- Other Apps
First, I must note the lack of posts in the last few days. I've been dealing with... let's just say, some difficulties, the details of which I do not particularly wish to get into at this time.
Since writing is one of the ways that I use to get past such things, I figured it might be useful to take a look at a topic that is on a lot of people's minds today: gun control.
Let's be very clear about one thing. "Gun control" is an oxymoron. Put a gun on a table and it is merely an inanimate object that contains the potential to wreak tremendous violence and havoc - but cannot actually do so until and unless someone picks it up and fires it.
A gun, by itself, is just a static collection of parts and bits - no matter how beautifully engineered, how well put together, and how carefully maintained, it is just an assembly of bits of metal.
From a technical perspective, a gun, whether a handgun or a shotgun or a rifle or any other form of mainstream firearm, is actually a magnificent piece of work. Think about it: a gun has the ability to ignite a propellant charge that fires a jacketed cartridge out through a barrel just a few inches to a few feet in length, at often supersonic speeds, with tremendous accuracy of long distances. The sheer amount of kinetic energy released with a single smooth trigger pull is mind-blowing, especially when you consider how little energy is required to pull the trigger, compared to how much energy comes roaring out of the barrel.
But - and this is the important thing - a gun cannot do any of these things without motive power on the part of someone who picks it up and fires it.
To repeat: a gun, in and of itself, poses no inherent threat whatsoever. It is just an object, nothing more.
As it is written in the greatest military sci-fi novel ever produced, there are no deadly weapons. There are only deadly men.
There was a time, a bit over about 240 years ago, when the original American colonists understood the difference between weapon and user, and between those who buy and use guns for self-defence and sport, and those who use them to murder others.
They understood the concept so well, in fact, that they launched an outright insurrection against their parent and motherland, then and now the greatest empire the world has ever seen. A major part of their motivation for doing so was to teach the British an abject lesson in the difference between free men and slaves.
Slaves do not have the right to defend themselves - because if they did, they would not be slaves.
Free men understand that the right to keep and bear arms is not merely a right - it is a sacred duty, the mirror image of the equally sacred right to life. The two are inseparable. If you are alive, you have a right to keep yourself alive and fight back against anyone who would take it from you - and most normal, sane, sensible people (i.e. non-liberals) understand this in their very bones, because the survival instinct exists at the deepest possible level for all men.
Evidently, though, nearly two and a half centuries after their defeat at the hands of a bunch of jumped-up colonials wielding outdated blunderbusses and muskets (admittedly with a, rather generous, helping hand by the !@#$%^&* French), the Brits still do not understand the basic difference between weapon and wielder:
British humour, at least of the old-school kind, was actually pretty funny once upon a time. That is because the Limeys did not take themselves too seriously, yet still understood that the ancient and inviolable rights and responsibilities of Englishmen were worth fighting for - and, if necessary, dying for. Their descendants in the New World learned that same lesson from them, and used it with great effectiveness in two separate wars against their parents.
Eventually, the parents and their children reconciled and together forged the greatest and happiest geopolitical alliance of our times, but of late that relationship has fractured, badly. And that is in no small part because the original Englishmen have been slowly and steadily replaced by non-Englishmen who do not understand the ancient rights of that country.
The result is an enfeebled, dwindling population of white Englishmen who are cowed and browbeaten into abandoning their cultures and traditions - because one of their most fundamental rights, to keep and bear arms, has been stripped from them.
We see the results most clearly today, when the British police take it upon themselves to arrest people for merely thinking the wrong thing; when British politicians defy the will of their people to leave the EUSSR by peaceful means with blatant disregard for the consequences while happily calling those who voted "Leave" a bunch of racists and psychopaths; and when British society at every level refuses to bring to justice Muslims (excuse me, Asians) who wantonly abuse and rape little girls for years on end for fear of being called horrible politically incorrect names.
I'm not saying that a peaceful but armed population would necessarily have reversed or solved these problems. Being armed to the teeth is no guarantee against idiotic social engineering experiments - just ask the Swiss, who gave their women the vote in 1971 and have been seeing their freedoms steadily eroded ever since. Or the Israelis, where Jewish women can cry "rape!!!" at the drop of a hat and destroy a man's life.
But it is a damned strong deterrent.
It is high time that the British people remember this, as at least some of their American descendants do.