They need to learn and fix their own problems.”

    Abandoning our fellow man is exactly the “divide and conquer” tactic the enemy wants. Why do it for them?

    I would send them shipping containers full of plastic, now completed, 80% AR-15 lowers.

    Another person who sees the fact that dividing and conquering ourselves so the enemy doesn’t have to do it is a bad idea, can send some uppers, parts, etc…

    Not everyone in China agrees with their evil government, either…. People are people. If we divide ourselves because of some invisible line a politician drew, because one geographic group got stupid, fell for it, etc… We’re only helping the politicians…

    Eternal vigilance is useless if you won’t also eternally do something about what you see…

  22. No. You can’t help an addict by bailing him out, you have to let them bottom out so they are forced to bail themselves out. Britain will never change until they have to pull up their pants and do it themselves. A few more years of beheadings in the streets, no-go Muslim only zones and Sharia law being pushed down their throats will eventually turn the tide.

    When the religious extremist fight starts, those philosophically and morally against firearms and self defense will succumb quickly. The remaining will fight with whatever they have and survive. The survivors will ( in theory) pass on the lesson of force multipliers to their offspring. Britain needs its “Never Again” moment.

    • One would think that narrowly surviving WWII only through American largesse, Soviet sacrifice, and Hitler’s mistakes would have provided just such a “Never Again” moment. Perhaps the USA came to the rescue just a bit too soon for the lesson to be well and truly learned. Or perhaps each generation simply needs to learn these lessons anew.

  23. No.

    a) My ancestors fought like hell to get rid of the British from these shores.

    b) If the Brits want guns, then they shouldn’t have put their own light arms and gun sector out of business. Seeing as how they made a shockingly incompetent go of the SA-80 and then handed the job of (re)making the rifle over to their former enemies by contracting H&K to set the SA-80 right, that’s tantamount to admission that they’re now a paper tiger.

    c) I’m well tired of being lectured and browbeat by British tourists to my country on the subject of guns.

    Just this week, I happened to experience (c) yet again, with British tourists to Wyoming. Upon inquiry as to what I did for a living and hearing “gunsmith,” you’d have thought the British heard “child molester.”

    In a curious bit of irony, a young French couple I also encountered this week thought it was quite interesting that I was a gunsmith, and they asked whether the Cody Museum was worth their time.

    • “b) If the Brits want guns, then they shouldn’t have put their own light arms and gun sector out of business”

      And this is why Britain will lose the next big war. Countries on the continent and in places that hate the British, like Argentina, still make guns. Where will Britain buy the guns they need to defend themselves when nobody will sell to them?

    • “My ancestors fought like hell to get rid of the British from these shores.”
      With respect, and you do deserve it DG, the only British who were got rid of were those with a King’s Commission and their, press ganged or otherwise, underlings.
      All the other British became Americans or are still in hiding amongst you (you call them Democrats don’t you?).
      By the Grace of God and the Republic, but God is only defined by our own imaginings and such imaginings are an insult to ourselves and our own kind.
      Dear inhabitant of the land of the brave, home of the free; if you are so free, why do you need a President and why is he giving hospitality to the Pope?!
      Henry VIII had the right idea, it is a pity he felt he still needed a Church.

      • I don’t think anyone would argue that America is on the same general path as the UK, Australia, etc- we’re just XX yrs ‘behind’.

        I do think it will be a stiffer fight here and, unlike England, may end up being an extra-political fight. Still, the Progressive statists are slowly but surely getting their way.

        • Evil never tires, never surrenders, never acknowledges defeat. Good people do become tired of fighting evil while also working to make a life for themselves and family. Good things want to be about doing good things and helping others become their best. Evil seeks only and always to enslave and destroy.

      • Our own Bill of Rights was taken from the English, the Magna Carta and the history of the English People since the Norman Invasion. I am of Norman Decent myself but I am no Feudal leaning centrist. That is the great success that the English People achieved to at one time. They, like our modern situation, were beset by all manner of critters, I call them two legged varmints. These slime are just that. The sooner we all, All People, realize that you cannot appease the violence of tyranny the sooner we can go back to getting along and peace will return to all the people.

