An Education On Gun Rights : Surprisingly From The United Kingdom

by Alan J Chwick & Joanne D Eisen

English Shot Guns United Kingdom
An Education On Gun Rights : Surprisingly From The United Kingdom

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intervening years, chief officers of police, either at the suggestion of or with the support of the Home Office, have withdrawn this right by purely executive decisions until the present position is that any claim to have a firearm for self-defense is certain to fail …”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]

  • 12 thoughts on “An Education On Gun Rights : Surprisingly From The United Kingdom

    1. 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 summarized at http://thecnc.org/Documents/RestoringGovernment.htm. Lacking this foresight the only alternative is for Americans to keep their guns oiled and their powder dry. So long as the US is intent on remaining in the UN, on retaining the present illegal, ungodly and enslaving monetary policy and pretending we owe the unconstitutionally created debt that is a result of this policy and cannot possibly be repaid there is NO WAY to MAGA regardless of how many times President Trump promises to do so.

      1. @ WM – The government might think that they grant rights, and it is only true as long as you give them that idea. However I believe as the Founders’ did that true power rests with We the People. It falls to us to educate the younger people about where rights come from. If your children are products of the sham we call the Public School system, then you must re-educate them properly as to where rights really come from. As far as politicians and all others who think that America is a post Christian nation, their education is yet to come, but its coming. I know that I am not alone in believing that we are still one Nation under God – and if I have to go modern Templar Knight to defend that, then so be it!
        ” Blessed be the Lord who trains my hands to war,
        my fingers to battle.
        My rock, my fortress,
        My shield and my deliverer.
        My refuge in whom I trust.” Ps. 144

        “Don’t let the gray hair fool you, we can still kick some ass” – American Veterans

    2. 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 preserve their own lives when attacked, letting the assailants off free, even when in flagrant violation of laws.

      THIS is the sorry state of “security” in Merrie Auld….. the ventual and logical result of the perverted values government decided should reign over Britain. First, remove firearms from the public spehere, then finally remove any vestige of the right to perserve one’s own life against a clear and present danger from felonious actors, who were left free to maraud at will. Puts one in mind of theearly Viking raiders, and others, that came to the Isles centureis back and, by dint of main force, simply took over. Slavery just might be preferred in some situations, as government have become owners, not even caretakers.

    3. @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.

      1. @WB – The Second Amendment not only recognizes our God Given Right – it codifies it in law! This is a fact that all the leftists, Socialistic Democrat anti-gun knobs conveniently ignore when some mass murder happens. Then they cry for more “Common Sense” gun control which is pure nonsense as you know. Its not about guns … its about control. Anyway the authors had it stated correctly when they said NO MORE COMPROMISES. The line in the sand is drawn, now its this far and no further. And it is to our everlasting shame that we’ve let it get this far. I know of a couple of Senators I’m voting against in the next election.

    4. “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).

      1. @Francis King – If history were taught correctly in the schools you would understand that the United States Constitution and its attendant Bill of Rights were the agreements between We the People and the Federal Government when this Nation under God was founded. Those agreements were based on the Preamble of the Declaration of Independence where our American Ideals are enshrined forever –
        “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–”

        Ergo when you say that these rights are not found in the Second Amendment that is because you are looking for them in the wrong spot. They are in the Declaration of Independence which is a A. Lincoln put it “An apple of gold framed by silver ” referring to the relationship between the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution.

        Also John Locke who was hugely influential on the Founders stated this about rights being God Given about 100 years prior to our founding as a nation.
        “The single most important influence that shaped the founding of the United States comes from John Locke, a 17th century Englishman who redefined the nature of government. Although he agreed with Hobbes regarding the self-interested nature of humans, he was much more optimistic about their ability to use reason to avoid tyranny. In his Second Treatise of Government, Locke identified the basis of a legitimate government. According to Locke, a ruler gains authority through the consent of the governed. The duty of that government is to protect the natural rights of the people, which Locke believed to include life, liberty, and property. If the government should fail to protect these rights, its citizens would have the right to overthrow that government. This idea deeply influenced Thomas Jefferson as he drafted the Declaration of Independence.” You DO have to understand that Natural rights come from Natural Law which is God given.
        Hopefully this clears it up for you. I might suggest that you sign up for Hillsdale College’s Constitution 101 course which is online. Its an excellent course and its free of charge. Get yourself educated for the fight against the encroaching darkness.

      2. Individual gun rights come not with any amendment but with our very existence. However, the 2nd guarantees the right of individual gun ownership as it specifically outlines that the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. In no place in the constitution is the word PEOPLE interpreted to denote to denote the public end mass instead of the individual citizen, until we talk about the 2nd and restricting law abiding citizens.

        This still does not stop legislation and regulation from making possession illegal under unconstitutional laws, thus rendering the 2nd an unexercisable right in some places.

      3. Francis, true, our creator didn’t give us our rights, nor does our “Bill of Rights”. However, our Constitution does *guarantee* our rights, and the Second specifically – unlike all the others – states “shall not be infringed”. This has nothing to do with the 14th, except that the 14th subjugates the states to abide by our rights guaranteed by our Constitution.

        1. Heed:

          heed this… you said this: “our creator didn’t give us our rights”

          Consider that our Creator DID indeed give us our very lives. And, having done, He also gives us the RIGHT and even obligation to protect that gift of life. Further, He declares we ARE our brother’s keeper, and even more, that when a man fails to take care of HIS OWN HOUSEHOLD< he is worse than an infidel, or unbeliever. If He gives us such strict charges, HOW can you declare with a straight face that we are also not concurrently given the RIGHT and OBLIGATION to whatever tools might be useful for the carrying out of those solemn responsibilities?

          READ that Second Article again. It declares that it is the obligation and duty of THE PEOPLE to assure "the security of a free state (civil society)", and FOR THAT REASON the right to keep and bear arms accrues to THE PEOPLE, which, quite simply, are the very definition of "militia".

          The right to arms does indeed come from the very One who gave us the life we are obligated to protect and preserve. And THUS that right cannot be meddled with by government, neighbours, clubs, or any other source.

    Leave a Comment 12 Comments

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *