by Alan J Chwick & Joanne D Eisen
USA – -(Ammoland.com)- Most Americans are reasonable people, and those of us that are gun owners know that we are right, when it comes to the Right To Bear Arms. We are so right that we tend to be disrespected by our detractors, and we do view them as ignorant liars. They no longer wish to realistically compromise with us, so we no longer bother to compromise with them.
But there are many newbie gun owners, and many young among us, who don’t know the history of our Second Amendment beliefs, or that these views are based on very firm debated, and argued, grounds. Being usually conservative, and very reasonable as well, we might tend to compromise our beliefs, as our recent past generations have done.
WELL, NO MORE! We must stop compromising on our beliefs and our values. Never compromise with liars and cheats, not anymore.
So when we learned that Colin Greenwood passed recently, we knew that a simple obituary would not suffice. RIP, Colin, old friend. You did your job well, and now we must continue to do ours.
Who was Colin Greenwood, you may ask? Colin was the Chief Inspector of the West Yorkshire Constabulary, in the U.K., who wrote ‘Firearms Control,’ a study of armed crime and firearms control in England and Wales forty-five years ago in 1972. He examined crime and gun control data beginning with the Pistols Act of 1903, and another in 1920.
It was at this time that the constabulary gained control of granting firearm certificates. Although the Chief Officer ‘shall’ issue the license, the officer could deny the permit, if the applicant did not have good reason to need a weapon, and self-defense was not considered to be a sufficient reason.
The right to keep arms, even for self-defense, in the U.K., began to be regulated out of existence.
Regarding self-defense, Greenwood writes, “During the intervening years, chief officers of police, either at the suggestion of or with the support of the Home Office, have withdrawn this right by purely executive decisions until the present position is that any claim to have a firearm for self-defense is certain to fail …”
The problem with this is that self-defense is a significant reason for weapons possession. If one were permitted the use of a firearm only for sport or hunting, there would inevitably be an accident resulting in harm to a bystander.
And then, the pro-gun control crowd would easily be able to make the case to outlaw the possession of guns. It is only because we hold dear our right to defense of ourselves and our neighborhoods, as well as the protection from governmental tyranny, that we have the strength to resist the British path.
As for the effect of the control of civilian-owned weapons, Greenwood noted that, even after many years of controls, it was effortless for a criminal to obtain a gun of his choice.
Finally, Greenwood concluded, “No matter how one approaches the figures, one is forced to the rather startling conclusion that the use of firearms in crime was very much less when there were no controls of any sort and when anyone, convicted criminal or lunatic, could buy any firearm without restriction.” The book is still available online, and for anyone doubting this quote, it can be found on page 243.
Peter Hitchens describes the current plight of those few remaining British gun owners.
“Those who own or keep guns are treated as only slightly less repellent than child molesters.”
We Americans tend to accept regulations that take us down the path of control that limits self-defense. It would be a positive trade-off if some restrictions on our Second Amendment rights resulted in reduced crime rates. Waiting periods, storage requirements, trigger locks, or restrictions of any kind that prevent easy access to a weapon might seem like reasonable restrictions at first glance. But the result is counterproductive, and the intent is malevolent.
We already compromised with those who promised that gun control would certainly reduce crime. They cannot show any such proof. At most, they might be able to produce figures that stringent gun restrictions reduce gun crime or gun suicide. But those statistics never represent the truth of total crime statistics or the actual state of public security
We are still engaged in that fight against control freaks whose ultimate desire is to take our weapons and who succeed with each compromise we permit.
As we write, the Supreme Court has let stand a Maryland state assault weapon ban of the most common gun in the USA. We gunnies know that these bans are designed eventually, slowly, to outlaw ALL semiautomatic weapons. We permitted that compromise by failing to elect responsible representatives.
And did you know that there was recently an emergency meeting of a group calling itself Prosecutors Against Gun Violence. These gun control idiots believe entirely that stricter controls would reduce such violence and that we gunnies will still fall for that argument.
So, Colin Greenwood, we thank you for pointing the way to the truth, that “startling conclusion that the use of firearms in crime was very much less …” We gunnies were correct years ago, and are right, now, in our current position, beliefs, and values.
There is no point in compromising with the ignorant liars, anymore. We MUST always resist their “reasonable” sounding suggestions for tighter firearms restrictions, as they condemn us for our supposed ignorance. But Colin Greenwood of the U.K. led the way to prove the truth of the Second Amendment of the US, and the wisdom of our Founding Fathers.
KNOWLEDGE IS POWER, and you, Colin, old friend, have earned your peace. We thank you for concluding the Truth.
Side Note: For those who are interested in the outcome of the Canadian Firearms Registration of 1995, see Hubris in the North: The Canadian Firearms Registry by Gary Mauser.
About the Authors:
Alan J Chwick has been involved with firearms much of his life and is the Retired Managing Coach of the Freeport NY Junior (Marksmanship) Club, Division of the Freeport NY Revolver & Rifle Association, Freeport, NY. He has escaped from New York State to South Carolina and is an SC FFL (Everything 22 and More). Alan J Chwick – [email protected] | @iNCNF
Joanne D Eisen, DDS (Ret.) practiced dentistry on Long Island, NY. She has collaborated and written on firearm politics for the past 30+ years. She has also escaped from New York State but to Virginia. Joanne D Eisen – [email protected]
Our unalienable Rights were to be secured for us by government and were considered gifts from God. No longer so. The policy of the United Nations is to disarm everyone and so far a politicians are concerned, America is a post Christian nation. The only impediment to those seeking to establish the global prison called the New World Order are Americans and their Constitution. Unfortunately, Americans in general fail to acknowledge the importance of James 4:17 and to do what is right by rallying around a plan that would help assure a peaceful restoration of our Republic such as that… Read more »
Anyone else recall the riots raging throughout Britain a few years back when roving gangs of hooligans beat, smashed, burned, destroyed, etc, at will? People, being desirous of the protection the Bobs refused to provide, and being, under the barmy laws of Britain near totally disarmed, began acquiring other “tools” suitable in some measure for self defense. When the government learned that some six thousand baseball (or was it cricket?) bats, said barmy government moved to end all sales of this class of goods. In response, the coppers began to arrest and charge VICTIMS as they made any attempt to… Read more »
@Francis K, you should have stopped after your first sentence. Your conclusory second and third sentences are unsupported by any offered logic, and are contrary to any analysis that I have ever read.
The Second Amendment recognizes our God given Civil Right, and precludes federal government infringement. The 14th incorporates that Civil Right against the states.
“But Colin Greenwood of the U.K. led the way to prove the truth of the Second Amendment of the US, and the wisdom of our Founding Fathers.”
Which makes the talk about individual gun rights,endowed on them by their creator, all the more surprising, since these little details are not to be found in the Second Amendment.
Individual gun rights come in with the 14th Amendment, and have nothing to do with the Founding Fathers (all of whom were British).