Apologetics london-riots-afp1

Published on August 15th, 2011 | by Gary DeMar


Gun and Baseball Bat Control in Great Britain

Great Britain has strict gun control laws. Advocates of gun control believe that these laws cut down on violence and crime. Such laws only empower lawbreakers. Gun homicides were low in the United Kingdom even before gun control laws went into effect. This does not mean that there hasn’t been any gun violence since these laws went into effect in 1977. “Over the course of a few days in the summer of 2001, gun-toting men burst into an English court and freed two defendants; a shooting outside a London nightclub left five women and three men wounded; and two men were machine-gunned to death in a residential neighborhood of north London. And on New Year’s Day this year [2002] a 19-year-old girl walking on a main street in east London was shot in the head by a thief who wanted her mobile phone. London police are now looking to New York City police for advice.”

Gun control has had an impact elsewhere: a dramatic increase in other violent crimes. “For example, comparing London and New York, cities of very similar population and demographics, the rate of assaults and robberies is over six times as high, and 7 or 10 times nationwide (depending on statistic used).” Compared with the United States, “the United Kingdom has a slightly higher total crime rate per capita of approximately 85 per 1000 people, while in the USA it is approximately 80.”

Consider this 2002 article from Reason.com:

On a June evening two years ago, Dan Rather made many stiff British upper lips quiver by reporting that England had a crime problem and that, apart from murder, “theirs is worse than ours.” The response was swift and sharp. “Have a Nice Daydream,” The Mirror, a London daily, shot back, reporting: “Britain reacted with fury and disbelief last night to claims by American newsmen that crime and violence are worse here than in the US.” But sandwiched between the article’s battery of official denials — “totally misleading,” “a huge over-simplification,” “astounding and outrageous” — and a compilation of lurid crimes from “the wild west culture on the other side of the Atlantic where every other car is carrying a gun,” The Mirror conceded that the CBS anchorman was correct. Except for murder and rape, it admitted, “Britain has overtaken the US for all major crimes.”

The most recent riots in London indicate that lawless people will use any means at their disposal to force their wills on others. Three men were killed by an automobile, people were openly beaten in the streets, and business establishments were looted while others were burned. Store owners had no way of protecting their property. The people doing the looting, and they weren’t just the poor and disenfranchised (a millionaire’s daughter, a ballet student, a musician, an organic chef, a university graduate student, and a law student are just some of the types of people arrested), knew that they would meet little resistance. “In reality, the English approach has not reduced violent crime. Instead it has left law-abiding citizens at the mercy of criminals who are confident that their victims have neither the means nor the legal right to resist them. Imitating this model would be a public safety disaster for the United States.”

So what does the law abiding citizen do? He shops on Amazon for baseball bats! He can’t buy guns, so he gets the next best thing, a metal version of the Louisville Slugger. In a 24-hour period, sales for baseball bats on Amazon UK rose by more than 6000 percent.

Defenseless citizens were also buying police-style telescoping truncheons. (The spring-loaded ones are illegal.) The Guardian reported the following: “Amazon has removed several police-style telescopic truncheons from sale on its site as soaring sales of truncheons, baseball bats and other items that could be used as weapons sparked fears of vigilantism in the wake of widespread rioting.”

So now, law-abiding citizens are even more defenseless. They can’t even order a baseball bat on line to protect themselves from roaming thugs. Maybe it’s time they whittle down their cricket bats. Paul Joseph Watson writes: “Just like gun control, banning baseball bats only disarms the public and creates victims. Criminals will always be able to acquire weapons of any description because they do not obey laws. Leaving Brits defenseless will only embolden the rioting hordes.”

Weapons have been with us since the beginning of time. Cain could have used a rock or a club to kill Abel. Maybe it was a knife. He might have even strangled him with his bare hands. Envy does something to a person. It brings out the rage. We don’t know, and it doesn’t matter. It was Cain’s sin that we remember and despise. James describes the progression from thought to action:

“But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust. Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death” (James 1:14–15).