        All you have to do is look at who is equating progress by the elimination of People’s rights to know who the critter is and what they are made of. Regardless of what the rationalization is for stripping someone of their rights they are like rabid dogs they are and fit for only one path in any world that is God Fearing. (Do not misunderstand my reference to God as a frailty to doing what is right and just. My allusion to Deity are sincere and most non denominational. Even the Quran has its moments and has been perverted by those who simply crave an excuse for their blood lust. Most modern governments or those who occupy the seats of governments have no clue and couldn’t buy one.)

        When the good people are tired of this and realize that the Christian Message has been hijacked for centuries to support totalitarian regimes, look at the Catholic Churches History for one instance, actually read the message that Jesus brought, he didn’t remove the money changers from the Temple with harsh language, they will begin to get a damned spot of motivation. Motivation and real knowledge of the truth equates to determination. After that put it into action and you can be sure that every tyrant petty or other wise would be in instant peril. Remove the cause of the cancer and the cancer will be gone.

        God, Allah, and the many forms of any correct spiritual path will be moral and equitable. If not then there is a perversion or the path is false. The form of higher ideas and the foundation of any true spiritual path is morality and ethical. Jesus summed it up in two phrases, love God with all your being and your neighbor as yourself; and just so everyone knows you neighbor is not some foreign born interloper perverting your country for their own reasons or those intent to separate you from your property. That is not what Jesus was talking about. Pray for your enemies but you don’t give them the key to your house or the number to your bank account.

        May all God’s people realize who are their brothers and sisters and who the real enemy is.

        By the way Beast is not the Boogeyman, it is an oppressive government, read Daniel then read the account in Revelations. Remember Jesus did not criticize the Romans because it was God’s judgment for perverting the law. He hammered his own government and Elders because of their perversion of the Law and the manner in which they treated the People.

      • I mean this as gently and respectfully as possible but everywhere the atheist took control the terror followed.
        Most do not know that in these United States the origin of the “separation of church and state” was to protect the Church from being corrupted by the State.

  24. Send a gun to defend a British home? This is a trick question, right? Is there some reason the Brits would need me, or other Americans, to send them a gun? Did the Brits put you up to this? Did the Aussies turn them down or something? Is France invading again? Let them use their longbows ‘cuz my guns are most likely too dangerous for those kind of people.

    Oh, to answer the question… I wouldn’t send a Brit the sweat off my b**** if it saved them from dehydration, sure as hell ain’t gonna send them any of my firearms.

  25. Nope.

    Maybe the invaders will tear down all the cameras in London before we send troops, drones, and a carrier group over there anyway.

  26. If I understand the question correctly then no, no I would not. It turned out they did not need them and they were wasted.

  27. Sadly, NO ! ! !
    No more “Brother Wars” ! ! !
    Saw a painting of a British “Tommy” and a German “Grenadier” from WWI with this caption: “Next time, we fight together.”

    To know who rules over you – learn whom you are not permitted to criticize.

  28. The British people brought their plight upon themselves when they failed to resist the government when they told everyone to turn in their guns. It would have been better for them to have fought the government tooth and nail, even if it meant killing police officers and government officials come to take their guns by force, than for them to live the craven, cowardly, existence they do today. Until they rise up and demand their gun rights back, they should get nothing from us.

  29. It’s funny you mention the disposal and disarmament aspect. An acquaintance of mine always points out Europe and Australia as examples of places that had “massive” amounts of guns after WWII and people just lined up and turned them in. And yes, it has something to do with the mindset of those areas.

    Europeans generally are used to a lord/serf type of relationship, where ideally the serfs worked and paid taxes and that was supposed to guarantee them safety and security. It didn’t work out that way, but disarmed, they couldn’t do much about it for themselves.

    The colonists who sailed west (religious arguments aside) were of the independent, DIY-minded sort. They knew that their own lives depended on their ability to utilize armaments and fight for themselves, as no armored knights or lords of the manor would be en route to ensure their safety. Which led to our tradition of firearms use and ownership, and our desire to keep those tools in our possession.

    In other words, the American people, despite the common left-wing rhetoric of “Oh if the government comes for your guns, no one will be able to stop them”, aren’t wont to give up their guns. They will resist by deception, lying, and ultimately force.

