I consider the Right to Keep and Bear Arms to be one of the most basic, Human, Civil Rights there is in existence.
Why is that? You might ask...
Well, it cannot be because I fit the "popular" idea that I am a "Gun Nut," because I have not even touched a firearm in days, even though I own several of them.
It cannot be because I am an avid Hunter, because I am not. Although I have hunted, I have not hunted one season for about seven or eight years. I'm also not opposed to hunting either.
I don't gather in huddled little, armed groups of disenfranchised people to bitch and moan about things and disguise disenfranchisement with Patriotism and like to think they are the armed equivalent of The Masons.
I know Militias exist in this country and as I stated in the thread over at KFC, I have no problem with them whatsoever as long as they do not act out of imagined crisis, and in most cases, a real crisis that does not rise to the occasion for armed action.
I'm not affiliated with, associated with, or a member of any Militia, ever. Now or in the past and don't envision I will be in the future either. I don't have time for it and I personally think that alot of them are counterproductive to the goals that I seek which is preservation of rights...
I do not consider them "Domestic Terrorists" either. I think that is a load. That is a fearful Government.
Considering the words of a Great Man, George Washington;
"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force! And like fire, it is a dangerous Servant and a fearful Master."
No one ever accused the British People of being cowards. Not in this Thread.
Self-defense is indeed illegal in Britain, and there is evidence to support that statement.
The reason I support the Second Amendment is, I believe it is a basic Human and Civil Right, as I stated before. It is not about duck and deer hunting...nor is it about punching holes in paper or tin cans. Although those things are not prohibited by it either.
I don't think there is a more legitimate Civil and Human Right than that of Self-preservation. Without it, what do you have?
If someone attacks you and you cannot legally defend yourself, are you free? Are you safe? Of course not. Unless your idea of freedom and safety is being unarmed, the other guy being armed and you being legally bound not to resist with force.
The two countries are different. Yet, one sprung from the other and the Founders of this country were simply trying to retain their Rights as Englishmen that they had before The Crown became oppressive.
In short, when we use Britain as a warning, don't be offended. If you do not like the situation, you are free to come here and I encourage that.
This is what America is for. It is supposed to be the shining light of Liberty and I hope that continues.
I don't consider any person to be free when they stick a common penknife into a mugger and then they are arrested for using a common penknife on a mugger and that happened in Britain with an American Woman who was a tourist there. She was not charged because she was American, she was charged because she broke British Law. The same thing can happen to someone that lives there.
The important thing to remember is, by arresting her, the British Government violated her Civil and Human Right to Self-preservation. That's what you have to keep in mind.