It’s not any more complicated than this. Something similar was told to Cain: “Then the Lord said to Cain, “Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen? If you do well, will not your countenance be lifted up? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it.” (Gen. 4:7). The problem wasn’t a weapon that was at Cain’s disposal; the problem was Cain.

Liberals and secularists don’t believe in sin. People do what they do because of “things” and circumstances, a worldview that does not comport with biblical reality (Col. 2:20–23). There must have been an environmental problem: unresponsive parents, being picked on, a broken relationship, the rich, George Bush. No one dares call it the fruit of lust, a desire to overthrow good with evil with any means at one’s disposal.

But people have always been sinners, why are these mass tragedies happening now? The controlling elements of shame and guilt have been removed. Community revulsion and exclusion are no longer factors in restraining behavior. Enough Westerners have a mind-my-own-business method of dealing with bad behavior (if it’s even called bad). It’s been drummed into our heads that we cannot impose our morality (or anyone’s morality) on others; therefore, the neighborhood bully cannot be restrained. His parents might sue you. The Columbine killers exhibited anti-social behavior. They were just expressing themselves. What could the principal do? If the parents didn’t show up first, the ACLU would have been at the school to threaten a suit because the principal was imposing some arbitrary form of morality on the students. “Freedom of expression” rules the day.

In similar fashion, the ACLU would have responded with even quicker resolve if the principal or some caring teacher had counseled the boys by sharing the gospel with them. Consider what happened to the principal of a public (government) school in Jackson, Mississippi, when he allowed the reading of the Bible over the intercom. Yes, your friendly ACLU was there to see to it that he never did that again. Better to create an environment of total self-will than to acknowledge that there is a God who holds us accountable and provides the means of overcoming our lust for what belongs to others.

Multiculturalism, the kind that claims that all value systems are equal, has failed, as those familiar with history predicted it would. Margaret Thatcher saw the future of England, and possibly the future of the United States, committed to such a preposterous idea. On May 21, 1988 she made the following comments to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland:

“We are a nation whose ideals were founded on the Bible. Also it is quite impossible to understand our literature without grasping this fact. That is the strong practical case for ensuring that children at school are given adequate instruction in the part which the Judaeo-Christian tradition has played in moulding our laws, manners and institutions. How can you make sense of Shakespeare and Sir Walter Scott, or of the constitutional conflicts of the seventeenth century in both Scotland and England, without such fundamental knowledge? But I would go further than this. The truths of the Judaeo-Christian tradition are infinitely precious, not only, as I believe, because they are true, but also because they provide the moral impulse which alone can lead to that peace, in the true meaning of the word, for which we all long. . . .

“But there is little hope for democracy if the hearts of men and women in democratic societies cannot be touched by a call to something greater than themselves. Political structures, state institutions, collective ideals are not enough. We Parliamentarians can legislate for the rule of law. . . . [Democracy requires] the life of faith. . . . as much to the temporal as to the spiritual welfare of the nation.”(1)

Those determined to impose their will on others will not be deterred by anti-gun laws. If they can’t shoot to kill, they will explode to kill, knife to kill, poison to kill, bludgeon to kill, strangle to kill. They, like the antagonists in Anthony Burgess’s A Clockwork Orange, will use any means at their disposal to satisfy their disregard for a worldview that holds them accountable. Why? There is nothing to restrain them other than the “will to power” of those who happen to hold civil office at the present time. But why should these people rule in the way they rule? Who says? Ultimately, no one.


  1. Quoted in Michael Alison and David L. Edwards, eds., Christianity and Conservatism (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1990), 337­–338. Cited by Vishal Mangalwadi, The Book that Made Your World: How the Bible Created the Soul of Western Civilization (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2011), 161–162.()
Print Friendly

About the Author

Gary is a graduate of Western Michigan University (1973) and earned his M.Div. at Reformed Theological Seminary in 1979. He is the author of countless essays, news articles, and more than 27 book titles, His most recent book is Exposing the Real Last Days Scoffers. Gary lives in Marietta, Georgia, with his wife, Carol. They have two married sons and four grandchildren, Gary and Carol are members of Midway Presbyterian Church (PCA).