  30. Saving Britain from Nazi invasion is probably the worst thing we could have done for them. They certainly haven’t forgiven us for it. A nice little monarchy and governmental house cleaning would have been just the thing to fix that island up. Give the survivors a copy of the Constitution and see if they learn from their repeated mistakes.

  31. There seems to be an ill-conceived notion on TTAG that no in the UK either likes or possesses guns or that, somehow, they would not know which end to point at the enemy! That is simply untrue. For the vast majority, gun ownership is just not an issue. Very few of the police have guns and nor do they usually need them. There is the odd gang shooting (usually amongst themselves so no one really cares) and that’s about it. You can own a rifle or shotgun if you get a permit, which, I have been told, are not that difficult to obtain. You can no longer legally own a handgun but that really isn’t a big deal. If you want to go shooting you can – there are gun clubs and other sorts of gun related entertainment. They may not have the almost unfettered access to weapons that we do here but most people don’t want it anyway. So please stop bleating on about the hard-done by British and their lack of weaponry. They are quite content and do not fear their government. I enjoy owning guns and am grateful for the 2nd amendment. The Brits (of which I am an ex-pat) in the UK simply don’t care – I don’t recall ever lamenting the fact that I could not buy a Colt 1911 or .44 Magnum.

    • So, the Brits are OK with the freedom to not be able to defend themselves (re: recent articles about defensive weapons of any kind not being allowed), are OK believing the government will able to prevent serious bodily harm to individuals, have no fear of government power to regulate every aspect of their lives, are OK with terrorist attacks after which the national health system will charge-in to make all the dead and injured whole again. And that is supposed to encourage us to….what?

      • A gun is not the only means by which you can defend yourself. My step-son is a policeman in one of the busiest parts of London and is unarmed and is happy to be so as he insists his colleagues are too. The US has a long established gun culture, the UK does not – comparing one to the other is pointless.

        The government there regulates the people very much the same way it does here. You think you are more free here than there? How very parochial.

        • The thousand year empire is over. We of this land do not stand in awe of queen and realm.

          As noted in my comment, and detailed several times in/at TTAG, self-defense in England (and UK) is virtually outlawed (with even a demand to regulate kitchen knives?)

          As to freedom, look at all the security cameras watching the every move of British subjects (as opposed to British citizens); we have so little of that in the US and mostly situated at traffic intersections (where they do nothing to improve safety, but do enrich the government via fines). Now it is true that British criminal law is better for the innocent in England (because the government there usually doesn’t arrest someone until they are virtually certain of a conviction). However, in this country, it is rather rare that someone gets tried for resisting arrest. In England, resisting is a major crime and the government (“The Crown” if you like) does not hesitate to add that to the list of charges. Which just maybe is why Bobbies believe they have nothing to fear from arresting a major crime figure (in America, “catch me if you can” does lead to violent engagements between police and criminals. With no threat of deadly force, police would be killed by the hundreds. While it sounds tragic and unreasonable, Americans do not consider themselves subservient to the government. Citizens are masters, and the government must demonstrate not only legitimacy, but capability to enforce compliance with demands of government employees. A free citizen recognizes no requirement to bow to government because it is the “proper” thing to do, but does so only if convenient, self-promoting, sensible or trumped by superior force. We are a rebellious people (which Brits should have understood all along). We live in a wild and somewhat untamed country, not some neatly trimmed and manicured little island separated from the rest of the world by geography and choice.

          Anyone who thinks governments are benign deserves the grossest of limits on life and personal satisfaction.

    • Dear god, you don’t vote here do you? Please don’t import more slaves, keep your poison on the other side of the pond where it just chokes Europe.

      • If you let me know which candidate you fear the most, I’ll make sure they get my vote.

        Yes, I’ll think you’ll find it was the Yanks that indulged in the slave trade, not the Limeys.

        • “Yes, I’ll think you’ll find it was the Yanks that indulged in the slave trade, not the Limeys.”

          Yep, in a system set up and culturally defined as normal while they were still Limeys.

          Or, is it your contention that slavery did not exist in any British colony prior to or after the American Revolution?

