I have two posts today on the subject of gun control. The first is at the American Thinker by one Civis Americanus entitled Gun Control: The End Result, which takes a look at several gun control initiatives in light of later invasion. In the case of both Ukraine and Israel, both coutries have had to backtrack, distributing guns to civilians. In the case of Great Britain, the English just got lucky. But it calls into question the whole basis for gun control. In the second post, at Bearing Arms by Tom Knighton, Israeli Officials Brag About Effort to Arm Citizens. Again, it is amazing that those who instituted gun control in the first place do not see the irony in admitting that they cannot adequately defend the citizens thus disarmed.
Taking the first post first, Civis Americanus takes us on a journey through three widely different governments which nonetheless concluded at some point to limit the citizen's natural right to self-defense. He does not get into what the reasoning was, though one can assume that the public thinking was along the lines of limiting criminals' access to guns. Civis Americanus tackles the United Kingdom first, probably because as a parliamentary system, the debate on gun control would have been most public.
United Kingdom, June 1940
There was a time in the United Kingdom when there were few restrictions on firearm ownership. In 1920, however, the UK required people to get a certificate for permission to own firearms. "Applicants for certificates also had to convince the police that they had a good reason for needing a certificate." In 1937, "…the Home Secretary ruled that self-defense was no longer a suitable reason for applying for a firearm certificate and directed police to refuse such applications on the grounds that "firearms cannot be regarded as a suitable means of protection and may be a source of danger." ("Crime and justice since 1750" elaborates on this.)
Then Germany overran France and drove the British Expeditionary Force back across the English Channel minus most of its heavy weapons. Now Britain faced the possibility of invasion by Nazis who would have done to its population what they had already done to Poland and France. The British Lion accordingly got on its collective knees to beg American firearm owners to "Send a gun to defend a British home." Luckily for the UK, the United States did not have "common sense gun laws" so we had extra firearms to share with them.
Did anybody learn from this debacle? Apparently not, as shown in 2022.
In 2022, the Ukraine faced the same problem. Civilians needed guns, and the government had to scramble to acquire them. Now, in 2023, Israel finds itself in same boat with Hamas attacking any unarmed civilian it can find:
When Hamas attacked Israel on October 7, they went from house to house to slaughter unarmed families in their own homes. Hadar and Itay Berdychivsky, who had served in the IDF, apparently did have government-issued permission to own handguns and fifty rounds of ammunition, and they fought back. Both were killed, at a cost of seven terrorists, while defending their children. There are two obvious lessons here.
1. As stated by Colonel Jeff Cooper, "A handgun is merely a weapon used to fight your way back to your rifle -- which you shouldn't have left behind." It is quite likely that two Israelis with Army experience could have handled all the goblins (Cooper's term for violent criminals) with AR-15s, 30-round magazines, and spare magazines.
2. The fact that it took eight or more Hamas terrorists with automatic rifles to kill two Israelis who had only sidearms, and lost seven KIA to do it, underscores the inferiority of the Hamas invaders to the Israelis.
In contrast, this is what happens when terrorist rabble attack Israelis who have access to long arms and no ammunition limits: "The Hamas was no match for an intrepid 25-year-old Israeli woman -- who saved an entire kibbutz from harm by leading a group of residents to kill more than two dozen advancing terrorists, including five she slaughtered herself."
It is pretty clear even as the fog of war continues, that a lot fewer Israelis would have been killed if more lenient gun laws were on the books. Tom Knighton asks the question that should be on everyone's mind:
If gun control is the universal good so many people try to claim, why is it one of the first things to be lessened when there’s a threat of invasion?
Israel here has made the requirements more lenient–as much as the committed there could do on their own–because of the threat to its citizens. Leading up to the invasion of Ukraine, officials there adjusted their own gun control laws to allow more people to buy their own firearms.
In fact, when you look at history, this is pretty common. All the rationale for gun control goes out the window when you’re faced with an external threat.
Our Founding Fathers, however, understood this pretty well from the get-go. They enshrined the right to keep and bear arms in the Second Amendment because they wanted to make sure we had the ability to protect ourselves from foreign invasion.
Yes, they did. But it has not stopped multiple people from trying to infringe the pre-existing rights enshrined in the Constitution. Some do this for misguided reasons of trying to limit crime. But these are a minority. Any lawmaker whose staff cannot research and find out the relevant facts is too incompetent to be in office anyway. One has to look elsewhere for the true motives. The Second Amendment was not placed where it was in the Bill of Rights because the Founding Fathers wanted to provide hunters with a fine hobby. No, it was spelled out specifically in case of invasion by an enemy and for other lawful purposes.
The reasons for the constant attempts to disarm us have to do with the Left attempting to secure permanent power. It has been pointed out that the Second Amendment has failed miserably, but the Left has not attempted an invasion from without. Not yet. Instead, they have succeeded in corrupting us from the inside. It remains to be seen what will happen when the Left thinks they have secured our downfall.
Civis Americanus puts it more forcefully:
"Commonsense gun laws" have three strikes against them, two with massive preventable fatalities in Ukraine and Israel; the UK got lucky because Operation Sea Lion never went forward. Anybody who still supports "commonsense gun laws" is a dishonest or incompetent quack like Joe Biden, who depicts knife-wielding assailants as "unarmed" and suggests that defenders shoot to wound. If your life is really in danger, you must shoot to center of mass to stop and, if your life is not in danger, you must not shoot at all. Advocates of magazine size limits are clearly incompetent quacks as proven by events in Israel and also Massad Ayoob's expert testimony in Fyock v. Sunnyvale.
No comments:
Post a Comment