48 Responses to Gun and Baseball Bat Control in Great Britain

  1. I think this is among the such a lot vital information for me. And i’m glad studying your article. But wanna observation on some common things, The site style is ideal, the articles is in reality nice : D. Just right task, cheers

  2. turban says:

    Thank you for every other informative website. The place else could I get that type of info written in such a perfect method? I’ve a venture that I am just now running on, and I have been on the look out for such information.

  3. Hey very nice site!! Guy .. Excellent .. Superb .. I’ll bookmark your website and take the feeds additionally?I’m happy to search out so many helpful information right here within the post, we’d like develop more strategies on this regard, thank you for sharing. . . . . .

  4. Sheri says:

    That is funny…look to New York??? They need to look to a free state where crime is down due to concealed carry laws enacted.

  5. K. Graber says:

    Goodness, if the answer is a citizenry taking arms against the politicians they elect, then clearly the citizenry has neglected their duty in electing responsible governors. Guard your freedoms with diligence….all of them. Know the truth, speak the truth, vote responsibly, and hold those who occupy elected office to the highest standard. But lets not shoot them just yet. The problem is the electors not the elected. The result of a biased media and inadequate educational system I fear.

    • mark dobert says:

      All of that bias and inadequate education is due to an immoral upbringing. We elect immoral leaders like Bush and Obama because we are immoral ourselves. We don’t want to hear moral leaders because they don’t tell us what we want to hear or give us the free goodies we demand. So in the end we get the gov’t we deserve. As far as shooting them, there will be no moral leaders to fill the void and so more of the same will take over and nothing will change except who signs the free checks. The French and Russian revolutions turned out the same way because of their immoral foundations of class envy and lust for power and other people’s goods. Our revolution had (at one time) a moral foundation that was started by the “Great Awakening” which kept it from becoming a bloody free-for-all like the other two revolutions. It was after our revolution that the immoral thieves and their central bankers took over by appealling to our sinful nature and thus the country we have today was born. The only way it will go away won’t be by shooting them but by letting it all fall down and then starting from scratch. Christians need to be morally grounded as were some of our founding fathers so we can be the rock to which the lost people can come to for answers. If not then the bondage will continue for many generations as it did for the Israelites until we repent of our sins of gov’t/idol worship and get back to worshipping the one, true God who provides our every need.

  6. USPatriot says:

    Well written. I have noticed that liberals believe themselves morally and intellectually superior and believe they have the right to tell others what to do or not do and how to behave.

  7. Andrew says:

    Deprogramming Services: What do you mean, “make sure your faith is strong before you begin?”. My faith is weak, that’s why I need the Word! The Word of God gives us faith (Rom. 10:17). We cannot gin that faith up beforehand.

    • Phil says:

      Andrew – if you have a comment relative to a particular comment, I’d kindly suggest the use of the Reply button. That will make it less confusing when people later read the comments.

  8. Throughout human history there has been no correlation between murder and the relative lethality of available weapons. It didn’t take long for the first men to learn to kill with sticks and stones. From that time forth, whether or not people were killed, and how many people were killed, was determined by factors other than weapon lethality: when people thought they had a reason to kill, and a hard heart that would allow them to do it, they have always been able to find a way.

    Gun control predates guns. Those who seek to rule over men have always sought to disarm those they wanted to rule over.

    The biggest mass murders in America have all been committed with things other than firearms (fertilizer, fuel, box cutters, etc.), and the really big mass murders have all been committed by governments, always against people who were unarmed or had been disarmed, usually by the same government that murdered them.

    More people have been murdered by governments than by civilians (and this isn’t counting people killed in war). This truth is well documented in a book titled Death by Gun Control, by Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership. So what sense does it make to disarm civilians wholesale in order to supposedly protect them from violence?