          I see you have been throwing out the ‘ignorant nonsense’ epithet. Might want to rein that one in…

        • B: I recant, even I couldn’t vote for Paul! 🙂

          JR_in_NC: You are, essentially, correct; however, I meant that there were never any slaves (that I’m aware of ) on the mainland UK (other than those kept by the Saudis in their St. Johns Wood houses) at the time that slavery was at it’s height over here, but your point is well taken.

        • Mark,

          Both engaged in the slave trade. The only difference is that the U.K. eventually eliminated the slave trade in Parliament and the U.S. eliminated the slave trade in a civil war.

        • I’ll think you’ll find it was the Yanks that indulged in the slave trade, not the Limeys.

          What? The British were second only to the Portuguese in Atlantic slave trading. It was the Portuguese, followed by the British, the French, the Spanish, and the Dutch Empire. Wars were entered into for the sole purpose of making slaves, and they were fomented by Europeans for that purpose. Even after the practice of slavery stopped in England, it flourished in British colonies and Canada. The British West indies was hugely profitable due to British slaves, and the English people benefited from it (trade, etc. especially sugar). The profits of the British slave trade and of their West Indian plantations were a significant percentage of the British economy.

          Virginia, under Thomas Jefferson, banned new slave trading in 1778, nearly 30 years before Britain did in 1807!

          Even Germany used slave labor during WWII from across occupied Europe to support their war effort, numbering perhaps 6 million people. And Russia? Try 14 million during the 20th century.

        • I meant that there were never any slaves on the mainland UK

          Mark, according to Wikipedia, by the 18th century African slaves began to be brought into London and Edinburgh. In a number of legal decisions, it was determined that slavery of Africans was legal. In Butts v. Penny an action was brought to recover possession of 100 slaves. The court held that slavery was legal in England.

          England never had widespread slavery itself, but its British Colonies did and England took advantage of it. England didn’t outlaw slavery everywhere until shortly before the US did, in 1833, with the Slavery Abolition Act. Even the Church of England had slaves. When slaves were emancipated by an act of the British Parliament in 1834, the British government paid compensation to slave owners. Among those they paid was the Bishop of Exeter.

        • No slavery in the Empire? Then what was the purpose of the Slavery Abolition Act of 1833? Why did England abolish a practice that did not exist? The Slave Trade Act of 1807, outlawed the slave trade, but not slavery itself. Another law passed and foisted on the empire/nation that did not practice slavery? What was William Wilberforce on about?

    • it’s a cultural thing. it’s like water to fish. You weren’t born here so you’ll never get it. Take the First Amendment. You can’t tell an American that he can’t say something without an automatic “It’s my Freedom of Speech, man!” response. It’s ingrained. 2A as well, despite the anti’s protestation. I may not lament the fact that I don’t own a .44 magnum but try and tell me I can’t have one.

        • My apologies- I inferred you were born in the UK and emigrated here. Oh, and I don’t fear my government. I don’t trust it. Big difference.

        • Coffee-addict: No problem: I am a hybrid who spent most of my life in the UK so talk like one which means I think of myself as one even though I feel American and love this country. (And 1A, 2A and all the other glorious little As!)

    • You may well be correct about the typical British attitude towards guns & their govt. That may change in a few yrs once the democratically elected Govt institutes Sharia and closes all the pubs. The sun has, in fact set on the British Empire and is fast sinking on Western Civilization as a whole.

  32. No guns for the english. And do not let the anti freedom British come here. No nation who throws away it’s freedom for security should be allowed to immigrate here. The British no longer share our American values.

    Ditto to the anti freedom people of the west coast and northeast.

  33. The British have comfortably sleeped while rough American men stood ready to do violence in their defence.

    I know this is not the exact george Orwell quote. But if fits in todays world. Thanks to the TTAG intellectuals for giving me the source for the correct George Orwell quote.

    He was born in British colonial india.

    • silly boy. brits don’t throw guns away. they dutifully transport them to the nearest point of confiscation and honorably surrender them to proper authorities. most circumspect.

  34. I’d like to make some clever quip about the revolution or something. But honestly… Yeah. I’d mail a gun to someone in need in the UK. If I thought it would help and if I COULD I’d send a Brit a gun for defense. Hell… I’d honestly end up making a thing of it. Mailing out a box with a used Mosin Nagant, a Hi-point pistol, and some ammo every time I could scrounge up the few hundred bucks and mail one out.

