Thursday, December 20, 2012

Missing The Point

     An ijit at The Guardian writes:* "What is so dangerous, in the US, that you need an automatic or semiautomatic high-powered rifles with big clips?"

     Why, I can answer that: Freedom -- and especially its foes.  (But all we can buy new here are semi-autos, kid, and you would not believe the prices rusty old full-automatics fetch, even before the $200 Federal transfer task.)

     This sprawling mess of a country, with its 50 states and various kinds and sorts of regional, cultural and historic areas and subdivisions is essentially ungovernable.  As long as a significant percentage of us unruly -- but peaceable and largely law-abiding -- hordes (or is it "masses?"  Geesh, I should'a paid more attention in Civics) -- are well-armed, the only way we-the-people are gonna be ruled is by our consent.  By persuasion, not by force.

       Jackbooted thuggery against the citizenry on any kind of large scale just won't fly here.

       I sure hope Congress remembers that.  I sure hope the President figures it out.  I don't care if commenters overseas ever do.
____________________________________________________
* The Guardian's tender solicitude for (and near-total lack of comprehension of) firearms policy in the United States is duly noted.  Hey, do we try'n tell you what to do with your Royals?  We happen to speak more or less the same lingo.  Don't read too much into it. 

21 comments:

Jess said...

"...What is so dangerous, in the US, that you need an automatic or semiautomatic high-powered rifles with big clips?..."

And the answer is: Young, insane murderers that kill children. That and out of control bureaucrats that ignore the Constitution.

Fuzzy Curmudgeon said...

They didn't think those evil guns were so bad when we saved their sorry butts from the Hun, did they?

Shermlock Shomes said...

Mr. Curmudgeon: Considering the recent fascist behavior of the Brits and the French, I don't think they've ever forgiven us for saving them from the Hun. :P

rickn8or said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
rickn8or said...

Or, as your Roomie so eloquently put it, "Because f*ck you, that's why."

Reasoned discourse is a waste of time with some people.

And what Fuzzy Curmudgeon said.

Ygolonac said...

I suspect at least some of the PSH from The Land Where Britain Used To Be is simply the subconcious belief that, if firearms had been strictly controlled throughout America's history, then certain unfortunate events in the late 1700s and early 1800s would not have occured, and thus the epic spread of North AMerica would still be a jewel in the crown of one of the most powerful empires in history, under the legendary and immediately recognisable flag...



...of Germany.

perlhaqr said...

And yet, in an article about a gang rape that was committed on a bus in New Delhi recently, the Guardian quoted a member (the President?) of "Indians for Guns" as saying (roughly) "Women need to have firearms to defend themselves against this sort of violence." And did not then mock the sentiment.

Frankly, I was pretty shocked the Guardian printed that.

Bubblehead Les. said...

Perhaps the Guardian should do some "Fact Checking" and remember the last time the British tried to impose Gun Control on the Americans. 19 April, 1775, if I'm not mistaken.

Bubblehead Les. said...

Perhaps the Guardian should do some "Fact Checking" and remember the last time the British tried to impose Gun Control on the Americans. 19 April, 1775, if I'm not mistaken.

Eck! said...

Bubblehead Les,

Gee some was was awake in school besides me back then.

What triggers the revolution and two towns over from me (Concord MA) was the lobster backs sent to take the guns and powder from the locals. As wont their habit without asking nor paying for them. That raised some backs and well the rest of the story is mostly known.

ECk!

Able said...

Oh here we go again (and I don't mean our esteemed host)!

Judging Britain and the British by the inane ramblings of the Grauniad is akin to judging you colonials by the spoutings of the NY Times (just imagine what we'd think if we did).

Away from the left wing (urban) areas the predominant (Ok in the three widely separated areas I visited, the people I spoke to in the course of normal 'business' - a random cross section of residents - satisfied with the qualifier Ma'am?) all raised one question, and one only. When will you get rid of the gun free areas, since they patently attract exactly this kind of occurrence. The majority also wished we could have the rights too.

Oh and (Fuzzy, Curmudgeon et al) whilst we, the Canadians, Aussies, New Zealanders, Indians, etc. sure do appreciate you saving our 'sorry butts' (after all we just sat and sipped tea whilst you did it all) - I think we owe a little more honest appreciation to the people who really did beat the Hun - the Russians (try Kursk!).

Able said...

Oh, and you might consider that some of your 'history' is portrayed in a less than unbiased manner also.

You had significant support for Independence from a number of British politicians and military and the basis for your revolution 'taxation and representation'? Well you paid less tax and had better representation in Parliament than most (if not all) the rest of Britain.

Just Sayin'

Robin said...

Able, the freedom of the Brits still in Britain was/is their problem. Don't whine at us.

Roberta X said...

Able: I'm happy to hear your report from unGuardianed Britain and Britons.

As for history, all history is biased; the founding tales of nations especially so. A lot more of it is guesswork than is generally admitted to. I suspect the American Revolutionaries were generally more concerned about "taxation" than "representation," and not so much compared to the rest of the Empire as to their own past history.

--But YMMV. We'd just make a mess if we tried a rematch.

Able said...

Roberta

Absolutely!

A more nuanced summary of WW2 from an expert (?):

http://www.fpri.org/footnotes/1415.200905.atkinson.usarmywwii.html

You think?

Rematch? ER, no thanks I'd lose (but only because I'm a gentleman and would be honour bound to 'let' you win - nothing to do with 'the better part of valour' - honest!)

Able said...

Robin

"the freedom/safety of the Americans still in America was/is their problem."

So stop whining at all and sundry and do something about it - or is it different when it's you doing it?

mikelaforge said...

Well. The heck with Airstrip One.
Liked your lines about the more or less ungovernable unhuddled masses scattered about. Probably steal some of it (with your permission and author attribution)

rickn8or said...

Able, how much longer are you going to hold onto those privately-donated firearms we sent you during your last go-round with Jerry?

Able said...

rickn8or

.. but we sent you Piers Morgan, Sarah Ferguson and Russell Brand in payment (we definitely got the better of that deal).

I hate to admit it but the travesty of 'disposing' of those donated guns 'by dumping into the North Sea' was amongst the worst of many 'crimes' by the (Labour) Clement Attlee Government.

You have to see the numbers (those that survived disposal) of Thompsons, Springfield 03', etc. ravaged by the 'deactivation' process here. It's enough to make my allergies play up at times.

Larry said...

*sob whimper* magazines...not clips...

Not that I expected anything different from the press of course.

rickn8or said...

Able, you're a big man and fine all-round human being to step up and apologize like that. I admire that; started to forget there were such people in the world.

Tell you what, as a reward for your integrity you can have Piers Morgan, Sarah Ferguson and Russell Brand back. We'll even spring for the shipping. And I do mean "shipping." As in "in crates." Do they REALLY need airholes??

Wish you hadn't mentioned "deactivation" though.