  9. aCultureWarrior says:

    John Day:

    Many of the younger generation (and some older one’s like Ron “Libertarian for life” Paul) have been duped into believing that the Libertarian/Objectivist movement is the answer to our problems, and Ayn Rand is seen as a godess of the movement. You’re only leading little puppy dogs like Wayne Walters astray by quoting her.

    Ayn Rand was a known adulterer and intentionally chose a child-free marriage. Rand was pro-choice and an atheist. A born Russian Jew, she abhorred altruism, one of the basic tenets of Judeo-Christian faith. She didn’t believe in the morality of charity and don’t even mention the handicapped and the poor. She thought selfishness was good virtue.

    Regarding the innocent unborn and their “God-given RIGHT to life: “Rights,” in Ayn Rand’s words, “do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born.”

    If that isn’t enough, she admired a serial killer: Romancing the Stone-Cold Killer: Ayn Rand and William Hickman

  10. trackfodder says:

    My home defense is a metal baseball bat AND a can of wasp spray with a range of 25 ft. If someone kicks in my front door I will attempt to blind him/her and then use the bat to make sure there are no lawsuits or other stories in court. Then I shall sacrifice one of my kitchen knives to make sure the body has a weapon, post mortem.

    • Not a good idea to try to fool the forensics people.

    • Marty says:

      Trackfodder….You may be a big, burly guy that can wield a spray can at 3-4
      home invaders (with guns) while swinging your bat one-handed, but most of
      us are not that capable of defending ourselves and would have little hope of
      coming out the winner. If someone intends to hurt me or the ones I love, I am
      not willing to take that chance. The Constitution gives me right to bear arms in
      protecting myself and that is what I’ll do. How silly of me to risk my life just
      because there are people “afraid” of guns. Rather, be afraid of the person holding
      the gun. and be worried about yourself because you are bowing to the pressures
      of others.

    • tionico says:

      A word to the wise, trackfodder… the fingerprints left by a dead person are different chemically from those of a living one, and the forensics folk will surely determine which type are on YOUR kitchen knife. They will also find YOUR prints, clearly those of a live person.

      You are entitled to utilise lethal force when your own life is threatened by another who has available, plausible means to kill or inflict serious bodily harm on yourself or those with whom you are.

      Your wasp spray might be an asset.. but beward you don’t run afoul of federal law which forbids applying that compound in any manner other than that recomended or permitted on the label. And spraying it on another person is NOT one of approved applications. Misusing that chemical in self-defense is, at law, no different than making use of a firearm for the same purpose. If you want the most effective personal protection, get a firearm and get the training in its proper handling and usage.

  11. Barbc says:

    Time to break out the bow and arrow. At least you can protect yourself as they climb through the broken window. And they are ssshhhh.

  12. I have to disagree with something in this article. The liberal cult does not forbid the imposition of morality on society; it forbids the imposition of Christian and traditional American morality, but not its own morality. In fact it imposes its morality on American (and European) society, so much so in fact that the church of liberalism has become for all intents and purposes a de facto official state religion.

    The morality of liberalism is the morality of Humanism. That is, a clique of elitist humans got together and dreamed up its own moral code. Since this moral code comes from man and not from God, its proponents claim that it is not really a religion, and therefore it is okay for them to impose its doctrine on all American citizens. This claim is of course pure nonsense, but it’s what they use to justify what they do, and so far at least that argument has been successful.

    The doctrine imposed on America by our official state church includes social engineering, multiculturalism, so-called fairness, wealth redistribution, victim disarmament, and so on. This doctrine has become the basis of our law, even overriding the Constitution. Look at what is happening around us, and you will see the sad truth in this.

    The dogma of our official state church is programmed into our children in the government schools. This dogma includes feminism, homosexuality, America and especially the white male are evil, moral relativism (except for the morality of the official state church), and so on. It’s no wonder that many of those who passed through these indoctrination centers would support people like Obama.