    Just because their government sucks doesn’t mean we should refrain from helping them just because of it.

    • “Just because their government sucks doesn’t mean we should refrain from helping them just because of it.”

      Bad government does not come from the “Bad Government Fairy.”

      • Yeah and people in California and New Jersey just totally desire to bet stomped every day of their lives for not moving. Got it, thanks.

        • people in California and New Jersey just totally desire to bet stomped every day of their lives for not moving

          It’s a choice they made. They are choosing to get stomped on. There is an alternative. But you know what? Most don’t think they are getting stomped on. And the few who do find it tolerable. Let’s face it, if it became intolerable they would move.

  35. No, I would not bail the Brits out. I’m tired of them (and the Aussies too) chiding us and ridiculing us for being such cowboys that we still think we need guns. Damn right, we need guns!

    So no guns for Brits or Aussies. As for the Canadians, I might be more charitable. After all, they are our next door neighbors.

    • All the empire (now called commonwealth, whatever that means) has the same mindset. Only the US successfully threw-off the chains of English monarchs. Canadians are next door, alright. Nice people; muddleheaded socialists. After all, the Canadian courts and legal/police system declared an American citizen a criminal for writing on an American blog, on an American network, on an American server comments disrespectful of Canadian politics, culture, law. Extraterritorial criminalization. Hate speech, don’t you know.

  36. No, I would not send them a firearm. I might consider selling one to them a slight premium above fair market value.

    And there is a fairly large problem with the idea: they are not “people of the gun”. They do not know how to operate firearms. They do not know how to shoot firearms. They have no ability/practice to shoot accurately. They don’t know how to clean or maintain firearms. In other words, it wouldn’t do them any good to send them firearms anyway.

    As a nation the Brits have chosen not to invest the money to purchase firearms and the time to know how to operate and maintain them. Instead, they used their money and time for who knows what. There are consequences to our choices in this world.

      • An English Person,

        There are a few “people of the gun” in every country. The more important question is, “How many?” How many Brits are “people of the gun”? I imagine the number is in the thousands … and I’ll bet most of them are already armed. Thus there is no point in sending over firearms to the masses who have no aptitude to use them.

        • Thus there is no point in sending over firearms to the masses who have no aptitude to use them.

          Or want them. If they wanted them, they would buy them now. There’s a story about a grasshopper and an ant that comes to mind.

      • An English Person,

        Your link shows a distributor that sells AR15s starting at £1560 ($2375) and up. That sounds to me like only the wealthiest people in your nation can afford to own one. Contrast that with our “budget” AR15s that we can buy locally for $700 (£460).

        I wish you the best, I really do. I just don’t see any point sending over an item that the overwhelming majority of people would not be able to use effectively.

        • To be honest and fair uncommon_sense, you are actually more right than i’d like to admit; I once had my own older brother ask me if i’d ever even shot a gun (despite my having been a member of not just one but three different shooting clubs…) when I mentioned visiting Bisley to get some work experience with a gunsmith.
          It amazes me how many people of England (mostly townsfolk, it must be said) are completely oblivious to the practical importance of firearm ownership; but to each according to their need, right?

          Point remains, however, various guns, training, and shooting opportunities are available, and really, it ain’t all that difficult to learn, is it?

          In answer to the article’s original stated question, we’re not currently in the situation where we actually really need another nation’s aid in the form of weapons drops; please feel free to visit http://www.guntrader.co.uk, and pick yourself up a bargain.

          By the way, pretty much everything is cheaper in USA; don’t get me started on the price of fuel, but purchasing power parity, don’t you know.

        • English Person, I don’t know if you are still reading this, but I have a question for you.

          What are the laws/rules/social customs there in regard to home loading ammunition? Are components available? Do people do it? Can you “legally” buy a press, dies, other tools, or does that sort of thing put up some sort of big red flags?

          I’ve read some about Europe in a very general sense (and it was no encouraging), but your comments here have made me wonder what the state of handloading is in the UK.

          Thanks.

        • Hi JR_in_NC,
          Handloading is very popular in the UK, and restrictions on purchases/storage only apply to the consumables such as bullets and powders rather than the machinery involved.

