The Pussification of the British Male

I regret to announce that I am obliged to add a new category to these blog articles:

"The Pussification of the British Male"

There have been so many articles from the British, enumerating instances of "Home Invasions" which have been resolved by the resident (and which resulted in the wounding or death of the uninvited stranger in the home ... and persecution of the defending resident) ... it becomes apparent that British Law will no longer allow a Citizen to defend hearth, health and home.

(This is not a situation endemic to The Brits: there was once a blogsite titled "The Pusification of the Ameriican Male" which seems to have been deleted ... but dealt with similar circumstances where Americans who defended themselves were subsequently persecuted.  It also relates to at least one popular George Carlin comedic routine.)

The latest incident (H/T: NeverYetMelted) involves yet another British Resident who defends himself against a Home Intruder, resulting in the serious injury or demise of  the intruder.

Pensioner, 78, arrested for murder after 'stabbing burglar to death in his home': A pensioner has been arrested after a suspected burglar was killed during a violent tussle at his home. The 78-year-old was held on suspicion of murder after the 38-year-old died of his wounds in hospital in the early hours of Wednesday morning. Police said the struggle broke out after the pensioner, named locally as  Richard Osborn-Brooks, found two men inside his home in South Park, Hither Green, south London shortly after midnight. One of the burglars, who was armed with a screwdriver, forced the homeowner into his kitchen while his accomplice went upstairs. Detectives believe a struggle then took place between "one of the males and the homeowner" and the 38-year-old intruder was stabbed in the upper body.

Further details of the invasion, and resistance by the home-owner, are not immediately available.

My personal opinion is that any "home-invader" who enters an occupied residence has already demonstrated that he has no qualms about confronting the resident with violence.  The home owner is fully justified in taking what ever actions which seem best to defend himself, if not his possessions, because nobody can know the mind of a home invader.   It seems that the best defense is one which renders the invader least capable of inflicting injury or death to the residents.

Apples and Oranges

Both European and American gun-control agencies just can't imagine why America is a much more violent country:

What no politician wants to admit about gun control - Vox:

Think about it this way. In 2013, the US had 106.4 gun deaths per million people. That same year, the UK endured 144 gun deaths total — or 2.2 gun deaths per million people. To get to UK levels, we'd need to reduce gun deaths by over 98 percent. 

Think of it this way: European countries (generally speaking) have homogeneous populations.

America is unique in it's primary identity as a "nation of emigrants": Homogeniety is limited here to everyone has an opinion and feels free to express it. 

Americans don't always get along; and those nationals who choose to leave their home country and come to "The Land of the Brave and the Home of the Free" bring their internecine biases with them. 

(Liberals think this 'dichotomy of world view'  adds to the flavor; conservatives are grumpy about "outsiders".   What would we be if we all agreed with each other ... and so this is perhaps the most perfect world view.)  ... not a quote; an opinion.

This makes it much more difficult to confiscate guns in America (Second Amendment), but not impossible; if a sufficient number of Americans can be convinced that the right to possess a gun is "not just not a good idea, but a BAD idea!", it should be relatively easy for laws to be passed which ignore the "Embarrassing Second Amendment".

(Note: reserve some private time before clicking on Sanford Levinson's uncomfortable screed on 2nd Amendment Rights: you may find it ... discomforting.)

Fortunately the NOQ REPORT has compiled a list of measures which

x
x
x

Leftist Gun Confiscation: Whatever It Takes!

Prologue:  I encourage any 2nd Amendment researcher to follow the reference links included in this article.   Many of them are new to me.

Leftists Demanding Gun Confiscation – The short List updated to March 2018:

In order to execute the necessary steps to confiscate guns, the Left must first take control of private property with Intergalactic Background Checks [Universal, Enhanced, etc.] But they need to Lie about their ultimate goal so that the people will accept this drastic intrusion into their personal lives.

Fortunately for the Leftists, their definition of "Morality" includes saying anything which advances their agenda, with no qualms about "persiflage" as a defense against any charge of "lying".

The Right, on the other hand, is held to a higher standard.
Which is not difficult to accommodate, as long as they always tell the truth.

Which nobody believes, because it's not as interesting.

(emphasis added)

This is an abbreviated list [which] shows they are openly lying when they deny their intentions, it also shows they have developed some clever euphemisms for the taking everyone’s firearms.

The Other Side of the Constitution

"What Crime Have I Committed, Officer?"

I recently posted an article in support of teenagers who were marching for Gun Control.
My thesis was, this is their Constitutional Right, and although I do not agree with all of their arguments, I admire them for standing up in public for their free exercise of the First Amendment.

Nobody interfered with their peaceful protest.

Now we have a clear issue of whether the Second Amendment should be equally as supported and BOY HOWDY! was I surprised that it didn't receive the same public support!