    According to government edict, anyone who expresses thought that has been forbidden by the official state church is kicked out of school or fired from his job. This doctrine usually goes by the name political correctness.

    My belief is that you either go with God or you go with Satan; there is no third alternative, even though those who aspire to be our human masters claim that there are many alternatives. The moral code being forced onto America now clearly does not come from God. So to me where it comes from seems pretty obvious. There’s nothing new about this. And the collapse of our once free and Godly nation is no surprise.

    • RKZ777 says:

      You are pretty much on it. Those that appear to control the populace are indeed the ones that have made their own (Not of GOD) religion ( Not a True religion), but a movement of where anything goes for them, so that at anytime they can force their will upon us, as we are considered the workers which have been provided for their existence as our leaders and masters. But they fail to understand of course the truth and further fail to understand that most people will not subject themselves to a self made superior ( In their own minds) other than GOD ALMIGHTY!

  13. Alex Alexander says:

    Well said. But, it’s far worse over here than you realise, Gary. It is illegal to possess, in public, ANYTHING that can be used as an “offensive weapon”. In British law, there is no such thing as a “defensive weapon” and any admission that “I was carrying it to defend myself” is, de facto, an admission of carrying an offensive weapon.
    The British state now all but possesses a complete monopoly of force (apart from the gun-toting, knife-wielding thugs who don’t give a fig about “law and order”). Our godless and clueless politicians are now prattling on about “supporting families”, teaching children the difference between “right and wrong” — that’s right, the expenses-fiddling British politicians who for decades have undermined marriage and parental authority, promoted revolting “sex eduaction” in junior schools, celebrated “gay” pride, promoted the slaughter of millions of unborn babies, etc, etc, etc, etc.
    It’s almost bad enough to turn one into a premillenial dispensationalist (THAT bad!).
    One bright spot:
    It’s a five-minute video on the Great British Riots from a Reformed perspective.
    Alex A

    • Maungakiekie says:

      Do you know how excited I am to hear that there is even one American Vision reader in the UK?!

      As a member of the British Commonwealth, it grieves me to see the depths to which this once great part of the world has sunk.

      As you say, one is tempted to despair, but remember, brother, there has been terrible darkness and corruption in your nation in the past, but each time, God has raised up godly men, who have pushed back the forces of darkness.

      Be encouraged!

      Work hard, pray hard, and look up!

  14. aCultureWarrior says:

    Gary DeMar, you’re a GREAT spokesman for the Christian Conservative movement!

  15. Jeff says:

    Apparently if you claim to be a Sikh it’s okay to brandish a sword, because the libs can only attack Christians. During the riots the Sikhs defended their temple with those swords and what a shock it worked.

    Over this weekend the History Channel had a two hour documentary on Woodstock, this was in my opinion the iconic event that shifted America. I would recommend watching it because for two hours they layout their worldview and at the end you get to see the carnage that was left behind on the landscape, (by self avowed environmentalist no doubt) , then they go on to tell how that spirit was never recaptured, because of what happened at the Altamont concert.

    At the end you will see how this self centered attitude ends every time and in their own words one of them claims that the 2008 election was the fulfillment of the Woodstock spirit, taking, they call it sharing.

    • marcel duranleau says:

      Liberalism is for euphemish for socialism which destroy nations and people.
      Look is running the White House today the same people who were in Woodstock.
      USA today is Alice Wonderland World. USA cannot survive without true God and Our Constitution. Be not afraid of theirs faces. Fear God only.

  16. Eddie G. says:

    And so Jesus himself said,”Should a man take away your sword,then sell your cloak and go get another one”. Self defense is a duty to oneself therefore no elected leader has the right to pass laws against you doing so. The 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution affirms such and the Brits are no better than sheep to allow their elected to trample their God given right to self defense. Obama wants desperately to disarm the U.S. citizens but Americans are a tougher breed and he will will have a huge fight on his hands because the majority are currently more than willing to see him thrown out of office.

