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.