Olmos Park PD Terrorize Lawful Texans - YouTube:

Equivalent Constitutional Rights of PEACEFUL PROTESTS (First and Second amendments) are being exercised in both instances, but when the SECOND AMENDMENT is the subject, the police are all over the protesters

The protestors were openly carrying firearms (which is legal under Texas law).
Police arrested 2nd Amendment protesters, because ....

"How can I tell if you're the bad guy?

(Maybe, if they're not shooting anybody, they haven't broken a law?)

I can't find the law, I'm just telling you to obey me 

James Freeman
Olmos Park PD Terrorize Lawful Texans

"You're the only one threatening people, Officer"

(14) Olmos Park PD Terrorize Lawful Texans - YouTube

(14) Olmos Park PD Terrorize Lawful Texans - YouTube:

 8:58 Olmos Park Tx Reject Texas Constitution Open Carry Tx P and P News 31K views 15:25 Olmos Park, TX=*POLICE Dept* Attention Needed News Now Houston 64K views FLAT EARTH DEBATE | Jacob Wohl vs. Ryan Zehm The BA Experience 273 watching LIVE NOW 6:17 Olmos Park Update CJ from Open Carry Texas P and P News 19K views 40:15 City of Olmos Park TX - Makes up their own laws overriding TX Law and the Constitution SAEXTAZYPREZ 18K views 40:15 Texas open carry laws modified by the City of Olmos Park, Texas TXSHEEPDOG72 16K views 16:14 1st Amendment Audit: NJ State Division of Taxation Building, City of Trenton POLICE STATE: NEW JERSEY 36K views 5:17 Florida Cop Says I must Conceal My Spare Pistol Magazine martinrps13 28K views 9:49 Olmos Park Police Chief Phone Call ( Full Call ) BLACKLAB3L COPWATCH 10K views 14:57 BUC G VIOLENTLY ASSAULTED BY OLMOS PARK PD - TXSHEEPDOG72 ARRESTED SAEXTAZYPREZ 23K views 2:18 Beloved Olmos Park police appeals firing WOAIVideo 11K views 7:04 OLMOS PARK COP Assaults Woman for filming TXSHEEPDOG72 BLACKLAB3L COPWATCH 11K views 7:32 CJ Grisham At Olmos Park Open Carry P and P News Footage P and P News 26K views New POLICE CHIEF IN OLMOS PARK TEXAS THINKS HES ABOVE THE LAW SAEXTAZYPREZ 21K views I can't find the law, I'm just telling you to obey me James Freeman 211K views SHOW MORE Olmos Park PD Terrorize Lawful Texans

(14) Olmos Park PD Terrorize Lawful Texans - YouTube

(14) Olmos Park PD Terrorize Lawful Texans - YouTube: OCT Founder CJ Grisham was terrorized and arrested by the Olmos Park Police Chief for Open Carrying on a public sidewalk. This comes a day after the chief told CJ that people could open carry in Olmos Park, that they would not be drawn on, and that they wouldn't be forced into the pavement. Others were arrested as well, and the extent of the violence and abuse against all victims is still unclear. The Police Department BANNED the fire/ems from attending to the victims. March 27, 2018 around 6:15pm. See the video of Monday's phone conversation with the police chief: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_X21... SHOW MORE

Why give face-time to the British Glory-hunter?

This british commentator has created a career by taunting Americans who support the Second Amendment.  He deliberately publishes opinion articles designed to taunt American readers to react ... and everytime someone posts an accusatory comment, or (worse) refers to him in an article, he sleeps to the soothing sound of the cash register enhancing his readership.

Piers Morgan Displays Ignorance Over Gun Rights, Yet Again:

Piers Morgan isn’t a fan of guns. By now, any of us familiar with the television host understands that. He’s long been on a crusade to try and make American gun laws mimic those of his beloved home country of England. Yet, once again, we pesky Americans refuse to disarm because some pompous Brit demanded it of us. Yesterday on Twitter, however, Morgan illustrated just how little he understands our constitutional rights

My small comments here will only encourage him.  I hope this is the last time any blogger will pay any attention to the sassenach who espouses views unpopular to Americans in hopes of enhancing his own quasi-celebrity status.

Gun Violence Studies Biased, Used to Force Agenda | National Review

Gun Violence Studies Biased, Used to Force Agenda | National Review: So, why are gun-control advocates up in arms (rhetorically) about the CDC? Cue the 1996 Dickey Amendment, regularly renewed by Congress, even after its author, Jay Dickey, left Congress and changed his tune on the issue, according to his 2015 interview with NPR’s Steve Inskeep. This amendment was attached to the funding of the CDC and provided a restriction: “None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.” But the CDC does still collect its own empirical data, published regularly as part of its National Violent Death Reporting System.