    • Skyknight says:

      That’s an interesting comment, could you provide the verse and chapter that comment came from?

    • mark dobert says:

      That tougher breed you speak of Ed is rapidly coming to an end due to our public indoctrination centers (public schools and colleges) that breed the fight out of the dogs. Its like today’s dog breeds such as Labs that don’t even know how to hunt anymore because they’ve been so domesticated by the sheeple of today. Sure they may throw Obama out of office but they’ll only elect another politician who was chosen by the bankers to do their bidding while we flounder. They even know the right things to say to us Christians so we eagerly go off to the slaughter as did the Jews in Germany did when they were told that the “showers” were for delousing and for their protection! So off they went to the slaughter while the soft music was playing over the loud speakers luring them into their deaths like a flame to a moth! Don’t underestimate your opponents’ ability to manipulate the masses. They have a very large and effective machine in place that does a great job of “domesticating” the sheeple into doing their work for them. I think there’ll be much wailing and gnashing of teeth this time around and very few or no George Washingtons to lead us through the mess we’ve crested for ourselves. Maybe Gary, Boj, and Joel are our new morally grounded leaders who will lead us to the next “Great Awakening” like Jonathan Edwards did for our founding fathers. We can only hope (and prepare!). In the mean time stock up as I said.

      • Eddie G. says:

        Mark,I work at a major outdoor sports emporium and can assure you sales of guns and ammo are totally bonkers. Las Vegas is a huge bastion of Dummycrats compared to the rest of Nevada but they’re arming themselves to the teeth. Just could be that people are not about to let themselves be disarmed. Time will tell and granted there’s a huge money machine out there behind Obama/Soros but if all they have is money then we have the better means to preserve freedom than they have to destroy it,a precious metal called lead! You’re right,stock up!

    • Timothy May says:

      Researched the verse and could not find anything regarding what to do if a man should take away your sword, but the definite presence of the mandate to sell your cloak and buy a sword. This would seem to run counter to what the ‘average’ Christian thinks he or she knows about this topic, which is to “turn the other cheek”. In the verse quoted, however, is found a clear mandate to self defense regardless of where the threat might be coming from. The ability to purchase another sword implies that the buyer is a free person, not a slave or a prisoner, and that the use of a sword for self defense is, as pointed out, a godly duty. We as Christians are not to roll over like puppies and claim this is godly behavior. And, the sword is not to be used to impose one’s personal political or spiritual beliefs upon anyone save for personal or national defense – are you listening, Islamists?

    • Timothy May says:

      One more point: the Second Amendment was never created for the people as an individual right. We owned the God-given, therefore the inherent, right of self defense before our constitution was written. The Second Amendment was written to tell the federal government what by its own law it was forbidden to tamper with. Otherwise, the State Militias would be controlled by federal government laws resulting in the federal government owning the States, not the other way ’round. Definitely not what our founding fathers intended. See “Barron v. Baltimore”, 1831, for what was, until the Dred Scott decision, the accepted legal philosophy by all levels of civil government regarding States’ rights.
      Therefore, when a person attempts to claim their “Second Amendment rights”, they have no idea what they are saying and how much danger they place themselves into for averring that the Second Amendment was written specifically for them. To make such a claim is to empower the federal government – in fact all civil governments – to impose “reasonable restrictions” (U.S. Supreme Court in “Heller” and “Chicago”)on the right of self defense, because you are demanding the federal government ‘give you your rights’ when in fact the federal government does not own so much as one of them. To ‘demand your rights’ is to hand to the federal government the power and the opportunity to tell you what to do rather than you deciding for yourself.

      • John Day says:

        Hip, Hip, Huzzah… and amen brother!

      • Jacob Peters says:

        I agree. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a Natural Right common to all Men in all Lands and it is given by God. This Right existed before the 2nd Amendment which merely states that the Government has no right to infringe or curb it. The 2nd Amendment sets limits on the Government not the individual.