        • English Person, I’ve enjoyed reading some factual posts about the state of gun ownership in England. We don’t get much truth about it, mostly bashing. None/few of us gun owning Americans support the complete ban on handguns, or the apparent ban on defense of self and property, but it’s good to get info from someone living there.

        • Danny G, the limits on what one can buy at any one time and how much one can possess depend mostly on justification.
          Generally, a hunter would normally be permitted a minimum of 200 rounds of ammunition per firearm to allow buying matched batches and having sufficient supply for practice and purpose, but if one is reloading then the amount allowed to be possessed may be double that or more.
          A competitive target shooter may be able to justify an even larger cache/horde/arsenal.

          https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/417199/Guidance_on_Firearms_Licensing_Law_v13.pdf

        • Thanks.

          Very interesting. It seems you have it better in that regard than what I read before…which was NOT about the UK. I *think* it was (maybe) Germany?

          Anyway, the gist was they either had successfully outlawed or were trying to outlaw home loading completely…all in the guise of ‘safety’ and all.

          I was wondering if that was a Europe-wide thing. Given what we hear about firearm ownership in the UK, I had wondered about the ammo side of the equation.

          Thanks again.

      • Thanks for these links, English Person. I had no idea about the straight pull AR-15s. Gotta love a club that once met at “The Old Sergeants’ Mess”. With such a small market, I’d not like to pay the prices for ammunition and accessories over there. The US must seem a gigantic gun supermarket to you.

  37. I absolutely would. I have spare rifles, they can have some, plus 2 boxes of ammo for each one.

    Because here’s the thing. Whatever crisis prompted this. Whatever event or series of events is transpiring that would make them come out and make an official request like this, to us, again, will not result in a better Britain.

    Britain doesn’t start anything anymore. It defends. Whatever your opinion of GB, we, The West, and the World will be worse off if whatever is seeking to destroy them prevails. If a dusty rifle in my safe can prevent that, then so be it.

    Bon Voyage trusty rifle, may it return with notches in the stock.

    • I get the idea that Jeremy Clarkson isn’t the only Briton who wants Pierced Organ to stay abroad for the rest of his life.

  38. Of course not-is this a trick question? Have fun with the armed muslim hoards…BTW I’m in need of a gun-send me one. I won’t destroy it after I defend home and hearth…I’m one hell of a lot more concerned about arming Christians and Kurds in the Middle East-and folks in slave states right here in the good ‘ole USA…

  39. How about this. They can trade us their real men (and women) for our limp wrist pansies and some magical no gun signs. I welcome any pro freedom British people with open arms.

  40. no they the UK scrapped the last batch instead of returning them as requested and the. enforced unilateral civil disarmment which crooks ignore and prosecute folks that try to defend themselves when they restore the right of arms and common law respect of the right of people to defend themselves and their property maybe other wise I will send blueprints for stens which they should have already

  41. It’s too late.The Muslime’s invasion seems pretty complete at this point. You can’t people who refuse to defend themselves.

  42. I’d only be willing to lease weapons to the Brits. The price is 5 jihadi heads per month per firearm, but they can substitute communist heads if necessary.

  43. I would send one. Not, y’know, an expensive one, but I would. Not everyone in the UK shares the crazy. That old Lion deserves those among its people with the will to do so, defend themselves and their society.

  44. They have been hoist upon their own petard.
    If they now *want* guns, let them buy them.
    I would propose that inexpensive single shot pistols like the “Liberator” of WWII fame be manufactured and shipped over to be airdropped, as per the original plan.
    AFTER their check clears.

  45. Instead of sending them ours, let’s help them acquire some of the massive quantities of AKs and other small arms that sit gathering dust in warehouses all over the world. I’m told that bargains are plentiful – SMGs went out of fashion some time ago, and other older firearms can be had for cheap.

    …paging Yuri Orlov to the white courtesy phone… Mr. Orlov to the white courtesy phone, please…

  46. Maybe we could gather up all the firearms from U.S. “buy backs” and send *them* over there. At least they might get a little mileage before being destroyed. They ought to be good against other baddies because they’re purportedly too dangerous for us. Even non-functional firearms could be used as spears and clubs…which is arguably more than what is deserved.

