You can buy them books, but you can't make them read them

The problem with the liberal think-set is, that they are so locked into their mantra that they will not LISTEN to people who disagree with their message.

"Their" message is: "Guns kill people; guns are bad; we must disallow everyone from being able to keep/own/carry guns."  That's the "solution" which they have adopted in Great Britain.

"Our" message is: "It's not working out that well; criminals can still get and use guns, but honest people (in your country) cannot."

Someone should compile a series of arguments which refute this  Liberal argument.

Someone has.
Anti gun people can NOT defeat this video - YouTube

The fact is, gun control laws only keep honest citizens from being able to defend themselves.  Time and again, we see that in violent situations where criminals assault innocent victims, the police are powerless; they show up after the violence is over.  The police do not STOP violence.

Only armed "victims" can stop the violence, and we (some of us) know it.

Most of us are unwilling to put ourselves on the public pedestal and make the point vehemently.

A few .. a very few ... people who are in the public eye have made the choice to not only deny the liberal think-set but to speak their opinion so vehemently that they cannot be denied.

Gun nuts?

You can call them that.  They don't mind.  The truth which they speak is so overwhelmingly obvious based on documentary evidence that their passion makes them less nutty than they may sound to people who are not willing to examine the evidence which is freely available to everyone ... even to the folks who wish to make them appear rabid supporters of an 'unsupportable concept'.

The Brits have more non-fatal crime than do the Amis.  British Liberals think this is a valid trade-off.

The victims of violent crime in Great Britain wish they could defend themselves, their homes, and their families without subjecting themselves to civil penalties.

I won't research the many examples of Britishers who have attempted to defend themselves to their ultimate civil detriment (including imprisonment) .. over the years, I've done so and to repeat the effort would be redundant.  Search "The Brits" (or just "Brits") on this website and I'm sure you will find more than a few examples.

Yet British Television personalities such as Piers Morgan continue to insult supporters of the Second Amendment rights of American Citizens, suggesting that "you just don't care, do you?"

Not so; Americans do care about the victims.  They care so much that they are loath to watch their fellow citizens being murdered in "Gun Free Zones" across the country, because they know that just one honest citizen with a gun could have prevented the proliferation of public massacres in every case.  We have seen it happen, and still we don't 'get' the message.

We have guns because it is our right.
It is our right because we are determined to never again allow our government to impose unfair restrictions upon our civil liberties.

That right allows armed citizens to defend unarmed citizens against predators; any local rule which attempts to abrogate that right puts people in danger, because here in America we DO have a large population of crazy people to roam the streets, the malls, the schools and the churches with no effective civil defenders.

(We cannot afford to hire armed guards in every public place, and we would not want them to be there;  we just want to be allowed to arm ourselves, to defend ourselves and others; and we don't even require our government to do our civil duty.  Is that so hard to understand?)

For that simple understanding, that we would prefer to defend ourselves instead of expecting our failing government to defend ourselves in public ... we have made ourselves the object of approbation by foreign people who have no idea what it is like to be a "citizen" rather than a "subject" of the government.


These foreign people consider the concept of non-governmental citizen defenders to be an aberration.  They suppose that having armed citizens present at the site of a potential "Mass Murder" to represent the possibility that even MORE people would be killed 'when the bullets start flying'.   They ignore the simple fact that mass murderers will kill and kill again, until someone stops them.   Typically, at the first sign of violent resistance, the murderers will kill themselves and thus stop the public executions .. if the resistors don't shoot them first.  We have seen this to be true, time and again.  Yes this phenomenon is ignored by both the foreign and our own national Liberals.


The Liberal mind-set is constitutionally incapable of understanding that almost universally, public mass-murderers are dependent upon the preposition that they will meet NO resistance when they begin to shoot up the place.  The Liberals only know that THEY would not be able to murder dozens of people in a mall, a church, a school .. and so they are constitutionally incapable of 'getting inside' the mind-set of a crazy person.

Why?

Because their own disfunctionality does not match the disfunctionality of the murderers.

Perhaps inside  every CITIZEN there is a tiny portion which can understand a murder; Liberals  ("subjects") are so focused on 'congenial discourse' and 'collegiality' that they don't realize the existence of otherwise-functional people who want to kill people.

Perhaps they need to allow the proliferation of "rough men" in order to understand them.

The fact remains, Liberals are willing to insult civilized "Rough Men" to the extent that in any other society they would be required to face them on the dueling field.  They do so because they are certain that they will not be held accountable for their insults.

Perhaps we need more Dueling Fields before we can resolve this "Philosophical Discourse".




NOTE: I do not personally espouse all of the views of every person cited in this video. I do, however, believe that an attack on Americans who have been so thoroughly vetted by their local police to the extent that they are allowed to carry a concealed weapon IS an attack of the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America.

That document was conceived and dedicated to the protection of the American Citizen against the predations of a rogue government; its purpose was to allow our citizens the right to revolt against its government, which it did in the late 18th Century (when the "government" was King George III of England), and which it may conceivable need do again in the future.

We don't want that .. most emphatically, The United States of America does NOT want another "revolution".  But that IS the reason for the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.

Is it any wonder that British Shock-Jocks just don't "get that"?