    • Go to Biblegateway.com and use their keyword search; you’ll find whatever you’re looking for. I like the Contemporary English Version (CEV); the minister of my (non-denominational, Bible-based) church uses the New American Standard Bible (NASB); any one you want is available on Bible Gateway.

      I recommend reading the Bible from front to back at least one time in your life (and remember that your life might not be as long as you expect it to be, so you might as well start now). In this life and maybe also in the next there is a question over whether you are hearing the word of God or the word of Satan pretending to be God. Have you ever asked yourself how you will know the difference? Study the word of God for yourself instead of just letting other people tell you what the word of God says.

      Be warned though: the Old Testament is very violent. You will find things in both testaments that you did not know were there. So make sure your faith is strong before you begin. Understand that God is not Man and does not think like Man.

  17. mark dobert says:

    People in the US had better listen and stock up heavy on the guns and bullets or they too will be at the whim of the “flash mobs” we already have here or when the bankers devalue our dollar so bad that riots will happen here with great frequency. Our politicians and educators have failed us and now we’re reaping what they have sowed. If we as Christians keep following their orders then we too will be beaten to death or raped while the politicians and super elite are guarded safely by their heavily armed and armored body guards. So take your pick, listen to them and die or fend for yourselves and live. It’s not a real hard decision for me but it may be for those who have placed their trust and faith into the powers that be instead of God and His word. Let us here know how that works out for you!

  18. Larry says:

    The Limeys have always been a daft bunch of idiots when it comes to the reality of crime and behavior. Look where their colonialism got them. They felt they had to let all of those immigrants in since they did so much colonizing. Now, Britain is a shambles of what it once was! Ha! Serves you right for your oh so uppity white superiority mentality; as if letting all of those mongrels in wouldn’t cause some kind of disaster!

    • Jacob Peters says:

      The British during their rule in India deprived the Indians of their Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Now they are the ones deprived of this very Right. They are reaping what they have sown.

      • The opening battles of the American Revolution at Lexington and Concord were fought between patriots and a British force that was coming to seize arms from the colonists.

        The British have always bowed down before a king; those who didn’t like kneeling before a human master came to America. So to me it makes perfect sense that the ones who stayed there spawned a culture that would willingly allow itself to be disarmed.

  19. Gary,

    This is just the Article I needed. It’s like God gives you what is in my heart and then you write an excellent Blog about it with stat’s and Data. Surreal!!!!!

    Thanks again for this one.

    Grace and Peace,

  20. i dont think can ever got off the ground too many of us has guns.

  21. Joe says:

    Great article!!!!

  22. R Jaynes says:

    Good stuff, Gary. Logical, reasoned, supported by simple examples and quotes…In the end, it is very difficult to argue against your points. Oh, if only the blind would see and the hard of heart soften and know the truth.

    • John Day says:

      So true R Jaynes. But as Ayn Rand said:

      “The hardest thing to explain is the glaringly evident which everybody had decided not to see.”

      • aCultureWarrior says:

        De-Rand yourself John, you’ll be a better man for it.

        • John Day says:

          aCultureWorrior, cmon, will ya! That was a typical ignorant response! I quote Rand with one quotation that speaks directly to what another poster said and you assume… what?… that I am lousy with Randian philosophy and need some sort of philosophical de-lousing treatment! Give it a rest, will you. I have read all of Rand. Have you? I reject almost all she has to say but that does not mean she doesn’t get some things right. But apparently you can discern what someone thinks from one measly quote and then automatically know their worldview on every topic. How arrogant!

        • Wayne Walters says:

          aCult scans a couple of blogs every day. He is well informed.

          I too have read a lot of Rand. It was entertaining and some of it was actually edifying. She used to be an atheist.

        • R Jaynes says:

          John Day,

          For what it’s worth, I took your quote in the spirit in which you offered it.

Back to Top ↑