  47. No.
    Those inbred limey twits brought their own mess upon themselves.
    Also, we have our own self-inflicted problems which may require firepower to resolve.

    • British Small Arms. Couldn’t make it selling guns and switched to motorcycles. They couldn’t sell enough of them, either. Triumph bought ’em out and retired the marque. Had me an A75 “Rocket 3” back in the 60s. Wish I’d never traded it, but the past is past. No going back. Past is prologue.

  48. Yes, absolutely. I would send one of mine on the off-chance that the recipient wasn’t a sheep, but instead a sheepdog wanting to be armed. I would send mine in the hope that it would be received by someone just wanting a chance to be able to defend himself, his family, his way of life. I would send mine in the off chance that it would do good, once. And if that failed, I would send another.

  49. Not long ago I watched a British film from 1957. Late in “Quatermass 2” , there’s a scene where Professor Quatermass is rallying a group of English villagers to go fight a monster. They’ve acquired a number of Enfield rifles and STEN guns. In a very low-key, matter of fact manner, the men arm themselves and go out to do battle. The English used to be different.

  50. No – it would be a waste – they’d just wind up turning them into the government along with their carving and chef’s knives. I hear that fireplace pokers are next to be declared illegal – as they are now the “go to” self defense weapon during an all-to-common home invasion. God save the Queen – Screw the peasants!

  51. Though I sympathize with the posters who would write off the Europe in general and the UK in particular, they fail to see that this is a crisis of Western Civilization. The relationship is symbiotic. If you dont believe me, read Steyns “America Alone”. Collectivisim in the guise of islam, fascism, or communism, is deadly to freedom all over the world. Including the Grand Old Republic.

    It is bigger than soccer vs. football. Or access to non-chinese economics. This is bigger than the USA. We are all in this one together. Look at the dark ages as to what happens when a people back itself up into a corner.

      • One could also argue that the “Dark Ages” weren’t as “dark” as we like to believe.

        How different are the lower classes today compared to those during the DA?

        These kinds of ideas, “Enlightenment” and “Civilization” and similar terms apply to the upper ends of a society. Basically, they translate loosely to “luxury and leisure time for the haves.”

        We have all been taught that the Roman Civilization Model is some sort of “ideal” man should continue to strive for. It bears noting that even then, there were some (many?) that were NOT willing to sell freedom and personal liberty for the illusions of safety “Western Civilization” provides.

        There’s no easy answer, but “The Way it Has Been” = “The Way It Necessarily SHOULD BE” is likely on the answer, either.

  52. So where did your Bill of Rights including your 2A come from? The British BoR from around 200 years earlier.

    And the UK will never allow guns again because:

    1) They have convinced themselves the UK is a quiet peaceful country despite crime being rife and every town being a warzone on a Friday night
    2) The media have made them think guns are scary as fuck
    3) In the USA, you get to know which laws are being passed and they campaign about changes well in advance. In the UK, it’s like “Oh we changed that law yesterday so what you’re doing now is illegal”. Nobody gets prosecuted for anything there, except when you have a firearm unlawfully or another weapon. Anything is classed as a weapon. Possession of PEPPER SPRAY anywhere is illegal and will get you a few years in the clink.

    • Leo Posts: Possession of PEPPER SPRAY anywhere is illegal and will get you a few years in the clink.

      Then EVERY true Brit should start openly carrying the stuff. When enough tax payers get tossed in the clink where will Britain get its money? And when, after a few years you are out? Start carrying pepper spray AGAIN.

      You want to be free! Earn it!

  53. Sadly, my first response would be ‘no’ but, upon further reflection, I might be willing to arm a real, pro-Britain/Free Britain revival (not some sort of punk/NeoNazi Revival) in the interest of world liberty.

    The British have to want to be free. One thing a true American learns early is that you can NOT make someone free. One word; AFGHANISTAN. There are others.

    Sending guns to au currant Britain would be casting pearls before swine. Rearming a revived and reinvigorated Britain, interested in liberty and individual freedom with individual responsibility would be an honor ANY true American would support.

    Also, we need to rearm America, too.

      • Exactly!!

