From some guy in Arizona who gets the idea (of the Second Amendment):
Arizona state Rep. Quang Nguyen (R) used an X post to warn that an American citizenry devoid of guns would soon be a citizenry without freedom of speech and property rights too.
He noted that the Second Amendment “right to keep and bear arms” is the one which upholds and protects all the other freedoms enumerated in the Bill of Rights. A disarmed citizenry would put in jeopardy the ability to control one’s own property, hedged in by the Third Amendment, as well the freedom to exercise rights to privacy and security, hedged in by the Fourth Amendment.
Nguyen warned that, “A disarmed populace is more vulnerable to censorship, unlawful search and seizure, and political oppression.”
Yup, we all know that, but thankee for re-stating the point, sir.
Now here’s a graphic illustration of a non-Second Amendment society:
Never confront burglars. They could be armed. They could be high on drugs. You don’t know anything about them, except that they are in your home. And you want them out.
But don’t just lie there terrified, praying that they won’t come into your bedroom.
The law allows a householder to act in self-defense. But prowling the house is not self-defense. And keeping a weapon by your bed implies premeditated intention to commit assault.
Burglars are not looking for a fight. They just want your valuables, probably so they can sell them to get money for drugs or drink. These days, with so many young people carrying knives or machetes, it’s increasingly likely that an intruder will be armed. But even so, if you go on the attack, the law will label you as the assailant.
Well, maybe. Maybe the burglar just wants to get your stuff. On the other hand, maybe your stuff is not what he’s after; he’s after your life, your wife’s life (or body), your daughter’s life (or body) or your son’s life (or body). We can debate the point forever, but the plain fact is that the criminal’s motives are unknown to everyone except him.
We — that is, our politicians as well as the public — are aware of that fact, but it appears the British have willfully chosen to bury their heads in the sand.
And the reason that their law is more on the side of the criminal than the victim is, quite simply, because the people have been systematically disarmed by the government, so the government gets to make the decisions on behalf of the public, with the result that the nation of once-Great Britain has been turned into a nation of victims.
Thanks, but no thanks. We’ve seen what’s happened Over There, and we want no part of it.
We uncultured rubes on this side of The Pond prefer to turn criminals into victims. And we have the law on our side.
Was the stuff you quoted written by silly children?
The 2nd is not a right and never was.
It’s a restriction, on gov’t.
With a wave of the hand no one gets to do a switcheroo on word meanings, ie., a criminal inside my home can never be an assault on my part, it will always be a defense.
Yes, keeping a Remington 870 near my bed is indeed a premeditated act, to prevent a criminal from assaulting me and mine.
All of this stuff is self explanatory when you force the speaker to own his words, ie, put him in your shoes. You know dam well he doesn’t want to watch a criminal working his wife doggy style.
Aren’t these the same people who had to borrow our guns to defeat the Germans? Next time we’ll tell them maybe they just want your valuables to buy some crank.
I remember they were begging for everything that would go “bang” for their civilian militia with the promise, promise, promise they’d be returned when the shooting stopped.
Then they said “too much trouble” and dumped them in the ocean.
Burglars intent on stealing stuff prefer unoccupied houses. Somebody breaking into your house while you are there indicates they plan to do bad things to you and yours; theft is third on their list.
There’s much sense in that article, and more in your retort, but over here we walk softly and carry a big torch – the ceilings are too low for cabers.
But surely over on your side deceased criminals are not victims but Darwin-fodder? Victimhood would mean the blame lies with someone else (e.g. the householder).
Not at all. The idea over on this side of the pond is that if the burglar/robber’s IQ goes to zero and his body temperature goes to ambient temperature, that is his own fault because he is the victim of his own Mendacity, lack of social values and greed.
WE aren’t mind readers, and if someone enters our abode at o’Dark Thirty, we can’t be expected to ask him what his intentions are and give him a free hand.
Not at all. The idea over on this side of the pond is that if the burglar/robber’s IQ goes to zero and his body temperature goes to ambient temperature, that is his own fault because he is the victim of his own Mendacity, lack of social values and norms, and his unfettered greed.
WE aren’t mind readers, and if someone enters our abode at o’Dark Thirty, we can’t be expected to ask him what his intentions are and give him a free hand.
In my continuing efforts to educate, I have had variations on this conversation:
Me: “So what will you do if they break down your front door?”.
Liberal White Woman (LWW): “Let them take what they want”.
Me: “And what would that be?”.
LWW: “Well, ____________. ____________, and _____________.
Me: “Yes, they will take your stuff, but what is it that they want?”.
LWW: Deer in the headlights.
Me: “They want you dead. For your crime”.
LWW: “Crime? I haven’t committed any crime!”.
Me: “Yes, you have. It’s written all over you”.
LWW: “WHAT crime?”.
Me: “You WHITE, bitch!”.
Shoot, shovel, shut up.
Ret. Col Douglas McGregor stated on a podcast that he believes England is lost unless some sort of Cromwell type figure emerges.
He may be right.
Without the 2nd Amendment we’d have the Leftist-Prog-nazi’s doing the same thing to us.