Unilateral Nuclear Disarmament is a bad thing. Right? Any mainstream politician will tell you so. Then, he’ll probably go on to explain how our independent nuclear deterrent has prevented major conflicts and secured Britain’s status as a World Power.
It’s certainly true that no political party would ever gain power on a manifesto of “unilateral disarmament”. The voters just wouldn’t wear it.
It’s strange then, that when it comes to our personal safety, we Brits wholeheartedly embrace the concept and practice of “unilateral disarmament”. Over the past 90 years, or so, increasingly restrictive legislation has seen the British Citizen effectively prohibited from owning a firearm. The result is an imbalance of power between the “Good Citizen” and the predator.
This all boils down to our relationship with the State. You’ve heard the term “nanny-State”? Well, that’d be the same “nanny-State” to which you, the British Citizen, has abdicated his responsibilities.
Most likely, you see the State as the provider of your health (notice, I don’t say “health-care”). The State takes responsibility for educating your children and ensuring that they grow into disciplined, responsible citizens. The State is responsible for social issues, too, most notably, the preservation of Law and Order…we all know that’s the Police’s job, don’t we? Well, don’t we?
It might surprise you to learn that the Police wouldn’t agree with you. When Sir Robert Peel instigated the first police force, he never intended that it should become an organ of the State; or that it should be the sole guardian of Law and Order. He envisaged a professional body which complemented the duties of every citizen, in the pursuit of an ordered and safe society. He even defined some “laws” of his own, known as the Peelian Principles…which are still very pertinent today. Here’s one of the most important of those principles…
Police should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police are members of the public who are paid for duties which every citizen would do in the interests of community welfare.
So, what’s gone wrong?
Now, somewhere along the line, that most basic of human rights, the Right to Self-Defence, has also been arrogated by the nanny-State…often with the well-meaning, but misguided, assistance of various police spokesmen.
We have been sold a deal by our Governments. It’s not a very good deal, but it goes like this; “Guns are dangerous. The Citizen is unfit to own them, even for his own defence. But, the Citizen need not worry, for we shall employ a Police Force which will take responsibility for his safety”.
Except…it doesn’t work. With, atmost, one policeman on duty for every 1,800 Citizens, how could we ever have been dumb enough to believe our Government’s promises to protect its Citizens’ safety?
The primary and ultimate responsibility for your personal safety lies with YOU.
From where do we get the “Right to Self-Defence”?
Did we simply invent it, sometime in the distant past, before we had proper Governments and a police force? Is it something that our elected Representatives have the power to bestow upon us ?… (as successive Home Secretaries would have you believe).
No, it is neither of these.
Look to Nature. Every living organism defends its own self. It asks no “higher authority” for the approval so to do.
As the original “Framers of the Constitution” understood, way back in 1787, the right to self-defence is inalienable. It is most definitely not a right which may be dispensed at the whim of an elected body.
So, how is it that we Citizens have been stripped of the means for an effective defence of ourselves, our families and our neighbours?
The Concept of the “Good Citizen”
I suggest a radical, but logical solution.
I propose that we re-invent the concept of Citizenship. For too many decades, now, Citizenship has meant “entitlement”…to be educated; to be protected, to be made healthy. My proposed “Good Citizen” would reject “entitlement” and embrace the concept of “responsibility”. He would say, “ I shall see to it that I learn, that I cherish my health and that I protect my life and that of my family and neighbours.”
I’m proposing that we move towards a society which is routinely armed…”a society of dangerous victims”, if you will. I want a restitution of our Right to Keep and Bear Arms. (see Bill of Rights 1689)
This society would also recognise that is not within the remit of the State to deny its Citizens effective means of personal defence. For there lies tyranny. The history of man is sprinkled liberally with oppression. It is a necessary condition of oppression that the populace is first dis-armed. Those “Framers of the Constitution” knew all about that, too.
I’m not so naïve as to think that all of this could happen in a vacuum. There are many other considerations, checks and balances, which are necessary to the implementation of a truly Civil Society. But, the greatest of these is our own willingness to embrace the concepts of Citizenship and Responsibility.
So, what am I asking for?
This is the hard part. I need you to think. Now, don’t take offence, I wouldn’t suggest that you can’t. It’s just that we Brits have a habit of avoiding thought. I believe it’s genetic, but who knows?
I’m asking that you, British Citizen, re-evaluate your relationship with the State. I’m asking that you consider whether you wish to be responsible for your own safety and the regulation of your own society. I’m asking whether you really believe that the State should, or even can protect you?
Then, when you’ve mulled this over, I’m asking for you to act. Be a Good Citizen. Be part of a Civil Society and use your vote to change the face of Britain. Find a political party, which recognises your Responsibilities, not just your “entitlements”, and, when Polling Day arrives, be sure that you DO NOT stay home. Vote for the society that you want for yourself and for your children.