        I had an argument with an English twat saying how “oppressed” we are because cops kill criminals with guns!!! It is funny how the slave chides the individual for wanting to do things for himself, be independent, and declare THAT to be slavery!!!

  54. I doubt if any of you have ever been to the UK. Because if you have you would know that there are plenty of firearms there. I was just in Yorkshire about 2 months ago and went shooting at a gun club.

  55. If I sent one, would they know what to do with it?

    Where would they get ammo?

    You’re telling me that the country that started the Industrial Revolution now lacks the means to provide their own?

    I’m thinking they need to go fish some back out of the channel since the end result is likely to be the same for them and cheaper for me.

  56. Absolutely YES.

    A man must protect the wellbeing of his family. Sometimes requires the deployment of weapons to protect them from thugs and thieves (whether or not they might wear a government costume).

    I’d send a gun, plenty of ball ammo to practice with, JHP ammo for “real” use, a cleaning kit and associated owner’s manual.

    I have extras for my neighbors; I could easily spare one for a British family, no question about it.

    • You wouldn’t be sending them to a british civilian(or more accurately subject), you’d be turning them over to the british government. If they need guns they can damn well buy them.

  57. Of course, if Britain had learned the lesson requiring vigilance, and firearms, to protect their freedom. My family sent firearms there during WW2, knowing they would never be returned. They were inexpensive, but usable, as would be anything I would send currently.

  58. Response #1: Shouldn’t we first send a gun to a home in NJ, NY, DC, HI, CA, etc. before we start taking care of the world?

    Response #2: Give a man a gun, save him for a battle. Teach a man to appreciate guns, save him for a lifetime….

  59. Yes and No.
    I would send tools, instructions and possibly some harder to make parts for simple arms. Think “four winds shotgun”, SWD Terminator type shotgun, or “Luty BSP type SMG” maybe make a few and send those.
    But given what happened to what was sent last time they are not getting a quality built firearm from my family again.

  60. The WW2 arms to Britian campaigne was more for PR purposes than anything else. Had Britian actually been invaded, a few thousand old relics with little ammo would have been of no consequense. The real reason was the Roosevelt administration was looking for ways to drum up public support for U.S. entry into the war. The principal foriegn policy debate in the U.S. at the time was between the interventionsts, (like FDR), and the isolationists, not all that different from today.

  61. I would be happy to supply rifles to the UK, under one condition: for every rifle I send, they must repatriate (forcibly, if necessary) one of their anti-gun idiots who is currently in the U.S. Piers Morgan, Liam Neeson, those sorts of assholes. Take them back and keep them there, and I’ll send the guns.

    Deal?

  62. As a resident of CA and POTG I can feel for the brit POTG. Unfortunately the comments above, for the most part reflect a screw you, I got mine mentality. Very ignorant, very short sighted.

    But also typical of the “we eat our own” generation of gun owners I’ve been seeing more and more of. Makes the grabbers job easier.

    I would send a gun to a brit.

  63. several comments point to the ease of purchase and the number of gun owners in england. misses the point entirely. the root problem is that england made self-defense against the law.

  64. No. It would be pointless to send arms to the British Government.
    Let them buy them, for gold or silver.
    Without the will to fight, having the tools is pointless.

    Now, would I give arms to an Englishman who was desperate for them?
    Different question altogether.

  65. Has everyone forgotten William Wallace? I guess since the English are wussies after we kicked their A$$ES 200 plus years ago and bailed them out of two World Wars. Due to their own stupidity “Piers Moron” they will have to sleep in their own beds. The 2nd Amendment was put into the Constitution so the people could protect themselves from a corrupt government, William Wallace AGAIN!!!! But didn’t the English murder the Aboriginals in Australia? That is why it says “shall not infringe” so we can have what the government has to prevent a Holocaust. I believe the people should have what the government has including machine guns. The only gun control law there should be is that criminals can’t have any firearms. Thanks for your vote, pass the word. mrpresident2016.com

  66. I would send ammo with the gun too. I have known and still know some brits. They’re all good people. Some are miss guided, most are not. When you have a ruler you frequently do not get a say in the laws that get rammed up your ass by the losers in the gov.
    From a different tom

Leave a Reply

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