If the Second Amendment falls, our entire Bill of Rights falls | Fox News

I grew up with a naive affection for our government: America is the fairest country in the world.

But that has all changed now.

If the Second Amendment falls, our entire Bill of Rights falls | Fox News:

The startling new proposal by 97-year-old former Supreme Court Associate Justice John Paul Stevens calling for the repeal of the Second Amendment to our Constitution’s Bill of Rights is unwise, dangerous and totally unrealistic. For 227 years, the amendment has guaranteed that “the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” We should not abandon it. 

I believe that the Constitution is an unique document in the history of the world; it defends the rights of "Everyman", and limits the degree to which an arbitrary government may impose restriction on our rights.

Today, we discover there is a fox eating the belly out of our Constitution.  But unlike the Spartans, Americans are not 'trained' to accept the disembowelment of our natural rights.  Instead, we are encouraged to "Cry Havoc" and protest those who would have us Go Along to Get Along.

 I don't choose to heed the  unreasoned opinions of a nonagenarian jurist whose grasp on reality seems fleeting.   It's a terrible thing, to watch an honored gentleman of the law as he espouses a path which would undermine the freedoms of his fellow Americans.

I doubt this is a path he would have chosen in the reasoned years of his youth.

OSU policies restrict firearms on campus, only of individuals affiliated with university | The Daily Barometer | orangemedianetwork.com

OSU policies restrict firearms on campus, only of individuals affiliated with university | The Daily Barometer | orangemedianetwork.com: From state and federal laws to Oregon State University policies, courts have ruled that restrictions on firearms must be balanced with the Second Amendment’s protection of the right to keep and bear arms. Oregon law and the State Board of Higher Education give the university authority to control its ground and buildings, including limiting firearms from handguns to rifles like the AR-15. The university’s firearms policies restrict the possession of any type of firearm on all university property, said OSU Department of Public Safety Chief Suzy Tannenbaum. “These policies are communicated to OSU students, employees, vendors, OSU contractors and members of the public, who attend paid admission events and sporting activities,” Tannenbaum said in an email. “As well, the university communicates its policy regarding firearms on the Oregon State University website and on signage on exterior doors of many university buildings.”

Hillary Clinton: Australia Gun Ban 'Worth Looking At'

We are SO HAPPY that The Hillary-Ceast was not elected President!

During the 2015 Presidential Campaign, Hillary Clinton ( in a response to a question) suggested that "The Australian Solution is worth looking at".

Hillary Clinton: Australia Gun Ban 'Worth Looking At':

The Australian government as part of trying to clamp down on the availability of…weapons offered a good price for buying hundreds of thousands of guns and basically clamped down going forward, in terms of having more of a background check approach–more of a permitting approach.

In the actual event, although the Australian government seemed to offer "a good price", there was no good price; since the firearms (previously legal) were soon to be "no longer legal", the firearms were confiscated at a pennys-on-the-dollar price because ... they were arbitrarily "illegal", and nobody could legally buy them.    There WAS no market.

So the expectation that they were bought "at a good price" was just a politically mandated confiscation.

Nothing more, nothing less.

And this was what Hillary Rodham Clinton expected to impose on the (previously free and constitutionally protected against "confiscation without compensation" American Public.

During her 2015 campaign, "The Hillary Beast" made it a part of her political platform that firearms confiscation from legal gun owners seemed to be A Good Idea ... one which was legitimized by the Australian Confiscation.

Had hillary been elected, honest Americans who possessed firearms would have been treated like criminals.  Their property would have been confiscated, they would have been held up to public ridicule by the Liberal Press when they protested, and America would have sunk deeper into the liberal abyss.

This was an unconstitutional action which has been espoused by liberal websites, including:

The Daily KOS

The Huffington Post

 ... and every other Liberal anti-gun website which believes that the4 Second Amendment is SOoooo 19th Century!


One wonders whether the same people would be so eager to undermine the FIRST amendment, which allows them to publish unpopular essays.

(This one is a good example)
x
z

\\PS:  Yes, I'v aware that the timing of publication is inappropriate.  Sometimes something gets stuck in your craw, and it takes a while to spit it out.  That don't make it wrong.
x

Second Amendment: Individual Gun Rights Have Strong Historical Support | National Review

Second Amendment: Individual Gun Rights Have Strong Historical Support | National Review: The right to keep & bear arms has always been an individual right, not a collective one. This week, retired Supreme Court justice John Paul Stevens wrote an op-ed in The New York Times that advocated a position most liberal pundits and activists have been incrementally working toward for a long time: repealing the Second Amendment. And while many liberal columnists argued that Stevens had only given fodder to gun advocates — because his position is unfeasible right now — not one whose piece I read argued that Stevens was wrong on the merits. Not one claimed that American citizens do, in fact, have an inherent individual right to protect themselves with firearms.