Do you remember Hungerford and Dunblane? Where all those people, including children were shot by deranged firearm certificate holders?
And our Prime Minister said he would rid Britain of guns at a stroke by banning all legitimate sportsmen from owning firearms? This is the joke, not of the decade, but of the century. Now every criminal and his young son has a firearm. Many of them automatic weapons which legitimate firearm owners never had access to.
I have heard that the mental stability of both these killers were known to the police but they were still allowed a firearms certificate. If this is true, it denotes that people in high places desperately needed to take guns out of ownership of people who may pose a threat to the state. No, not the criminals, the people who rule us are not worried about them. They fear honourable concerned citizens, rather than unintelligent thugs, rising up at the terrible liberties the State are taking with our freedoms. And it is they who our PM targeted when he got rid of all the legally owned weapons.
Now, please don’t get me wrong. I am not hinting that “the powers that be” arranged for these two killers to be issued with a firearms certificate allowing them to own a multitude of weapons and thought that people who may be killed could be termed as collateral damage in the wider scheme of things. And anyway, what I truly believe is of no importance here. There are seven computer-screen pages of the whole story of Dunblane together with a full page of biography for additional reading.
As many of you know, our firearms sportsmen have to go abroad to train for the 2012 Olympics. But even so, what will happen if the Olympic pistol shooting takes place in Docklands? Will the police raid the entire world team as they are lining up ready to fire their pistols and take them to court? And will they all receive a five year prison sentence for owning a firearms, preparing to discharge it in public. It is an interesting thought as those Olympic sportsmen will all be breaking British law if they bring their firearms to Britain, and more laws will be broken if they discharge those firearms.
We all look at America when we think of what guns can do. But the Americans are excitable people and there is a better example to look at – more of this in the next paragraph. People who say “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” are laughed at. But the saying, when you think of it, is true. People kill people, with guns, knives, hammers, chainsaws and so forth. I read recently that kitchen knives are a favourite tool which youngsters go for when they carry knives. I own a twelve inch cooks knife, one that cost over a hundred pounds. And it is kept in the kitchen and used in the preparation of food whenever I do the cooking. It hasn’t got a mind of its own, it cannot kill anyone. But I could use it to kill. If I did, would my plea of “it was the knife wot killed him guv” receive any consideration in court? Of course it wouldn’t, the judge, quite rightly, would say “You did the killing, take him down”. Do they really say that?
We should look more towards Switzerland. We are nearer the Swiss in temperament than we are the Americans – although I will accept the argument that with mass-immigration our British character has been altered somewhat! Switzerland has more guns per capita than America. Apart from every male military reservist between 18 and 35 owning their military weapon, some rifles, some pistols depending on their job and position. Then if they want to keep their weapons, they must have any automatic weapons deactivated down to semi-automatic. Many of the soldiers’ family and relations buy guns cheaper through the reservists military position. There are shooting fairs travelling around the country where people learn to shoot from the age of 12 upwards. The Swiss has one of the lowest murder rates in Europe. More information of the Swiss gun laws can be found at Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland
The main reason Hitler didn’t annex Switzerland was because of the information from generals who said the loss of manpower would be so great that the idea was unworkable. After all, nobody invades a country where nearly all the citizens have weapons.
The more that State interferes with our lives the more they want to be ready for any backlash. People are slow to move but when they do, they can be dangerous. In America the government is desperate to remove guns from the citizenry even with Article 2 of their constitution and they will win eventually. They have to if they want to totally subject their citizens.
Meanwhile, as a complete aside; can anyone explain to me why Tony Blair, working in the Middle East for the United Nations, is also commanding a salary of half a million a year from the bank of JP Morgan? That’s an awful lot of money! What is he doing for it, or perhaps the question of “what has he done for it” a more suitable question to be answered?