Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: NRA - UK Police Tell Subjects Not to Harm Their Attackers, Get a Rape Alarm

  1. #1
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    NRA - UK Police Tell Subjects Not to Harm Their Attackers, Get a Rape Alarm

    https://www.nraila.org/articles/2015...t-a-rape-alarm

    SNIP

    The latest dispatch from the United Kingdom’s ongoing campaign to eliminate all forms of armed self-defense seems too incredible to be true. Unfortunately, after tracking down the origin of a publicly distributed statement regarding self-defense products on the country’s “Ask the Police” website, we can confirm that British subjects continue to live at the mercy of their potential attackers. Even to the point of baffling absurdity.

    The statement appears in the Frequently Asked Questions section of www.askthe.police.uk – a site that is operated by the Police National Legal Database. Information provided by the PNLD and its site are used by local police constabularies to help inform the public.

    The question at issue asks, “Are there any legal self defence products that I can buy?” Succinctly epitomizing the sad state of natural rights in Great Britain, the first sentence states, “The only fully legal self defence product at the moment is a rape alarm.”

    And to add even more insult to human dignity, the statement cautions subjects against the use of nearly any other type of defense product, and reads like an appeal for victims to graciously suffer criminal violence. The answer makes clear “You must not get a product which is made or adapted to cause a person injury. Possession of such a product in public (and in private in specific circumstances) is against the law.”

    . . .

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974
    Just incredible. They are more subjects than citizens once again. Without the fundamental right of self-defense there is no freedom. Whether your oppressor is a King or the biggest thug on the block, it makes no difference if the law denies you the right to defend your person and property from their reach.

    Now take what Mike posted above and try to square it with this praise of the Magna Carta for the English: http://www.wsj.com/articles/magna-ca...rty-1432912022

    The column's comments as to our Founders I find enlightening. As it applies to modern English subjects given Mike's above post I find it laughable.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    northern wis
    Posts
    3,200
    What doses one expect from a country that still has a king/queen.

    They have always been subjects.
    Personal Defensive Solutions professional personal firearms, edge weapons and hands on defensive training and tactics pdsolutions@hotmail.com

    Any and all spelling errors are just to give the spelling Nazis something to do

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by deepdiver View Post
    Just incredible. They are more subjects than citizens once again. Without the fundamental right of self-defense there is no freedom. Whether your oppressor is a King or the biggest thug on the block, it makes no difference if the law denies you the right to defend your person and property from their reach.

    Now take what Mike posted above and try to square it with this praise of the Magna Carta for the English: http://www.wsj.com/articles/magna-ca...rty-1432912022

    The column's comments as to our Founders I find enlightening. As it applies to modern English subjects given Mike's above post I find it laughable.
    And, @ FirearmsInstructor.


    Britons were only briefly citizens; this during the republic under Oliver Cromwell, and Cromwell's son (very briefly).

    Believe it or not, they actually wanted and sought to revert to a monarchy--or Parliament did, at any rate.

    England became a republic when the head of Charles I bounced off the scaffold in 1649 after being convicted of [serious misrule] by Parliament. Cromwell died about 1658. Enough members of Parliament wanted to revert to a monarchy that they asked Charles I's' son to come back from exile and reign/rule as Charles II.

    Things really got going after Charles II died. His younger brother ascended the throne and became James II. He screwed up so bad, and so angered Parliament, that Parliament sought military assistance from William of Hanover. William agreed, and brought troops. On the morning of battle, a bunch of James II's troops deserted him. This so unnerved him, he fled to France. Parliament declared that James II had abdicated. One problem: no king. William of Hanover hadn't come over to invade and take over--that was not his goal.

    Now, William's wife Mary was a daughter of Charles I or II, I forget which. So, William's wife was legitimately in line of succession to the British throne. Problem: if Mary becomes queen, then that would make William king. The rules on sovereignty between spouses were not so clearly defined in those days, so it was an open question as to how much power William would legally have. If I recall, Parliament solved the problem by requiring that William would reign jointly, but only while Mary was alive--he could not reign alone after her death. Among other things, the Declaration of Rights of 1689 came out of this. This is the same William and Mary for whom the college is named.

    The transition from James II through Queen Anne in the early 1700's (daughter of James I think) is kind of fascinating for the way Parliament tied the hands of the monarch almost completely. Among other things, this was the period where Catholics were forbidden the throne of England. In something called the Religious Settlement, it became part of the English constitution that only a Protestant could reign--Parliament was remembering not only the strife when Henry VIII's daughter Mary forced the country back toward Catholicism, but also how James the II, a Catholic, had given numerous posts to Catholics. Parliament slammed the door shut on that ever happening again.

    So, by the end of Queen Anne's reign, perhaps even before she ascended the throne, Parliament had tied the hands of the monarch pretty thoroughly. George III of the American Revolution was fluke--he involved himself in politics against the spirit of constitutional restrictions (he was sneaky and behind-the-scenes about it.)

    Essentially, when the post-Cromwell Parliament invited Charles II back from exile (instead of just electing a new chief executive), somebody realized that Parliament had become the king-maker, and could thus make the rules.

    So, the disgusting situation they have over there today can be blamed much, much more on Parliament than the monarch. They're subjects of her majesty, but its not her that's screwing them. In fact, since the House of Lords today has very little political power, the situation can be blamed in large part on the House of Commons.

    Another angle on being a British subject: remember that the American revolution wasn't started by Americans who wanted more rights. It was started by pissed-off Englishmen who were angry they were not receiving their rights as Englishmen. As English subjects, certain liberties and freedom were their birthright, and they were hopping mad about having those rights trampled.

    As an example of upside-down and backwards: you could probably count on one hand the number of people in our fedgov who do not violate our constitution somehow, someway. Yet, in the British government there is one person who it is very hard to pin a constitutional violation on: Elizabeth II. Yep. Our government can't be trusted for two seconds not to violate the constitution. Yet, the Queen of England has held very faithfully to her constitutional restrictions.
    Last edited by Citizen; 05-30-2015 at 10:46 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  5. #5
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by deepdiver View Post
    SNIP Now take what Mike posted above and try to square it with this praise of the Magna Carta for the English: http://www.wsj.com/articles/magna-ca...rty-1432912022

    The column's comments as to our Founders I find enlightening. As it applies to modern English subjects given Mike's above post I find it laughable.
    You have to scroll down to where Dan Hannan, the author, talks about preserving liberty being everybody's responsibility.


    First let me say, I'm a bit of a fan Dan Hannan. He's made some pretty remarkable speeches to the European Parliament. I've linked a short one below.

    With that said, I can only see one or two points where I wouldn't entirely agree with what he's saying. Otherwise, I think what many might miss is historical perspective about what happened to English liberties: where they went, and who took them.

    As Hannan says, the sea-change of Magna Carta was to bring the autocrat down a notch, putting him under the law instead of under himself. While Magna Carta represents the beginning of constitutionalism, it didn't close the door to weasels (Parliament's politicians) later gaining the levers of power. Nor, the wrestling for power that came later.

    English political history is one long struggle to get government under control. I have this vague feeling the last big constitutional improvement in rights vs government happened sometime in the early 1800's. Say, shortly before Victoria's coronation. So, I'm guessing its been a long, slow burn downhill since then.


    Further, a very important part of the picture is how the Britons got to the point they needed a Magna Carta. Its not like they wanted a king, but then he got away from them, and then they had to get him under control. Remember Thomas Paine's Common Sense where he refers to the leader of a criminal or barbarian gang just setting himself up as king. He probably didn't know all the details, but history shows he's not far off the mark.

    It was the Romans who brought in the Anglo-Saxons, when Roman influence was in total decline. It was the Anglo-Saxons who set themselves up as chiefs/kings in various regions of England. I think there were five kingdoms by the 700's. Then one of these decided to fight and take over the others. So, the last time the poor Brits were really under their own control was the day before Emperor (Claudius?) invaded England about 43 AD.

    One historical source I came across concluded that Stone Age and Bronze Age peoples in England did not even have a full-time chief. They selected a war-chief when strife threatened; but as soon as it was over, he want back to being a farmer.

    So, Magna Carta, in one sense stands as a partial attempt to restrain the executive. But, why were they fighting to restrain the executive at all? Inasmuch as it was the nobility who backed King John into a corner, I can understand why Magna Carta wasn't a repudiation of government. By that point in time, and based on the existing feudal system, the nobles needed John's authority as king to legitimize the chains they had on their own serfs. The nobility had arisen not because of economic ability, but because earlier petty kings had granted lands to favorites. So, no king, no nobles. If kingship was illegitimate, so was nobility. So, one would not expect Magna Carta to be a major restructuring or even a repudiation of government. The nobles had John well in a corner at Runnymeade. They could have demanded anything. They could have cut his throat, and said "no more kings" like the Romans did about 400BC. But, they didn't. They demanded Magna Carta. That's all they demanded.

    Thus, while Magna Carta represents a very big change, it still pays to see the picture into which it fit, especially the fore-history.



    Dan Hannan lays into the British Prime Minister in this video. Oh, man is this one good. Hannan is speaking at the European Parliament--he's a member of that parliament representing a district in England. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94lW6Y4tBXs
    Last edited by Citizen; 05-30-2015 at 06:45 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974
    thank you for taking the time to write and post all that, Citizen. It was a nice summary. I used to be well versed in English history but have forgotten much over the years.

    I do still maintain that the modern English are more subjects/servants of the state today than at many other times in their history due to the near total prohibition of self-defense. That being said, I remain a bit of an Anglophile due to the rich heritage and history as well as our constitutional roots.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by deepdiver View Post
    1) thank you for taking the time to write and post all that, Citizen. It was a nice summary. I used to be well versed in English history but have forgotten much over the years.

    I do still maintain that 2) the modern English are more subjects/servants of the state today than at many other times in their history due to the near total prohibition of self-defense. That being said, I remain a bit of an Anglophile due to the rich heritage and history as well as our constitutional roots.
    1. You're welcome. Anything to get out of doing chores.

    2. Absolutely. In fact, the author of the article you linked, Daniel Hannan, hits that point repeatedly: the individual is higher than the state. I started another thread, "Socialism Doesn't Work or Cicero Reborn a Capitalist". In the video I linked in that thread, Hannon expressly hits that point. And, again in the video below where he spoke at the commemoration of the British memorial to Magna Carta at Runnymeade.


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KhVnHQVbtB8



    Just for perspective, Runnymeade, where King John signed Magna Carta is about 1 1/2 -2 miles west south west of Heathrow airport on the west side of London. Also about 3 miles south south east of Windsor Castle. Its right along the Thames River before the river enters London on the west side of London. You can google-maps it.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •